Ibadah, Dawah and Khilafah.............


Deen-e-Islam and Muslim country are TWO different things. Islam is more about Ibadah and Dawah than Khilafat and Peace is the necessary pre-requisite for both. That’s why, I feel, Arab countries need more of peace than so-called democracratic movements. Democracy was always there in Islam, but not this Electoral/America-imported democracy. Democracy should mean Rule by Representation of the Institutions, Individuals and different sections of society through debates and munaziras. It's main purpose should be delivery of a right balance of peace & justice, rights& responsibilities, security& liberty of all types: physical, economic and social. But liberty, in the name of experimentation and change, should not go beyond and breach the centuries-old Human Values. Constitution’s 'guiding' principles should be based on Divine Messages of Religion, which are ABSOLUTE, and not the ever-changing human sources of knowledge like Arts (five senses and feeling) and Science (logic and intellect). That does NOT mean that Religion is against all these faculties of human endeavors for gaining knowledge. In fact, the way Science is not against Arts/feelings, rather goes beyond it, Religion too is in line with Human feelings, intellect and introspection and furthermore it goes BEYOND them to tell us the truth and to provide the SENSE OF FULFILMENT, which today's Science may be incapable to recognize it. But the same may be proved in future by some new human faculty of tomorrow.

SOMEONE WANTED ELABORATION of my statement " Islam is more about Ibadah and Dawah than Khilafat", MY REPLY WAS as follows : Whatever studies of literatures of Hazraate Shah Waliullah, Sir Syed Ahmed, Abul Ala Moududi/Qutb Shaheed, Waheeduddin Khan, Ali Miyan Nadwi, Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind, I have done and many more like Mujaddid Alf-Sani's, Al-Ghazali's, Ibn-Sina's etc and read about lives of Our Prophet(s.a.w), his Sahaba (r.a.), four imams, four tareeqats etc, I could conclude that Khilafat has been MISINTERPRETED as "only political Government" through forceful implementation of Shariat by few of the above mentioned scholars/leaders of last century since 1920s after the fall of Ottaman Khilafat.
In fact, many of the above mentioned 'rightly-guided' Scholars/Ulema have understood the TRUTH that Khilafat means : "Being a deputy of Allah Paak for implementing Shariat first on ONESELF and in parallel through DAWAH, on his family, on the villagers/neighbors, on a region, on a country, then if possible globally within the laws of prevailing government or administration". Ahkaam of Shariat for each aspects of daily life (personal, marital, family, business, relatives, habits/manners, physique, time, money etc) as per Quran and Sunnah is nothing but IBADAH. And to bring these virtues/commandments and to keep these sustainable in our lives require DAWAT. Dawat can be done through speech, writting, touring, meeting and discussing with people, ulema, living with waliallahs, peers, murshids and also dawah by Ijtemaas, dawah by social-works etc. 
Ibadah and Dawah are contineous processes whereas, the "establishment of Khilafat in a state" is only ONE of the Muslims' MANY objectives.

Now, for example, if a momin is on an island alone. There also he is supposed to establish khilafat on himself for that particular time and place, the khilafat will be Namaz, Zikr, Acts of Halal, control of Nafs, Sabr-o-shukr, etc and these are nothing but IBADAH. And if he happens to meet another human on that island, he should start DAWAT to him as well. 
May Allah save the Arabs from chaos and from puppets-of-america. And may Allah lead us Muslims to Sirat-e-Mustaqeem through the "Prophet-like Approach and Activism". Aameen.

WAR FOR OILLLLL .....

MAJOR  OIL  PRODUCING  COUNTRIES.......

Rank Countries.... Production..........Year
# 1 Saudi Arabia: 10,250,000 bbl/day 2007
# 2 Russia: 9,876,000 bbl/day 2007
# 3 United States: 8,457,000 bbl/day 2007
# 4 Iran: 4,033,000 bbl/day 2007
# 5 China: 3,725,000 bbl/day 2008
# 6 Mexico: 3,501,000 bbl/day 2007
# 7 Canada: 3,425,000 bbl/day 2007
# 8 United Arab Emirates: 2,948,000 bbl/day 2007
# 10 Venezuela: 2,667,000 bbl/day 2007
# 11 Kuwait: 2,613,000 bbl/day 2007
# 12 Norway: 2,565,000 bbl/day 2007
# 13 Nigeria: 2,352,000 bbl/day 2007
# 14 Brazil: 2,277,000 bbl/day 2007
# 15 Algeria: 2,173,000 bbl/day 2007
# 16 Iraq: 2,094,000 bbl/day 2007
# 17 Angola: 1,910,000 bbl/day 2008
# 18 Libya: 1,845,000 bbl/day 2007
# 19 United Kingdom: 1,690,000 bbl/day 2007
# 20 Kazakhstan: 1,445,000 bbl/day 2007
# 21 Qatar: 1,125,000 bbl/day 2007
# 22 Azerbaijan: 1,099,000 bbl/day 2008
# 23 Indonesia: 1,044,000 bbl/day 2007
# 24 India: 880,500 bbl/day 2007
# 25 Argentina: 790,800 bbl/day 2007
# 26 Malaysia: 753,700 bbl/day 2008
# 27 Oman: 714,300 bbl/day 2007
# 28 Egypt: 664,000 bbl/day 2007
# 29 Australia: 600,000 bbl/day 2008

NOW, it is very much understandable....... WHY  US and NATO  ARE  ATTACKING  DIFFERENT  COUNTRIES  SELECTIVELY.......AND... WHY  US  has  MADE  EITHER   fabricated-ENEMIES  OR  PUPPET-friends, in these countries. .....
Evrybody knows the poor living-standard and economy of Mexico (Neighbor of US ! ) .........
why is it so despite being 6th ranker in Oil production......... US is just an exploiter... can not help the nieghbor and talks about betterment(?) of Arab countries....... its funny :))


Till Bush era, US produced only 9 mill barrel/day and consumed 18 mb/d..... Obviously, the half of Oil  were getting imported (looted) through CIA and Army bases around the Arab Oil countries........ In fact, American obsession with Oil had made them MAIN CULPRIT FOR GLOBAL WARS AND GLOBAL WARMING ............. JAIRAM RAMESH is correct in saying that SUV's are gas guzzlers........... b'cos our 50-seater buses give an oil economy of around 3 km/l and american's 4-seater SUV gives less than that........ may be those are high-power vehicles...... no wonder that they are thirsty/greedy of more and more POWER every where....... I  ONLY HOPE  THAT OBAMA  BECOMES SUCCESSFULL IN BRINGING SOME  MORAL  CHANGE IN   AMERICAN   PEOPLE and STATE........ 

Arab Spring : A Glimpse of Egypt's recent history

Colonialism gone, socialism (Islamic??) came in 1950s onwards led by Nasser. In 60s, US/CIA along with Islamist Muslim Brotherhood (MB of Syed Qutb) tried to eliminate Nasser (socialism) but could not. Syed Qutb was hanged in 1966. Nasser remained leader of Arab-nationalism till his death.

Syed qutb (shaheed??) was Islamist leader, who wanted shariah implemented in Arab countries, the way Moulana Moududi fought for shariah in India and then in Pakistan(post-1947). Syed Qutb is revered as "shaheed" by many Islamist political organisations like JIH, JIK, SIO, MB etc. 

The reason of MB's opposition to Nasser was most probably that Nasser was inclined to USSR through his socialist thinking. He was politically the 'Nehru of Egypt'. And that time in Arab countries, he was the only leader, who was NOT a puppet of US/Britian

After death of Nasser, Anwar Sadat ruled the 70s with support of MB and brought 'reforms against Nasserism'. But, Sadaat became a US puppet against Islamists' wish. Hence got assasinated by the order/fatwa of MB leadership (ironically with the help of CIA). But, his vice, Mubarak crushed the Islamists and ruled on Egypt till last week (Feb'2011) with the help of America and Oil.

Now, after the so-called Arab Spring and The Tahreer Square Revolution (?), hopefully, Muslim Brotherhood and other parties will rule on Egypt through democracy(islamic??) with the help of the Moderate Obama.

But, in all these, CIA/US/Britian has been exploiting the Islamists' Ideologies and their Oil-fields......... May Allah save us from their double-standards. The problem, I find, was mainly with the Islamists, who always flirted with the CIA/US to fight USSR and the result, we can see till now(in Af-Pak region).

May Allah lead muslims to Sirat-e-Mustaqeem through the "Prophet-like approach and activism". Aameen..........

Book review: Islamism and Democracy in India


Book by IRFAN AHMED
Review by Kashif...........................

Jamaat-e-Islami Hind of today is not the same organization that Abu Ala Maudidi launched in 1941. Starting with the aim of establishing Islamic governance, its purpose and role in India has slowly changed to the Jamaat becoming a champion of secularism and democracy. Its detractors will say that this apparent change in Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH) is just tactical, but researcher Irfan Ahmad’s extensive ethnographic fieldwork, archival research, and data analysis, published as “Islamism and Democracy in India: The Transformation of Jamaat-e-Islami,” proves that the JIH belief in secularism and democracy is “deeply ideological.”The Jamaat began its life as an isolationist organization, it was an idea chosen by journalist-turned-Islamist-ideologue Maududi who made attainment of an “Islamic state”-the main goal of this organization. Striving for the Islamic state meant that Jamaat members could not participate in democracy, seek government employment, or even study in universities as these were considered helping a non-Islamic system. “Any institution that did not confirm to the Jamaat’s definition of Islam was idolatrous, whether it was run by Muslims or non-Muslims.” [p.73]To provide alternative to its members and supporters, JIH started a number of primary schools and institutions for higher education. Jamiatul Falah in Azamgarh was founded in 1962 towards the end. Talking about the Green School, established in Aligarh to prepare future members and leaders, Irfan Ahmad, through his painstaking research, shows that “instead of transforming the society, the school was transformed by the society.” Establishment of schools brought the Jamaat closer to common Muslims. The goal of the school and parents were not aligned but it was the pressure from the masses with aspirations for their children to move ahead in a materialistic world that slowly forced school administration to seek government recognition for their school.



The Jamaat’s position on Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) depicts the process of change in this organization. AMU was originally considered a “slaughterhouse” by Maududi since in his views modern universities take away the spirit of Islam from the students. So strong was this feeling that Jamaat members and sympathizers were banned from studying or teaching at AMU. Ban on sympathizers was lifted in 1957 but members had to wait till 1960s to get admission in AMU. In 1965, the Jamaat, in a total departure from its founder’s position, defended the “Muslim character” of the AMU.Similarly, the Jamaat had slowly come to accept the electoral democracy. It was only in 1980s that members were allowed to vote in the elections which Ahmad informs us was “a culmination of a long drawn out internal process- from 1961 to 1985- within the Jamaat” [Author's emphasis]. This happened because “Islamism,” or Islam as understood by the Jamaat, “is not frozen in discourse but is dynamic,” argues Ahmad. For Maududi, Islam was synonymous with the Islamic state but Jamaate Islami Hind came to the realization that “an Islamic state is just one among several aspects of Islam, not the foundation.” This was possible because “in the changed context of postcolonial India, the Jamaat (re)interpreted Maududi’s ideology and came to a new interpretation of Islam.” [p.190] This thinking came about because the myth that an Islamic state was just around the corner was broken, and according to Ahmad, this happened because the Muslim public rejected the Jamaat ideology by not joining in its boycott of elections, government jobs, or modern education.


Now a defender of secularism and democracy, the Jamaat refused to go along with the Republic Day boycott call issued by the Babri Masjid Coordination Committee in December 1986. In fact, a year after Babri Masjid’s demolition, it helped form the Forum for Democracy and Communal Amity (FDCA). This was the first instance of the Jamaat building an alliance with non-Muslim activists. A decade later, it invited Shankracharya to one of its meetings where the Hindu religious leader blew a conch and chanted “Om.”Spread over 300 pages, this book fills an important gap in the research of Indian Muslims. Discourse about Islam and Muslims in India is laced with either ignorance or deliberate attempt at obfuscation. There is a lack of original research among various aspects of Indian Muslim life and history. Irfan Ahmad did a wonderful job of gathering information from original sources, interspersed with field visits and data analysis. It is social science research at its best.


This book is also a wonderful source of information on the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and how it became radicalized in response to a growing Hindutva mobilization against Muslims. Banned since 2001, SIMI has been blamed for terrorism in India but there is very little in public domain about this organization. Ahmad, with original literature, traces the radicalization of SIMI, but there is nothing there to suggest that SIMI ever went beyond rhetoric. Even the government, though continuing the ban on SIMI has not been able to show any evidence of its involvement in terrorism. JIH broke ties with SIMI in early 1980s.Students Islamic Organization (SIO) was launched in 1982 and continue to function under the guidance of JIH. During the 1990s when SIMI was getting increasingly political, SIO remained apolitical and focused on its work for the welfare of Muslim students. Even after the 2002 anti-Muslim genocide in Gujarat, SIO remained responsible in its reaction. The book chronicles many showdowns that SIMI and SIO had in Jamiatul Falah. The approach taken by activists of the organizations responding to various incidents showed the much different temperament of the two organizations that share the same ideological roots.Even outside the Indian context, this book is important in understanding why Islamists become radicalized. The Indian version of Jamaat-e-Islami evolved to become a defender of secularism and democracy, whereas the same organization in Pakistan and Bangladesh charted a different path. Ahmad gives examples of Egypt and Algeria where Islamists have become radicalized as a result of brutal state repression. In Pakistan and Bangladesh, the Jamaat took advantage of electoral democracy and participated in elections but they have been only marginally successful...................................................
............................................................
..................................
............... While JIH contemplates participating in electoral democracy as a political party it should keep in mind the failed experiments of its fraternal organizations in neighboring countries. JIH has served Muslims of India well as a social and welfare organization and it should remain so. ........