Tony Blair, Middle East and the Doomsday Cults

Tony Blair says that we should get ready for a battle between the open-minded West and the closed-minded Middle East. Its the same-old modern day cursades narrative which has claimed millions of lives so far and counting. Not long ago, he participated in the worst military adventure the west has ever embarked upon in its history. Thanks to a misguided, malicious and greed-driven war in the Middle East, we are on the brink of a nuclear catastrophe. But, Mr. Blair refuses to learn a lesson. He wants more!


He says that the Muslim societies have been over-run by a supremicist ideology which have put them in direct conflict with the West. But it takes two to tango, so there must be a supremicist mindset at work in the West too which encourages the hubris of military conquest of the Middle East.


Blair must be very aware of his role in psychologically mauling a whole generation of young Muslims who grew up in the post 9/11 world. Social media has awakened this generation to the horrific attrocities of war. Those images and video clips, real or fakes, are constantly making the rounds on the internet, adding fuel to fire already lit by their local hate preachers.


You simply cannot force this genie back in the bottle by more war. This will not only compromise the already struggling moderate voices in the Muslim countries but also embolden the extremists even more.


There is a growing network of various groups, increasingly inter-connecting and unifying across the Islamic world calling for a global caliphate/Khilafah. Some groups are more open about the idea of a global Jihad to bring about this revolution. Many agree with each other on principle and are increasing their influence among the young Sunni men and women living in the west. The traditional strands of Sufi, riualistic Islam focused on persoanl piety have been sidelined as weak and unambitious.


Although various Khilafah movements may pose a threat to the Arab royals, the transition from a non-political Sunni/Wahabi to a political one seems to be very easy and frequent. It is very difficult to contain or control this phenomenon through policing, even if you are Saudi Arabia.



Doomsday cults are thought to be fringe groups of conspiracy theorists, but think again. The state of Israel and its Zionist zealots are a doomsday cult. There are countless Christians who believe that the US and its allies must protect the Holy Land as it is the promised site for the return of Jesus. Sunni preachers have been warming up their congregations for the imminent appearance of the Mahdi, and the latest interpretations of hadith literature promises Syria to be of vital import in this respect. Then there are those skeptics who feel that Mahdi has to be created through war and consensus of Muslims, and to add to the mix, there seems to be unlimited hatred for the Shia by thousands of Jihadis converging in Syria. Shia Muslims themselves are being told about the re-emergence of the Mahdi is a certainty and the present day conflict was foretold in many prophecies before.


This may sound far-fetched for some of you. But American diplomats were advising their government not to enter into any negotiations with a 'Messianic' regime in Iran, a leaked diplomatic cable (via Wikileaks) reveals. How come eschatological beliefs of some are causing so much suffering in this day and age? This is after all, the age of reason and science. Many clergymen, Christians, Jewish and Muslims alike, seem to have resigned to the fact that Messiah's do not float down from the heavens. But consider how Ahmedinijad started his speech at the UN General Assembly a few years ago. He prayed for the immediate appearance of the Mahdi, a warrior leader who will rid the world of all evil. Think again about why Bush and Blair consulted God before launching an attack on Iraq and Afghanistan. Behind the seemingly secular political rhetoric, humanitarian concerns and an agenda for democracy, the west is turning a blind eye to the absurdities of literalistic religious zealots in all camps.


Mr. Blair has said one thing that I agree with. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are nurturing a venomous generation of violent preachers which needs to be checked. While Saudi royals are happy to preach peaceful interpretations of Islam to their own citizens, they are recruiting anti-shia paramilitary forces from Pakistan and Jihadi fighters from other Sunni nations to fight in Syria. Saudi puritanical influence of the Muslim youth living in the UK is also increasingly visible.


Exclusion of the moderates and the reformists through 'Takfir' (Edicts of heresy) is the most potent instrument in the hands of these hate preachers. Takfir means exclusion, and according to some puritans, loss of right to life. This is exactly what is driving the Jihadi machine in Syria at the moment. Bashar and his allies are kafirs, worthy of death. Glimpses of this takfir are also visible in the UK, which only shows how easy it can be to recruit fighters from this country. Muslims have to combat this menace themselves first.



It is also essential for the Muslims living in the UK to create their own identity, free of the burdens and strains of dictatorships and theocracies of their ancestral countries. In fact, Muslims in the West are closer to the real Islamic ideals of logic, reason and sciences then their brethren in the Middle East. We must export our new, enlightened and rational worldview to them instead of importing antiquated, literalistic and medievalist ideas to us. Currently we are only exporting gap-year Jihadis and openly partisan statesmanship in the form of Tony Blair.



I suggest that Mr. Blair should seriously consider education, both at home and in the Muslim world as his top priority, not war. I will leave his religious views alone. Afterall, It is a matter between a megalomaniac and his own ego.

In the Shadow of the Sword IV- Crone, Holland and the despots:The C4 Documentary.



Abd al-Malik constructedthe Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem Courtesy: Wikipedia



Having watched the C4 documentary based on Tom Holland’s book I am none the wiser and I find myself asking the same question as many of my Muslim friends. What was it all about?

Patricia Crone’s annoying smugness made it a difficult viewing. It was hard to sympathize with Mr. Holland’s earnest efforts to be original as Crone and her ilk have chosen the age-old orientalism of ignoring the obvious.

According to Holland and Crone, Islam went through a sustained period of evolution after the demise of its founder. The Arabs conquered the fertile lands and sought to convert the locals through amalgamating their new faith with that of the Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians. Their focus is squarely on the machinations of Islamic conquests during the Umayyad times. A time of ascention for Arabs politically, but of theological confusion for the Muslim masses.

Crone’s book ‘Hagerism: The Making of the Islamic World’ cites the first non-Islamic reference to the existence of the Prophet of Islam (pbuh) from Doctrina Jacobi written a couple of years after his death. The reference is indirect, and the narrators unsound based on the quality of the text. But it refers to the Prophet (pbuh) as a warrior and his message was the news of a Messiah to come. The narrator, a Jew by the name of Abraham makes enquiries about the ‘Saracen Prophet’ and concludes from the information that this prophet prefers wars and bloodshed, so he could not be a prophet. Also, being a Jew he treats the coming of the “anointed one” as a significant finding.

Crone, an ‘unbiased’ academic should have done better than poor Abraham. But she calls the Muslim conquest of Palestine under Caliph Umar (ra) a Messianic campaign. The fact is, Muslim tradition also foretells of a Muslim Messiah to appear in the latter days. Quran tells Muslims to expect their Messiah to appear at the time of their spiritual and moral decline (11:18, 61:7, and 62:4). The same Quran also repeats time and again that it is the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who is the best example, the Seal of Prophets, the bringer of the final revelation, the Mercy on all mankind; his people are called the best of peoples and his religion (deen) the complete way of life. So coming of a Messiah could wait for Muslims until the moral and spiritual decline. Surely a man of Umar’s stature, one of the scribes of Quran and the most highly regarded Sahabi (companion of the Prophet) could not claim to be that Messiah. That would be tantamount to admitting failure, merely two years after the message was completed.

But in early Islamic history, there were internal conflicts where rumors second coming of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) were spread and also the return of the assassinated fourth Caliph, Ali (ra). The existence of such stories in early Islamic history does prove a significant Judeo-Christian influence on early Islamic thought. But Quran, the core of all Islamic beliefs and the perfectly preserved scripture not only debunked such rumors during the early days, but also refutes the orientalists of our times. Umayyads, with all their wealth and influence could not produce a reliable claimant for the Mahdi, the Muslim Messiah. If Islamic faith was so pliable in those early days, surely the Umayyads would have greatly benefited from having Divine Sanction. In fact, we do find evidence of fabricated Ahadith to support one dynasty or the other, but Quran is free from such interpolations. If we could draw a parallel with Christianity, dynastic Muslim rulers failed to match St. Paul's success in re-interpreting and even adding to the original scriptures.

Arabs were poor recorders of history. Their history was an oral tradition of poetry. Some of which was written down. We are talking about Arabs of the late antiquity here. A people who did not read or write, did not mint coins and did not indulge in drawing frescoes and writing letters to each other. So we can rely on the earliest written evidence on the origins of Islam, which was spoken by Muhammad (pbuh) and written by his scribes; The Quran.

As far as I know both Crone and Holland accept that Quran was ‘uttered’ by a person called Muhammad (pbuh). They may dispute his location (Mecca or somewhere else), but they cannot dispute its authenticity as the scripture handed over to early Muslims from their prophet. I have discussed this in more details here.

Both Crone and Holland quickly jump to the nearest despots history could offer i.e., the Umayyads. Fortunately, not many Muslims get their religious inspirations from them. Early Islamic scholarship has always been at odds with the ruling classes. Both Umayydis and later Abbasids had suppressed the direct descendants of the Prophet (pbuh) and independent scholars like Abu Hanifa and Ahmad ibn Hanbal as well. Whatever Marwan did in Jerusalem, was done by an Arab-Umayyad who happened to be Muslims.

The best source of Islamic beliefs is the Quran; the historical artifact, the best evidence of the existence of the Prophet (pbuh) and the best method to verify the Hadith accounts. So it is no surprise that Tom Holland did not discuss the Quran in his documentary. He cited it a couple of times in passing, but there is much more in it then the mention of olives and grapes and the town of Bakkah. Surely, Quran has far more to offer than only geographical maps Arabia.

In the shadow of the sword

I recently heard a radio interview of Tom Holland speaking about his new book, In the shadow of the sword, which presents his own interpretation of the origins of Islam. From what Mr. Holland said, it appears that he was very excited to present to the world this new idea that Islam borrowed heavily from older religions. The assertion is that Makkah, a town in the middle of the desert could not produce a man who could write such elegant prose.  

For a secular/atheist writer and researcher, arriving at such a conclusion does not require in-depth research. This is how the world works. Empires rise and fall, major centres of learning produce big poets and philosophers. Major civilizations attract the scholars and scientists to their cities. Anyone unconvinced by the Divine origins of any world religion should have doubts on the authenticity of any Holy Book.

But for me, Quran is the word of God, and it proves itself to be so. It does not need interpretation of historical events and what was happening around the world to prove its authenticity. Any book claiming to be the Word of God should have the evidence of its authencity within it.

So, in an unknown town in the middle of the desert, a man proclaims to be God’s prophet, just as Moses was a prophet to Israelites. Quran not only acknowledges this link, but also tells the Muslims that they must learn from the mistakes of the Jews and Christians. Quran also claims to be the continuity and culmination of the same message which was sent from the One God to all the nations and tribes before. So any similarity and resemblance between Islam and other world faith is not coincidental at all, but very deliberate. Islam is to the world faiths what human beings are to the rest of life on this planet. We share the same roots, but we evolved into better forms over the years.

Take the Islamic ritual of daily prayers. Muslims stand still, bow down, kneel, prostate, sit in submission with heads bowed, hands folded etc. etc. All done during the same prayer. You can find a hint of all faiths in this ritual.

Just like Hindus, Muslims believe in many attributes of God. Just like Buddhism, Islamic philosophy teaches to suppress the ego to find One True God. Just like the Zoroastrianism, Islam focuses on the fight between the good self and the evil self within us. Just like Judaism, Islam teaches to fast and pray on regular times during the day. Just like Christianity, Islam tells us to forgive and be meek and humble.

My point is, Muslims already know that Islam shares many values, rituals and ideas with the older religions. It is because all faiths came from the same God, who over many millennia sent His Guidance to mankind still getting to grips with its new found evolutionary superiority.

Anything to do with documented history will not resolve this question. Let us examine the content of Quran. If it stands the test, it is real, authentic Word of God. If it doesn’t, it is a fabrication, a work of elegant prose if you like.

There are many verses which I can quote. But I will only mention a few. I will not even attempt to interpret them. But please feel free to tell me which city in the world 1500 years ago had the knowledge such as I quote below?

 

We created them and strengthened their make; and when We will so decide, We will change their form to something completely different. (76:29)

 

Woe to every backbiter, slanderer,

Who amasses wealth and counts it over and over.

He imagines that his wealth will make him immortal.

Nay! he shall surely be cast into the "hotamah". (tiniest of the particles)

And what should make thee know what the "hotamah" is?

Allah's fire as preserved fuel,

Which will leap suddenly on to the hearts.

It is locked up in outstretched pillars to be used against them.(104:2-10)

 

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together,

then We clove them asunder and We created every living thing out of the water.

Will they not then believe? (21:30)

 

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with Might,

and it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an 51:47)

 And after him We said to the Children of Israel, 'Dwell Ye in the promised land; and when the time of the promise of the Latter Days come, We shall bring you together out of various people. (17:105)

Drawing Pictures: Since when has it become offensive?

Over the last many decades, a large majority of the western Christian world has in practice stopped being Christian, thus reactions to insults and blasphemies have dimmed down to solitary voices here and there. Atheism is the fashion. No one wants to declare openly that they revere a person or deity because of their religious faith.


But this is not a question of existence of God. The question here is.. Can you force a group of people to change their values that you do not agree with? Aggressive atheists these days are happy to shout at every forum how religion has caused intolerance and bigotry in the society. But here is a test case.. UCL's atheist society publishing cartoons of Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) and expecting this to go unnoticed!

Muslims do not draw human form; they do not build statues for religious purposes. Yes, there are Muslim artists who paint and draw human form, and there is nothing wrong with it. But this has to be kept strictly outside of religious sphere because of the express command of the founder of Islam (peace be upon him). This is a strong value that all practicing Muslims adhere to. No pictures are to be found in any Mosque around the world. A Billion Muslims hold this belief which safeguards the monotheistic basis of Islam. Yet a handful of atheists think that drawing a picture of Muhammad (peace be upon him) for whatever reason should be acceptable?

Atheists, born and brought up in the West (or influenced by European values) may think that drawing pictures is what humans have always done. What is wrong with that? European art galleries are full of depictions of religious figures on canvas and in stone and in metal. But Islam is not a European faith. Neither was Christianity. Regardless of what Greek and Roman art did to Christianity, Islam has not “traded in” its values for the sake of gaining adherents.

This is despite the fact that Islamic scholars re-discovered Greek philosophy and had decades of conflict with the Romans. Usually such interactions results in softening of certain closely held values, and they did. Early rationalist movement in Islam (Mu’tazillites) had deep roots in Greek logic. Yet, no Muslim ever thought of painting or sculpting a Holy figure or a saint. Enough proof that depiction of religious figures was an absolute taboo for Muslims.There are some very rare depictions of Holy personalities in Iranian Shia culture, but it has never been accepted by the wider Muslim world. Those paintings in which the prophet has been depicted can only be described as only limited to a particular era and was largely unknown by the Muslim majority. Most other depictions in Islamic minature arts show the prophet as a halo or a veiled figure.

All reasonable Humanists and Atheists will understand why Muslims take offense when someone tries to depict the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him). It is because drawing of a picture has never been an Islamic tradition. Yes, it has been a tradition in the conquered lands and Islam has not forbidden artistic representations of human form, but only as a secular art. It has become a Christian tradition, which is why even many Christians do not take offense when Jesus has been mocked at by cartoonists and comedians. People at this atheist society at UCL want practicing Muslims to “tolerate” their attempts at mocking Muslim values? Where is the sense in that?

Why should we not allow BNP and EDL to mock and vilify Islam and Muslims too? What is the difference? And what is wrong with a bit of holocaust denial and some “good-natured” anti-Semitism? Some "fact based" scientific racism.. anyone? Let us accept all this in the name of tolerance!! Updated: 28Jan2014

Don’t fight God. It is not for you to destroy me!

Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, The Imam Mahdi and The Promised Messiah (alyhis Salam) writes;

"The world does not know me, but He knows me Who has sent me. Those who wish my destruction are mistaken and extremely unfortunate. I am the tree which has been planted by the Lord God with His own hands.....
“O People! You must understand this for sure that I am accompanied by that Hand which shall remain faithful to me till the end of time. If your men and your women, and your young and your old, and your insignificant ones and your notables: all committed themselves to praying for my destruction—so much so that your noses get withered and wasted away due to your endless prostrations, and your hands become numb, even then God will most certainly not accept your prayers, and He will not
relent until His will is done. Even if I do not have a single human being with me, the angels of God will be on my side. And if you withhold your testimony, the stone will well night testify for me.
Therefore, do not wrong your souls. God leaves nothing unresolved. I consider as accursed a life which is tainted with falsehood and lies, and which, out of the fear of the creatures of God, evades to comply with Divine imperatives. It is certainly impossible for me to show any slackness—even if the Sun moved from one side and the Earth from the other to crush me between them—in carrying out the duty which God Almighty has at the moment entrusted to me, and for which Alone He has sent me. What is man? A mere worm and nothing more than a clot! How then can I, for the sake of this lowly creature, fail toabide by what the Self-Subsistent Being has commanded. Just as God decided between His prophets and those who rejected them, so shall He decide now. There is a time for the prophets to come and a time to depart: do mark it for sure, that I have neither made a seasonless appearance, nor shall my exit be unseasonable.

Don’t fight God. It is not for you to destroy me!"

[Tohfae Golarviyyah, Roohaani Khazaa’in vol. 17, pp. 49-50]