Kejriwal, Delhi's Chief Minister, is not a Mad Man

Delhi's chief minister was on a sit-in, recently, demanding the suspension of police officers who were allegedly derelict in their duty. The reason was that the Delhi Police are not under the control of the Delhi government. It is under the supervision of the federal government. People called him mad and argued that he is a protestor in chief and an embarrassment to his office. They said so because many want their chief minister to live in a certain way, dress in a certain way and conduct his life in a certain way. They do not expect him to organize protest rallies and sit-ins. He is considered part of a power elite and elites must behave elegantly in a manner that would separate them from the common man. One of the identities of an elite is that he is not approachable to his people.

But Kejriwal did not come to power to earn status for himself. He is in power because of common men, and he wants to live and behave like them. That explains the reason that he took to the streets of Delhi because the Delhi police failed to act on behalf of rape victims. Who in India or the world would risk one's political career for the sake of two nameless and unknown women? Probably no one, not even the loudest champions of women's rights.

This has shocked the media, the politicians and most middle-class people who have developed an easy lifestyle to protest and protect their interests, who are willing to talk big without contributing anything substantial to the welfare and well being of common men. Kejriwal has emerged as a phenomenon and a criterion people would judge others on. He is changing the rules of politics. He is redefining democracy. He is challenging the status quo and he is bringing in the system common men who usually sit on the periphery of politics. He is telling the people that whatever they get from their political system is their right and politicians are in the system to serve them not to master them.

How long he would survive, only the time would tell. The powerful interests in India probably would not want him for long. They would love to see his political demise sooner than later. They would not even shed the crocodile tears if he is eliminated physically. Apparently, the police have already started plotting that game. The Delhi Police informed him that Indian Mujahideen are about to kidnap him. In India, not many people are there to demand hard evidence from the police or intelligence agencies. Even if they demand, the police do not care. The police and intelligence agencies can concoct any fact, prepare any evidence, organize any crime. They can frame anyone and accuse any group of committing any crime. Who knows how many crimes have been committed by the police and intelligence agencies and who knows how many people were framed by the police? A quick look at India's fake encounters offers a grim reality to that. In fact, there is no provision in India, where truth can come out true. Corruption is everywhere. So it's possible that Kejriwal might face the same fate that many Muslim youth in India have faced in the last few decades where the police and intelligence framed them in crimes they never committed or where the law enforcement agencies killed them in a fake encounter.

The only way to break the arrogance of the police and law enforcement agencies and the politicians, as well as bureaucrats in India, is to empower ordinary Indians to play an effective role in governing himself. Kejriwal offers that alternative. He knows that his alternative would not work under the present political system. He would have to change the system and he is ready to use any nonviolent means to challenge the statues-quo.
He understands what is at risk and why is he doing what he is doing. His success would depend on his ability to communicate with common men. If he has channels other than the media channels, then he is going to succeed. If he is relying on the media for the transmission of his message, then he would lose because the media in India is not controlled by the people. It is controlled by powerful interests, backed by politicians and corporations. The only way to tackle a hostile media is to have strong spokespersons. Kejriwal would need strong media spokespersons who can articulate the party's ideas in the language of a common man.

Muslims are acting like spectators in this epic battle for the soul of India. Their style of politics is hurtful to them more than anyone else. They ought to define their role in this epic battle. Are they willing to take a chance and support the party that is challenging the status quo or are they going to be conservative in their approach and support the old players? Muslim masses have been rendered so ineffective by their own leadership that they are afraid of taking independent decisions. They are still looking up to their existing leadership to find a way for them. They need to think out of the box if they really want to be part of the new India. They have to decide whether they stand for those who are seeking to root out corruption from national politics or support those who have nothing to offer but old slogans and never to be fulfilled promises.
Kejriwal or no Kejriwal, India is changing and the forces of change would dictate their terms on people. The change in India would definitely owe itself to the politics of Kejriwal who has given a new vision and new meaning to democracy. After all, the changes that we have seen in every aspect of our lives have come as a result of some extra-ordinary actions taken by a few individuals their contemporaries initially defined as mad, crazy, poet, magician, manipulator, imposter, liar, etc. Kejriwal is no exception.

Put Modi on Trial in a Public Court

Non-conviction does not necessarily mean the innocence of the accused. A court decides on the basis of hard evidence and if there is not sufficient evidence, the court has every right to give a no conviction verdict. But the absence of evidence does not mean that the crimes were not committed and the accused was not involved in those crimes.

Evidence can be tempered, witnesses can be intimidated, tactics can be used to discredit the victim and judges can be influenced.

In a Gujarat court, the state chief minister was recently given a no conviction verdict because the court did not accept the evidence submitted by the victim regarding the murder of her husband by a mob in the presence of active state police.

Modi, commenting on the verdict used an old Sanskrit proverb meaning “truth ultimately prevails” and justified his innocence, claiming that since the Gujarat genocide in 2002, he has been living in pain and agony.

Only a narcissist  and the psychopath is capable of making such a statement and once again the prime ministerial candidate of India has proved beyond any doubts that he belongs to a class of leaders who do not care about justice, truth or peace to achieve their political ambitions and objectives.

The genocide committed against the Muslims of Gujarat was a premeditated and well-planned event. A political party, the Bhartiya Janata Party, (BJP) with an ideology of hate against Muslims is in power in Gujarat. It has the backing of a non-political organization, the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh, (RSS) that believes that India is only for Hindus (mainly upper castes). It believes in the establishment of Ram Rajya, which in simple English means a system of government where power would belong to those who are of higher castes. It promotes the idea of profanity of those who are not part of the Hindu caste system. It views the Muslim presence as the desecration of Mother India. It labels Muslims as enemies of the state and defines Islam a violent faith.

During his rule as Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat, the BJP succeeded in promoting the RSS volunteers in all private and public sector positions. Thus, from judges to the peons and from district collectors to constables, the party succeeded in securing its presence in all crucial positions. There were few who did not toe the party line and they were intimidated into silence.

The court verdict should not disappoint the victims. It should only strengthen their resolve to fight an evil that would go to any length in securing its interests.

If the Judiciary in Gujarat is insensitive to the demands of justice, then people should act in solidarity with the victims. Let those who believe in the supremacy of justice and truth put Modi on trial in a public court constituted by the people and let all the evidence be presented to solicit a fair judgment. This is the only way, the truth would be allowed to prevail.

If the judiciary and bureaucracy refuse to uphold the truth, people in a democracy are entitled to act on their own in a peaceful manner. The judgment of a public court would have far-reaching consequences than the judgment of a judicial court. The public court may not have the political authority to execute its decision, but it would have the moral authority to prove that truth ultimately prevails.

Modi may or may not be the next Prime Minister of India

The latest assembly elections in five Indian states do not offer good sign for Narendra Modi of the Bhartiya Janata Party, the Prime Ministerial aspirant of India even though his party has been given the mandate to run Delhi, Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Prior to the election, Modi was sailing smooth and he appeared a viable and formidable candidate for India's top job. But the election results have changed all that.
The reason: The emergence of AAP (Aam Aadmi Party, Common People Party) as a major player in India's electoral politics. The AAP that was formed on October 2012 contested Delhi's election and won some 28 seats out of 70 upsetting the BJP as well as the Congress Party, the two main political parties in Delhi. AAP is not composed of seasoned politicians. It is a party of common people drawn from all sectors of Indian's society. It does not enjoy the patronage of any religious establishment or big corporations. It is not based on caste, religion or region. Its main goal is to rid Indian politics and bureaucracy of corruption. The corruption that is bigger in size in India's history since the beginning. A corruption that encompasses every aspect of Indian society.
In this corrupt environment, it fielded candidates with no previous political background in general whose strength was their character and social service. Even in a district which is the stronghold of the Hindu fascist BJP, it fielded a Muslim candidate who mustered over 17,000 votes challenging the notion that a Muslim candidate can only contest the election only from a Muslim dominated district. The leader of the Party himself challenged the three-term chief minister of Delhi risking his entire nascent political career.
The AAP wants transparency in Indian politics. It wants democracy to serve people and not the politician. It wants to eliminate corruption in political circles by making it a crime. It wants to give people the right to recall their elected officials. It wants to create a public evaluation board to keep an eye on the functioning of political leaders and it wants public officials to represent their constituents and not lobbies. Its strength lies in the support of the people, average people who are never remembered by politicians once the ritual of democracy is over.
These are the ideals that more than 70 percent of Indian voters under the age of 35 identify with. It is this section of Indian society that supported the AAP in Delhi. AAP was pitched against the cadre of the world's most disciplined and dangerous secret organization, the Rashtriya Swayam Sangh (RSS) the fascist ideological organization behind the BJP and other similar outfits. It also faced the rank and file of the oldest Indian political party, the Congress. The party did not have an elaborate organization and unlimited secret funds that every political group usually spends in India. It refrained itself from buying votes on the election eve, a common practice in India, where millions of dollars are distributed to buy votes. Both the Congress and BJP supporters gave away hefty cash to their potential voters. Liquor was distributed freely on the eve of the night.
AAP contested only from Delhi, Had it fielded candidates in other states, the BJP would not have got the majority anywhere, because a great majority of Indian voters seem to be sick and tired of the politics of Congress as a party that is immersed in corruption and the BJP, a party built on the bones and the blood of thousands of Indians killed in communal riots. Since people did not have any alternative they chose the one they found was appealing to their religious emotions.
BJP's politics is the politics of hatred, corruption, and revenge, while Congress politics is the politics of deception and corruption. Both have presided over the destruction of minority rights systematically.
The decision of AAP to sit as opposition in Delhi is a good decision as this would give the leadership an opportunity to focus on expanding the organization in different parts of the country. AAP has presented itself as a value-driven organization and it has made it clear that it would not share power with those whom it accuses of being corrupt or communal. Rarely, one finds such stand-in politics. AAP knows that an overwhelming majority of Indians does not subscribe to caste and religion politics. It wants clean governance at all levels and it has no sympathy for those who play divisive politics.
AAP has the capacity to channelize these sentiments in the upcoming election of Indian parliament because it is run by people and not by leaders. Thus, the party would pose serious challenges to both the fascist BJP and the corrupt Congress. The fascist party has its own cadre and it probably would get their full backing. But those who want to see a corruption-free India that does not favor any caste or religion and that does not promote a particular class would be enthusiastic for AAP as they were in the just concluded elections in states where an alternative was not available.
It is this alternative that offers Muslims and other minorities an opportunity to identify with.  Because India in the political hands of those who believe in a corruption-free India offers the best hope for minorities including Muslims. In Delhi, the Muslims voted for AAP but not as enthusiastically as they voted for Congress. The BJP hardly got Muslim votes. But this would change in the upcoming Indian parliament election as Muslims cannot keep them isolated from what is happening in the country. AAP would be seen as an alternative to Congress as BJP has never been a choice of the overwhelming majority of Muslims. The BJP also does not want loud Muslim support as it would hurt its own upper caste, hate-filled interest groups, including many in the US who have sent millions to the murderous Modi.
Narendra Modi was hoping a smooth sailing in the national election. But things would change now. He would be forced to talk about the corruption in his own state and the violence his state perpetrated against Muslims and other minorities. The blood of the innocents would haunt him and AAP and its supporters would ensure that the communal politics, the hallmark of BJP, is not allowed to dominate the election agenda. On the strength of the masses, the AAP would make the corruption as India's top agenda and through choosing candidates who would ensure clean politics, it would emerge as one of the most effective players in Indian politics. A new India is about to be born, an India where Modi would have no place, an India, where the masses would rise above their caste and religions to restore the dignity to common men. Thus, Modi's dream to become Prime Minister of the country would evade him even though his party seems to be intoxicated with the victory in the four states.

Living Together: No Crime and No sin, Says the Indian Supreme Court

The Indian Supreme Court in a recent ruling asked the people of India (parliament) to frame laws protecting the rights of women and children in live-in relationship. It has ruled that such a relationship is neither a crime nor a sin.
One needs to look at the accepted definitions of Live-in, crime and sin before commenting on the Supreme Court ruling
Live-in relationship is defined as a living arrangement in which two individuals who are not legally married, live together in a long-term relationship that resembles a marriage but not accepted as a marriage by society at large.
Crime means an act committed or omitted in violation of the law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction or a serious offense, especially one in violation of morality or an unjust, the senseless, or disgraceful act or condition.
And sin is described as an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
In Indian law, fornication has not been prohibited. A man can have sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman over the age of 16 provided she consents to such a cohabitation. A person can also enter into adulterous relations with a married woman provided the husband has no objection. The Indian law intervenes only when non-consensual intercourse is committed with a married woman or with a minor. The Indian law also says that only a man can be proceeded against and punished for adultery, but the married woman cannot be, even as an abettor.
The Supreme Court has suggested that the rights of children born out of living together relations and women involved in such relations should be protected. In reality, the rights of men, women, and children must be protected regardless of the relationship among them. There is no need to have separate laws to protect the rights of people in this relationship as long as the law respects the equality of all Indians regardless of their background.
There are certain inalienable rights that cannot be denied to any individual. Among them are rights to live and to choose one's own lifestyle. However, no one in society has a right to weaken or destroy the primary social institution that is the foundation of human civilization, i.e. the family.
Long before the emergence of the modern state, it was the family that provided support to its men, women, and children, most of the times in a patriarchal arrangement but at times in a matriarchal situation too. The family was and is the human necessity as the life of an individual starts in a condition of total dependence upon others and ends in a situation of total dependence upon others. The family had rules and roles assigned to its members, especially the rules pertaining to conjugation and reproduction.
Humans had two options to select rules and roles pertaining to the family. Either they draw their own rules based on their likes and dislikes or they accept the rules given to them by a higher authority, God, Almighty, objective, and neutral who does not take sides of any gender or ethnicity or race.
It was the second option the humanity accepted and adopted a definition that ensured the continuity of roles assigned to various members of the family.
One of the fundamental rules in the divinely guided definition of the family dealt with the relationship with men and women. It was accepted that the conjugal relationship between a man and a woman should always be within the confines of marriage on the basis of contractual or sacramental ties witnessed by the people and approved by society. The purpose was not only to secure the interests of the couple, but also the rights of their children and other relatives.
Physical relation established outside these rules was considered illicit and a major sin carrying severe penalties. The purpose was to protect the dignity of both men and women and help them discipline their sexual urges and social responsibility in a meaningful manner.
Now, after some 8,000 years of recorded human history, we are back to where we began our human journey. Whose definition should we accept in defining the nature of the relationship between a man and a woman, i.e. the definition we as a human being evolves based on our limited knowledge, interests, and experiences or the definition received through divine guidance?
The Supreme Court said that people through their elected representative should define a family. It has also given a verdict on the 8,000-year-old wisdom of humanity that living-in without binding contractual or sacramental relations is neither a sin nor a crime.
The Supreme Court is not a lawgiver, it is a law interpreter and the decision that the live-in is not a sin or a crime is beyond its jurisdiction. It cannot give verdict on issues it is not competent to talk about. The Supreme Court follows the constitution that says that it would respect the religious beliefs of people. Hence, when it says that that live-in relationship is neither a sin nor a crime, it is showing disrespect to the people’s belief.
One of the definitions of crime describes it as an act in violation of morality or an unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition.
In the eyes of the religious community of India or the world, physical relationship not based on a contract or sacrament is unjust, senseless and disgraceful from the perspective of their belief. Hence, by giving its verdict in this matter, the Court is again violating the constitutional clause that demands respect to the belief system of the people.
One should hope that the religious communities of India, regardless of their denomination would look into this verdict seriously and assert their right to make laws that would ensure the sanctity of marriage and family.

Singles, Sex, and Faith

Living together before marriage is generally accepted as a normal practice in the USA and Europe. Premarital sex in the USA and European societies has become a norm and even though adultery is illegal in 23 states in the USA, since 1983 no one has been punished while some 60 percent men and 42 percent, women reportedly commit acts of adultery in the country. In those states where adultery is still on the statute books, penalties vary from a life sentence in Michigan to a $10 fine in Maryland to a Class B misdemeanor in New York to a Class I felony in Wisconsin and to a fine of $500 in South Carolina.   

Islam advocates celibacy before marriage and defines pre-marital and extra-marital relations as greater sins and proposes strong penalties. The Quran says, "Nor come closer to illicit sexual intimacy (zina) for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the door (to other evils)." 17:32

Yet many in the Muslim community living in Europe and the USA and elsewhere cannot claim to be strict followers of their faith.  A good number of single men and women as well as married couples, mostly men, seem to be involved in pre-marital or extra-marital relations. There is no sociological study to substantiate the statistics, yet there are reports based on independent research of many journalists and social scientists that suggest incidents of pre-marital sex among Muslim men far exceed the incidents of similar behavior among Muslim women. By and large, Muslims avoid discussion on this subject often living under the assumption that their community is free from these acts.  Few would dare any write up and those who do would generally be looked down upon.

Yet it is an issue that one has to face, especially when it impacts the image of Islam and the health of the community. There are many disgruntled women, mostly non-Muslims, who feel betrayed by their Muslim boyfriends after living together for several years and there are many Muslim women who out of fear and social pressure are not willing to admit the intimate nature of their relations with their boyfriends in secrecy. It is an issue that deserves to be addressed openly, fearlessly and seriously.

With sex and the discussion about sex everywhere, the Muslim community cannot claim to save itself from its impact. It cannot simply close its eyes and say that “it’s a non-Muslim problem.” It has to deliberate the issue and work to strengthen young men and women to stand their moral grounds no matter how tough the circumstance may be. Sex is a physical activity, but it is born in the mind and ideas. But it is not a physical necessity (prior to developing authentic relations, assuming their responsibilities and consequences) without which a human cannot survive like food or water. So it is possible that if the mind is properly trained and the ideas are channelized into positive energy, people can control their sexual urges within a moral frame. But this would happen only when the discussion is open and objective.

It is one thing to say that God frowns upon those who indulge in illicit sexual relations, but it is another to study the causes of this lifestyle and pragmatically take steps to channelize the sexual urges within an ethical framework for the good of all. 
Not many are willing to admit that pre-marital sex is common among single Muslim male students in various colleges and universities especially among those enrolled as foreign students. There are incidents of extra-marital relations among students who live without their spouses.

Among the male students, this happens in different ways. The boy either enters into a temporary marriage relationship with a non-Muslim girl for a specific period of time or maintains a relationship in secrecy. In some cases, the boy even marries the girl in what he defines “Islamically”, without any legal contract or paperwork. In this situation, the couple approaches either an Imam or anyone they trust to conduct marriage Islamically. The marriage is not recorded under the assumptions that God is the greatest witness along with two other male witnesses. Such marriage is also solicited by married men. The women are generally non-Muslims and they are told that at a later time when it is appropriate the husband would divorce his first wife.

Temporary hookups through chat sites and dating agencies are also not uncommon among Muslim singles and married men. Usually, Muslim men and women come to these chat sites with non-Muslim names, regardless of the region they live in and slowly and gradually they reveal true identify once the possibility physical hookup becomes a reality. Usually, Muslims would avoid entering into these kinds of hookups with fellow Muslims of the opposite or same gender, yet, these unions are not rare.

Single Muslim men often start facing trouble, when their partner wants to declare their relations open. Most of the time such single Muslim men, who are not serious, do not introduce their girlfriends to their Muslim circles. However, when girlfriends ask for declaring this relationship in the open, they refuse and offer religious explanations admitting that they were wrong in maintaining these relations. This either terminates the relationship or assume different dimensions.

Ironically, many non-Muslim women take this relationship seriously and some try to familiarize them with Islam or even considering to become Muslims. Single Muslim men often avoid discussions about marriage under the plea that either they are not ready or their families are not. In this situation, the couple usually breaks up.

So what needs to happen to address the situation? First of all, Muslim social scientists and leaders should acknowledge that the issue is real and take it seriously and conduct objective studies to assess the true dimensions of this issue. Simultaneously, we should also develop a curriculum that addresses the issue of the relationship between boys and girls and men and women sociologically and pragmatically. The basic guidelines on this issue are given in the Quran explicitly, but often we, the believers, have failed to transmit this basic message in a manner that would empower individuals to take control of their lives. This should happen from an early age because in public or private schools and in circles of their peers, they are exposed to sex-related issues at a very tender age.
While, we Muslims, generally, leave it to an individual to navigate his or her way through the maze of information on sex, others offer structured courses on the subject to students as young as nine or ten. By the time, we intervene on behalf of our religion, the children are already exposed to information far better and tempting than the one offered by us. In fact, intervention at this time becomes counterproductive as it leads to stealth sexuality that no one would want to admit to one's elders or oneself. The situation often becomes explosive when the girl gets pregnant. This either results in the termination of pregnancy or sending the girl away from her circle. Very rarely, a Muslim girl uses DNA to determine the paternity to receive child support as this would violate the honor of the family. Often, the girl is punished while the sin of the boy is generally ignored. In situation, the boy often abandons the girl assuming that the secret would never come out. But with non-Muslim girls the situation is different. So, it is important that we begin the process of education at an early stage. We have to decide when it would be appropriate to introduce such subjects to students.

Only when one would have a strong foundation in a lifestyle guided by the divine teachings, one can hope to reduce such incidents in real relationships. The solution lies in empowering individuals with knowledge that would inspire them to be responsible and disciplined in every aspect of life. Where self-control would be an assertive way of life and where the relationship would not be used to serve feelings of self-indulgence. It is possible to control sexual urges but it would not come through condemning sexuality, but giving it a positive spin within a moral framework that is useful for everyone. Humans are their best supervisors and controllers, but we have to be empowered with the knowledge that would strengthen those aspects of our character inwardly.

Ashura and the Martyrdom of Imam Hussein

During the early period of the Prophet's mission in Makkah, Muslims fasted on Muharram 10^th and then they started fasting for two days in Medina on the 10^th and 9^th or 11^th of the month. Ashura refers to the 10^th of Muharram and according to Muslim beliefs in all religious traditions this day was of great significance. The literature about the fasting on the 10th of Muharram is all over the internet and one does not need to repeat that here. It is a significant part of our faith and the entire Muslim world recognizes that,
But this article would focus on what was said by Imam Ibn Taymiya about one of the greatest events in the early history of Muslims.
 وأما من قتل الحسين أو أعان على قتله أو رضي بذلك فعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين, ابن تيمية في مجموع الفتاوى 4 / 487 

"The curse of God, the angels, and the entire community is on those who killed
al-Hussein assisted in killing him or accepted his killing. 
Ibn Taymiya, Majmou' al-Fatawa 4 / 487
فإن قتل الحسين وقتل عثمان من قبله كان من أعظم أسباب الفتن في هذه الامة وقتلتهما من شرار الخلق عند الله, ابن تيمية411 /3 الفتاوى
The killing of Hussein and Uthman before him is one of the great reasons for the temptations in the Muslim community and God regard their killers as the worst of people / Majmou' al-Fatawa, Ibn Taymiya

In our recent memory, the 10th of Muharram is remembered more for one of the greatest tragedies that occurred in the early history of Muslims. It was this day when Imam Hussein, son of Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad offered his life together with members of his family in the fields of Kerbala in Iraq. It was this day when an army claiming to be Muslims confronted the grandson of the Prophet and denied him even water before decimating him and his family. It is a tragic day for Muslims, nay for all the people in the world, and the 10th of Muharram reminds us of that constantly..

Shias observe this day as a day of great mourning reminding them of the sacrifices of Imam Hussein and his family. Sunnis on the other fast on these days and usually avoid participating in events organized to commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hussein.

Imam Hussein belongs to the entire Ummah and his sacrifices are for the entire Ummah and not just for one section of the community. He stood for the principles of Islam and not just in the interests of one section of the community. He stood for those eternal values of Islam that every Prophet preached to his people. He knew that life is sacred and a gift from Allah, yet he realized that there may come times in the life of individuals when the goals of life may become more important than life itself.

The goals of life he stood for are obvious. He believed that people should not be coerced to give political allegiance to leaders they disagreed with. People have a right to dissent with rulers and leaders with dignity and honor. The resources of a nation belong to all and not to one dynasty, or aristocracy or an elite group. Coercion and violence were weapons of despots in their campaign against truth and justice.

Thus, Imam Hussein challenged the decision of Ameer Muwaiya, the ruler of the Muslim world at the time, one of the companions of the Prophet, when he nominated his son Yezid as his successor. Imam Hussein was of the opinion that Islam was against the dynastic rule and the one nominated was not qualified to lead the nation of Muslims He was not alone in this opinion. Many of the companions in Medina and Makkah supported his ideas.

Against all odds, Imam Hussein challenged the forces of Yezid in Kerbala realizing that those who had promised to be on his side had betrayed him. He knew he would be crushed and his family would suffer the dire consequences. He knew that he would achieve martyrdom in the battlefield. Yet he decided to offer his life. Primarily to prove the point that goals of life are more important than life itself. He knew that compromise was not an option in these situations. He also realized that when the choice is so clear between right and wrong, one should offer all one has in defense of one’s ideals. His ijtihad and actions were based on his understanding of the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet and he stood by that.

It is this message Imam Hussein upheld and offered his martyrdom for. This message has been forgotten by one section of the community and highly expanded by the other. Shias mourn on this day. If they mourn the loss of the grandson as a token of love, it should be within the limits that his grandfather set for these occasions. Because the mourning and repentance should belong to those who betrayed Imam Hussein and refused to support him even after inviting him to continue his resistance. It does not behoove to those who see in the example of Imam Hussein a manifesto for the Ummah to rid itself from all sorts of despots and tyrants in every aspect of life. By and large, Sunnis have remained silent on his martyrdom in general not realizing that he stood for the principles that Allah introduced to the world through his grandfather.  

The tenth of Muharram, thus, is a day of great significance in Muslim history as it is a day when one of the great leaders of the community, Imam Hussein, knowingly and consciously accepted martyrdom for saving the soul of Islam. It could be a day to bring Shias and Sunnis together. Because it is a day of pride when the divine cause was given the priority over one's life and family. This day should be viewed as the day of deliverance.

Both Sunnis and Shias can focus on the message of the Imam and work together to rid their world of all sorts of despotism that have negated the essence of the divine guidance. 

Welcome to the Human-Machine Civilization

From the midst of the modern civilization is emerging yet another set of ideas that would probably exhaust all possible means to reportedly make human beings smarter to the extent of promoting a new scientific world known as human-machine culture.

By the year 2015, as predicted by Ray Kurzwell, one of 18 thinkers chosen by the US National Academy of Engineering to identify the great technological challenges facing humanity in the 21st century, "we will have intelligent nanobots go into our brains through the capillaries, and interact directly with our biological neurons." These nanobots, he concluded, would make us smarter, remember things better and automatically go into full emergent virtual reality environments through the nervous system."

We are on the brink of advances that, many argue, will change the face of the world, in a dramatic fashion, unknown and unseen by anything in the past. We thought the computer was the smartest invention we ever had. The emerging new changes will make every scientific discovery up till now seem primitive.

The idea of placing tiny robots implanted in our brains to give us more intelligence will indeed change the way we think, act and respond, some argue.

However, in realistic terms, those who will design the software for such robotic implantation would essentially control the definition of everything that goes with the word "smart". The software engineers will determine, based on the guidelines given to them by consumer-driven multinational-controlled capitalism, how to interfere with human nature in terms of proposing courses of actions that would serve their interests.

Under this new so-called nanobot technology, we would be virtual slaves to those who will manufacture the best software, something that the rulers of the world were unable to do in the past. We witnessed in our long recorded history several attempts to subjugate human will to the dictates of the most powerful people at the helms of affairs, yet none could even come close to controlling human thinking and actions as this nanobot inventors intend to do.

This will create the ability to make us eat, drink and do what we are told by robotic implanting. We could be thinking about the way we are programmed. But how will that be done?

According to the Quran we believe that human beings are created by the divine with part of the created energy infused in us (Quran; 32:9, 15:29, 38:72, 21:91, 66:12). We believe that God is the one who creates, invents, and designs (40:64,59:24, 64:3). We believe that He is the one who has created us with the faculty of rationality that gives us options to choose between various alternatives available in all aspects of life (3:191). We also believe that in a world that is yet to come, we will be questioned for all our actions in this world as well as in the world hereafter (2:210).

In a nanobot controlled and driven world, rationality would be determined by the investors in the device, alternative actions will be drafted by programmers, and choices will be pushed by competing entrepreneurs and so on so forth.

If our nature is tempered with devices, the whole issue of the existence of the creator would come into question. Many, who have already written an obituary of God, would triumphantly blow the trumpet of their victory, claiming that the human mind has finally been liberated with the biggest and longest superstition it carried for millenniums. But could they really make such a claim and would such a claim be valid?

This brings us back to the question posed earlier: How will this be done? Well, software interacting with our brain cells, may be used to block our diverse thinking capabilities. Even though those cells may still be there, yet their effectiveness may be destroyed or altered as a result of this calculated intervention.

Regardless of what and how it happens, the fact is that those who are working on these technologies are doing so within the framework of mental capacities they are endowed with by God that is the ultimate creator, a creator who created balance in everything including ourselves. The creator reminds us in His revealed wisdom that "He will constantly show us signs in our universe and in ourselves till we come to the conclusion through a manifest reality that the He is the ultimate truth" (Quran 38:53). 

Science has helped us identify, locate and discover signs of God in this universe in our quest to understand the divine creation. Science, through its method of controlled experimentation, has allowed us to conquer our own ignorance in various fields and would continue to do so. Science has made us more efficient and not necessarily smarter. Despite all the discoveries and advancements, we are still subject to our biases in defining our world within a range of limited knowledge that we have.

We are still searching for some direction in our lives, a direction that would help us ensure that the inconsistencies that we have shown in our behavior and attitude in our relations with each other and the universe, are overcome. We still find ourselves at a loss to understand that despite the monumental progress that we have achieved, why do people in our world kill the fellow human beings at a rate of one person every 45 seconds? Why does there occur a rape every ten-seconds in our world? Why do more than one billion people sleep hungry every night despite the fact that the world has enough food to feed the next several generations? Why are there still wars for national supremacy? Why do people commit suicide at the rate of one every 5 minutes? Why do we have so much injustice built into our social structures despite all the unprecedented achievements that we have made over the centuries? Why does the notion of racial, ethnic and cultural superiority still dominate our way of thinking? 

To be a smart person means that that we address these issues on the basis of free choice that we all have been endowed with, we on the basis of ideas that we are exposed to. To be a smart person means that we discover ourselves on our own rather than through some devices that may serve the purpose of those who have always sought to control us for their interests. If the emerging scientific realities help us achieve our independence, we should be the first one to adopt and accept them. However, if they are meant to deprive us of our freedoms and rationality based on our origin, we must not be skeptical about their discoveries or inventions, but about their usefulness to us. We know that things are not static. Change is inbuilt in our universe in terms of learning about new divine signs every day. How to channel this change for our own good and the good of human beings based on an understanding of the self and the universe beyond time and space, is the task that we all face and this task will remain unaccomplished without the divine guidance.