Day Of Ashura

Yaum Al Ashura (Day of Ashura) marks many important events to Muslims, both Shia as well as Sunni. Many Sunni Muslims, for example, observe a voluntary day of fasting to observe the day that Prophet Moses (AS) freed the Israelites from the bondage of the Egyptian Pharaoh.

Along with this Muslims also remember this day as one of the most tragic events in Islamic history. Yaum Al Ashura (Day of Ashura) commemorates the Battle of Karbala (in present day Iraq) on the 10th of Moharram (61 AH).

The battle marks the conflict between a small group of supporters and the family of Imam Hussein ibn Ali, son of Ali ibn Abu Talib and grandson of Mohammed (PBUH) and a much larger military detachment from the forces of Yazid I, the Umayyad caliph, whom Hussein had refused to recognise.

Hussein and all his supporters were killed, including Hussein's six month old infant son, Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn, and the women and children of Hussein's house were taken as prisoners. The dead are regarded as martyrs by Muslims, and the battle has a central place in Islamic history and is frequently referenced in  Islamic literature.

The events leading up to the tragedy at Karbala are at the heart of the schism that followed between the early Muslims. Even today, we are not free from the divisions; so whilst they exist and sectarianism continues to hurt the Muslims; let us remind ourselves that Moharram is both the blessed first month of the Muslim calendar and an official month of peace. 

The Marriage of Mohammed PBUH and Aisha RA

In this climate of hysteria, I've taken this article by Myriam Francois-Cerrah from the Guardian. It makes a key point on a recurring criticism non-Muslims have of Islam. The article gives an important insight:

Writing about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, the Orientalist scholar W Montgomery Watt wrote: "Of all the world's great men, none has been so much maligned as Muhammad." His quote seems all the more poignant in light of the Islamophobic film Innocence of Muslims, which has sparked riots from Yemen to Libya and which, among other slanders, depicts Muhammad as a paedophile.

This claim is a recurring one among critics of Islam, so its foundation deserves close scrutiny.

Critics allege that Aisha was just six years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad, himself in his 50s, and only nine when the marriage was consummated. They base this on a saying attributed to Aisha herself (Sahih Bukhari volume 5, book 58, number 234), and the debate on this issue is further complicated by the fact that some Muslims believe this to be a historically accurate account. Although most Muslims would not consider marrying off their nine-year-old daughters, those who accept this saying argue that since the Qur'an states that marriage is void unless entered into by consenting adults, Aisha must have entered puberty early.

They point out that, in seventh-century Arabia, adulthood was defined as the onset of puberty. (This much is true, and was also the case in Europe: five centuries after Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, 33-year-old King John of England married 12-year-old Isabella of Angoulême.) Interestingly, of the many criticisms of Muhammad made at the time by his opponents, none focused on Aisha's age at marriage.

According to this perspective, Aisha may have been young, but she was not younger than was the norm at the time. Other Muslims doubt the very idea that Aisha was six at the time of marriage, referring to historians who have questioned the reliability of Aisha's age as given in the saying. In a society without a birth registry and where people did not celebrate birthdays, most people estimated their own age and that of others. Aisha would have been no different. What's more, Aisha had already been engaged to someone else before she married Muhammad, suggesting she had already been mature enough by the standards of her society to consider marriage for a while. It seems difficult to reconcile this with her being six.

In addition, some modern Muslim scholars have more recently cast doubt on the veracity of the saying, or hadith, used to assert Aisha's young age. In Islam, the hadith literature (sayings of the prophet) is considered secondary to the Qur'an. While the Qur'an is considered to be the verbatim word of God, the hadiths were transmitted over time through a rigorous but not infallible methodology. Taking all known accounts and records of Aisha's age at marriage, estimates of her age range from nine to 19.

Because of this, it is impossible to know with any certainty how old Aisha was. What we do know is what the Qur'an says about marriage: that it is valid only between consenting adults, and that a woman has the right to choose her own spouse. As the living embodiment of Islam, Muhammad's actions reflect the Qur'an's teachings on marriage, even if the actions of some Muslim regimes and individuals do not.

Sadly, in many countries, the imperatives motivating the marriage of young girls are typically economic. In others, they are political. The fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia have both sought to use the saying concerning Aisha's age as a justification for lowering the legal age of marriage tells us a great deal about the patriarchal and oppressive nature of those regimes, and nothing about Muhammad, or the essential nature of Islam. The stridency of those who lend credence to these literalist interpretations by concurring with their warped view of Islam does not help those Muslims who seek to challenge these aberrations.

The Islamophobic depiction of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha as motivated by misplaced desire fits within a broader Orientalist depiction of Muhammad as a philanderer. This idea dates back to the crusades. According to the academic Kecia Ali: "Accusations of lust and sensuality were a regular feature of medieval attacks on the prophet's character and, by extension, on the authenticity of Islam."

Since the early Christians heralded Christ as a model of celibate virtue, Muhammad – who had married several times – was deemed to be driven by sinful lust. This portrayal ignored the fact that before his marriage to Aisha, Muhammad had been married to Khadija, a powerful businesswoman 15 years his senior, for 25 years. When she died, he was devastated and friends encouraged him to remarry. A female acquaintance suggested Aisha, a bright and vivacious character.

Aisha's union would also have cemented Muhammad's longstanding friendship with her father, Abu Bakr. As was the tradition in Arabia (and still is in some parts of the world today), marriage typically served a social and political function – a way of uniting tribes, resolving feuds, caring for widows and orphans, and generally strengthening bonds in a highly unstable and changing political environment. Of the women Muhammad married, the majority were widows. To consider the marriages of the prophet outside of these calculations is profoundly ahistorical.

What the records are clear on is that Muhammad and Aisha had a loving and egalitarian relationship, which set the standard for reciprocity, tenderness and respect enjoined by the Qur'an. Insights into their relationship, such as the fact they liked to drink out of the same cup or race one another, are indicative of a deep connection which belies any misrepresentation of their relationship.

To paint Aisha as a victim is completely at odds with her persona. She was certainly no wallflower. During a controversial battle in Muslim history, she emerged riding a camel to lead the troops. She was known for her assertive temperament and mischievous sense of humour – with Muhammad sometimes bearing the brunt of the jokes. During his lifetime, he established her authority by telling Muslims to consult her in his absence; after his death, she went to be become one of the most prolific and distinguished scholars of her time.

A stateswoman, scholar, mufti, and judge, Aisha combined spirituality, activism and knowledge and remains a role model for many Muslim women today. The gulf between her true legacy and her depiction in Islamophobic materials is not merely historically inaccurate, it is an insult to the memory of a pioneering woman.

Those who manipulate her story to justify the abuse of young girls, and those who manipulate it in order to depict Islam as a religion that legitimises such abuse have more in common than they think. Both demonstrate a disregard for what we know about the times in which Muhammad lived, and for the affirmation of female autonomy which her story illustrates.

 Taken from the Guardian

Ahmad Shah Bābā احمد شاه بابا

Ahmad Shah Durrani احمد شاه درانی (born in 1722 either in Herat or Multan; died in 1773, Kandahar), also known as Ahmad Shāh Abdālī احمد شاه ابدالي was the founder of the Durrani Afghan Empire is regarded by many to be the founder of the modern state of Afghanistan when he united the land in 1747.

Born as Ahmad Khan, Ahmad Shah rose quickly to become a commander of four thousand Abdali (later known as Durrani) Pashtoon soldiers following his enlistment in the military of the Afsharid kingdom. In June 1747 following the death of Nader Shah Afshar of Persia, Ahmad Shah became the the Emir of Khorasan. Able to mobilise the Pashtoon tribes and allies, he pushed east towards the Mughal and the Maratha Empire of India as well as west towards the disintegrating Afsharid Empire of Persia and north toward the Khanate of Bukhara.

Within a few years he had conquered all of today's Afghanistan and much of northeastern Iran. After a failed attempt to gain the Panjab in 1748, Ahmad Shah returned two years later and displaced Mir Mannu, the Mughal-heir apparent and governor of Panjab. His incursions into India roused the oppostion of the Sikhs and the Maratha rulers on several occasions leading to the defeat of the Marathas eight times, including the major victory at the 1761 Battle of Panipat which was fought north of Delhi.

Western advances of the Sikhs, better organised and disciplined in opposition led to Ahmad Shah returning to Panjab in 1764 and 1767 to defend Lahore, but the threat of internal strife and mutiny of his troops over pay, meant that on his retreat, Lahore was eventually taken followed by the Sikh advance further into Panjab. Ahmad Shah focused his efforts on retaining hold of Peshawar and the country west of Attock. Even today, for Afghans who oppose the British laid Durrand Line, these areas would still be included in a "Greater Afghanistan".  

Ahmad Shah's mausoleum is located in Kandahar, Afghanistan, adjacent to the famous Mosque of the Cloak of the Prophet Mohammed PBUH in the center of the city. Today he referred to as Ahmad Shah Bābā, احمد شاه بابا,  the Father of Afghanistan and the man who united the Pashtoons into one country.

Farcebook

The recent Facebook contoversy has generated a lot of interest, not least because Pakistan and Muslims are in the news yet again. And whereas, there's nothing wrong being Muslim, it's a typical hysteric reaction from many different sides.

The Muslims, in the main, oppose this rather provocative trend of drawing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad PBUH that has gained pace since the Danish cartoon controversy. The government of Pakistan decided to ban Facebook, Youtube, Twitter etc. in a gesture to control the spread of this, particularly after a "Draw Mohammad Day" was announced and promoted via some of these mediums.

I guess, the rights and wrongs of the ban are one thing. The greater wrong has been the media momentum with which the "draw" brigade has gained voice. There is absolutely no such thing as complete free speech and whereas, I too, use this blog to voice thought and opinon, I know that I concisously filter before I write. I know that there will be an audience somewhere that will read this - and that I can choose to write to inflame or not.

Facebook or Not

The Internet represents a window on the world, that is both cruel and fascinating and as such is the home of many undesirables. Pakistan's decision to ban Facebook, controls only parts of that. The country continues to have problems at home, not least with it's over-dependency on the US, chronic power and supply shortages, a restless population and a real sense of seperation between population and state in the Pashtoon and Baloch belt. In the latter there is an armed resistance movement that opposes the state and in the former, a people divided - with evidence to suggest that paid agents of the state have inflitrated and embedded within local populations so that everyone is caught in the quagmire that is the war on terror.

The cartoonist at the centre of the controversy - has apologised - but in terms of negative publicity, heightened alarm, and entrenched positions ... well the damage is deep, and that isn't as easily undone.