Consider the difference
in our actions and God's actions.
We often ask, "Why did you do that?"
or "Why did I act like that?"
We do act, and yet everything we do
is God's creative action.
We look back and analyse the events
of our lives, but there is another way
of seeing, a backward-and-forward-at-once
vision, that is not rationally understandable.
Only God can understand it.
Satan made the excuse, "You caused me to fall,
whereas Adam said to God, "We did this
to ourselves." After this repentance,
God asked Adam, "Since all is within
my foreknowledge, why didn't you
defend yourself with that reason?"
Adam answered, "I was afraid,
and I wanted to be reverent."
Whoever acts with respect will get respect.
Whoever brings sweetness will be served almond cake.
Good women are drawn to be with good men.
Honour your friend.
Or treat him rudely,
and see what happens!
Love, tell an incident now
that will clarify this mystery
of how we act freely, and are yet
compelled. One hand shakes with palsy.
Another shakes because because you slapped it away.
Both tremblings come from God,
but you feel guilty for the one,
and what about the other?
These are intellectual questions.
The spirit approaches the matter
differently. Omar once had a friend, a scientist,
Bu'l-Hakam, who was flawless at solving
empirical problems, but he could not follow Omar
into the area of illumination and wonder.
Now I return to the text, "And He is with you,
wherever you are," but when have I ever left it!
Ignorance is God's prison
Knowing is God's palace.
We sleep in God's unconsciousness.
We wake in God's open hand.
We weep God's rain.
We laugh God's lightning.
Fighting and peacefulness
both take place within God.
Who are we then
in this complicated world-tangle,
that is really just the single, straight
line down at the beginning of ALLAH?
Nothing.
We are
emptiness.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
First Impression!
Every Impression is the first and last impression for me. For every time I see something again; I discover something new in it.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
The Unveiling!
Reality as a woman wears peculiar clothes made up of space and time. Down the ages, men lusty for truth try to strip it off these clothes; just to get a glimpse of the naked body.
On Nehru Report!
This blog entry is a reply to Mr Yasser Latif Hamdani's insightful piece on Nehru Report named ''Jinnah, M C Chagla and Nehru Report''.
You can access the article at:
http://pakteahouse.net/2011/10/25/jinnah-m-c-chagla-and-the-nehru-report/
First of all I would like to say that it is always a pleasure reading Mr Hamdani's articles focusing particularly on the surrounding events leading to partition. Even when I disagree with his conclusions, I still admire his zeal for the subject of history which is often ignored in our part of the world. The point of writing this reply is not to dispute his analysis on Nehru Report but rather to complement his insightful take on it. I share his conclusion that it was actually Nehru Report that led to parting of ways between Jinnah and Congress leadership rather than later events. However, I have something to add to this debate. Therefore, the point is to add a further dimension to this debate.
By no means I adhere to a reductionist account of history presented mostly by Indian historians that focuses too much on divide and rule policy of the Britishers but still there is one particular incident that needed to be mentioned in the context of this historical episode. In February 1928, Lord Birkenhead wrote a letter to Viceroy Lord Irwin:
''I should advise Simon to see at all stages important people who are not boycotting the Commission, particularly Muslims and depressed classes. I should widely advertise all his interviews with representative Muslims. The whole policy is now obvious. It is to testify the immense Hindu population by the apprehension that the Commission having been got hold of the Muslims, may present report altogether destructive of Hindu position, thereby securing a solid Muslim support and leaving Jinnah high and dry.''
[Source: Frederick Edwin Earl of Birkenhead: The Last Phase , by The Second Earl of Birkenhead, published by Thornton Butterworth page 258]
How can we explain this letter? Here was an opportunity for Congress to negotiate and come to terms with Muslim League and Jinnah but by exploiting the fears of Hindu Mahasabha, Congress was somehow forced to lose this golden opportunity. It was Birkenhead who wanted Jinnah to feel alienated.
Secondly, I believe at the time of Nehru Report the views of Khalafatists Muslims were in consonance to that of Jinnah. As far as my reading is concerned, despite the Khilafat fiasco, at the time of Simon Commission Muhammad Ali Jauhar and Shaukat Ali represented no different views than Jinnah. Speaking rhetorically Shuakat Ali remarked about Nehru Report:
''As a young man I was a keen observer of greyhounds, but I have never seen greyhounds deal with a hare as the Hindus proposed to deal with the Muslimms''.
As for Muhammad Ali Johar, he has this to say about it in 1930. Speaking in an aggressive tone he denounced Gandhi and Congress in these words:
''Gandhi is working under the influence of communalist Hindu Mahasaba. He is working for the supremacy of Hinduism and submergence of Muslims''.
Having said that, there were some Khilafatists leaders such as Maulana Azad who endorsed Nehru Report.
I was glad to see a Co-Pakistani admiring Motilal Nehru. The truth of the matter is that Motilal Nehru was cornered by a belligerent propaganda run by Lala-Malaviya Gang who were bitterly opposed to his non-communal politics. In my view, CR Das and Motilal Nehru were probably the two most liberal and non communal Congressmen during 1920s.
Finally, I would like Mr. Hammdani to shed more light on the roles of two muslim delegates of Nehru Report Committe named Ali Imam and Shoaib Qureshi. I think it is unjustified to put all the blame on young Chagla. All these circumstances must be taken into account.
Once again I would thank Mr. Hamdani for persistent work on Jinnah and subcontinental history which seriously needs objective consideration on our part. So, keep on writing Mr Yasser. :-)
You can access the article at:
http://pakteahouse.net/2011/10/25/jinnah-m-c-chagla-and-the-nehru-report/
First of all I would like to say that it is always a pleasure reading Mr Hamdani's articles focusing particularly on the surrounding events leading to partition. Even when I disagree with his conclusions, I still admire his zeal for the subject of history which is often ignored in our part of the world. The point of writing this reply is not to dispute his analysis on Nehru Report but rather to complement his insightful take on it. I share his conclusion that it was actually Nehru Report that led to parting of ways between Jinnah and Congress leadership rather than later events. However, I have something to add to this debate. Therefore, the point is to add a further dimension to this debate.
By no means I adhere to a reductionist account of history presented mostly by Indian historians that focuses too much on divide and rule policy of the Britishers but still there is one particular incident that needed to be mentioned in the context of this historical episode. In February 1928, Lord Birkenhead wrote a letter to Viceroy Lord Irwin:
''I should advise Simon to see at all stages important people who are not boycotting the Commission, particularly Muslims and depressed classes. I should widely advertise all his interviews with representative Muslims. The whole policy is now obvious. It is to testify the immense Hindu population by the apprehension that the Commission having been got hold of the Muslims, may present report altogether destructive of Hindu position, thereby securing a solid Muslim support and leaving Jinnah high and dry.''
[Source: Frederick Edwin Earl of Birkenhead: The Last Phase , by The Second Earl of Birkenhead, published by Thornton Butterworth page 258]
How can we explain this letter? Here was an opportunity for Congress to negotiate and come to terms with Muslim League and Jinnah but by exploiting the fears of Hindu Mahasabha, Congress was somehow forced to lose this golden opportunity. It was Birkenhead who wanted Jinnah to feel alienated.
Secondly, I believe at the time of Nehru Report the views of Khalafatists Muslims were in consonance to that of Jinnah. As far as my reading is concerned, despite the Khilafat fiasco, at the time of Simon Commission Muhammad Ali Jauhar and Shaukat Ali represented no different views than Jinnah. Speaking rhetorically Shuakat Ali remarked about Nehru Report:
''As a young man I was a keen observer of greyhounds, but I have never seen greyhounds deal with a hare as the Hindus proposed to deal with the Muslimms''.
As for Muhammad Ali Johar, he has this to say about it in 1930. Speaking in an aggressive tone he denounced Gandhi and Congress in these words:
''Gandhi is working under the influence of communalist Hindu Mahasaba. He is working for the supremacy of Hinduism and submergence of Muslims''.
Having said that, there were some Khilafatists leaders such as Maulana Azad who endorsed Nehru Report.
I was glad to see a Co-Pakistani admiring Motilal Nehru. The truth of the matter is that Motilal Nehru was cornered by a belligerent propaganda run by Lala-Malaviya Gang who were bitterly opposed to his non-communal politics. In my view, CR Das and Motilal Nehru were probably the two most liberal and non communal Congressmen during 1920s.
Finally, I would like Mr. Hammdani to shed more light on the roles of two muslim delegates of Nehru Report Committe named Ali Imam and Shoaib Qureshi. I think it is unjustified to put all the blame on young Chagla. All these circumstances must be taken into account.
Once again I would thank Mr. Hamdani for persistent work on Jinnah and subcontinental history which seriously needs objective consideration on our part. So, keep on writing Mr Yasser. :-)
Monday, October 24, 2011
Scent of Faith!
A man in love, no matter what he says
The smell of love wafts love-ward from his mouth
He speaks of jurisprudence, what emerges?
From mystic poverty a sweet effulgence
He blasphemes, the scent of faith arises
He offers doubts, no doubt we grow more sure
Rumi from Masnavi 1: 2880-82
The smell of love wafts love-ward from his mouth
He speaks of jurisprudence, what emerges?
From mystic poverty a sweet effulgence
He blasphemes, the scent of faith arises
He offers doubts, no doubt we grow more sure
Rumi from Masnavi 1: 2880-82
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)