Posted in Uncategorized

Divine Destiny in Islam

Recently in a discussion with a Muslim it became quite apparent to me that I had to do a piece of work on Divine Destiny so that everyone understands it correctly. As we grew up this simple piece has been made extremely complicated by the choice of words people have used, ignorance of the topic, external influences, unqualified linking with other aspects of Islam and worst of all by poets.

Even though Iqbal was not entirely wrong in saying, “Khudi ko ker buland itna ki har tadbeer se phele, Khuda bande se ye puche bata teri raza kya hai” but the language he used is grossly inadequate and will confuse a lay person about destiny. Furthermore, Iqbal was also a poet, and poets do say things that are a gross deviation from the true religion.

Types of Decrees of Divine Destiny

It is a common misunderstanding that there is only one type of decree. There are actually four types of decree divided into two sections according to Ibn Taimiyyah in Al Fatawaa

  1. The first section has the decree that does not change
    1. Divine Decree of everything recorded in Al Lauh Al Mehfuz
  2. The second section has decrees that can and does change
    1. Divine Decree written down before the soul is breathed into the foetus
    2. Divine Decree sent down on Laylat-ul-Qadr (Night of Power)
    3. Divine Decree for everyday

SECTION 1 – The Unchanging Decree

In this section we will try to understand the decree that is written in Al Lauh Al Mahfouz, and have a general discussion on allied topics of why do we need two types of destinies (one amendable and another unamendable), we will tackle the age old question of if destiny is written why am I responsible and we will talk about the two step process of any action that happens.

Ibn Taimiyyah’s Explanation of Types of Decrees in Al Fatawaa

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had said, “Whoever loves that he be granted more wealth and that his lease of life be prolonged then he should keep good relations with his Kith and kin.” Sahih Bukhari (Book of Al Adab, Hadith 15)

Ibn Taimiyyah has explained this in Al Fatawaa in Volume 8. “Provisions and life terms are of two kinds:

  1. The unchanged record written in Ummul Kitaab
  2. That made known to the angels by Allah (these records being subject to increase or decrease). This is why Allah says, “Allah blots out what He wills and confirms (what He wills); and with Him is Ummul Kitaab (the Preserved Tablet).” (Ar Rad, Ayah 39)

In the record books held by angels, both the life span and provisions increase and decrease due to specific reasons. Thus, Allah commands the angel to write the provision and life span of one of His slaves. If the slave enjoins the tie of kinship, Allah commands the angel to increase the slave’s sustenance and life term by specific increments. The angel does not know the actual outcome of extension in the life term, or that related to the increase in provisions. Only He (Allah) knows the outcome.”

Ibn Hajar’s Explanation of Ar Rad’s Ayah in Fath ul Bari

“Allah blots out what He wills and confirms (what He wills); and with Him is Ummul Kitaab (the Preserved Tablet).” (Ar Rad, Ayah 39) For example, to say to the angel that the age of such and such person is hundred years if he joins the tie of his kinship, and sixty years if he severs it. In the foreknowledge of Allah it is known whether he will join or sever the tie of kinship; and whatever is in Allah’s knowledge is not subject to extension or delay. However, the angels knowledge is the one subject to the increase or decrease. This is what is referred to in Allah’s saying: “Allah blots out what He wills and confirms (what He wills); and with Him is Ummul Kitaab (the Preserved Tablet).” Therefore, the blotting and confirming is relevant to the knowledge of the angels, but what is recorded in Ummul Kitaab is relevant to Allah’s knowledge, where there is absolutely no blotting.”

Al-Lauh Al-Mahfuz/Kitab Al Mubeen – The Unchangeable Decree

The first thing to understand is that everything from movement of quarks to collisions of galaxies is recorded in Al-Lauh Al Mahfuz. Qur’an states:

·       And not absent from your Lord is any [part] of an atom’s weight within the earth or within the heaven or [anything] smaller than that or greater but that it is in a clear register. (Yunus, Ayah 61)

·       Indeed, it is We who bring the dead to life and record what they have put forth and what they left behind, and all things We have enumerated in a clear register. (Ya-Seen, Ayah 12)

·       And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them except Him. And He knows what is on the land and in the sea. Not a leaf falls but that He knows it. And no grain is there within the darknesses of the earth and no moist or dry [thing] but that it is [written] in a clear record. (Al Anam, Ayah 59)

This clearly tells us that everything down to the detail of an atom is written in Al-Lauh Al-Mahfuz. It is a futile argument to say that everything is not in ‘The Book’ or that something is missing from it. The second thing to understand is that whatever is Al-Lauh Al Mahfuz will not be changed.

  • No calamity befalls on Earth or in yourselves but it is inscribed in the Book of Decrees before we bring it into existence. (Surah Al Hadeed, Ayah 22)
  • Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say: “Allah wrote down the decrees of creation fifty thousand years before He created the heavens and the earth.” (Sahih Muslim, Vol 4, 6416)
  • Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) has said, “The pens have been lifted and the pages have dried.” (Tirmidhi 2516, similar narration in Ahmed 1/293, Bukhari Vol 7, 13B)

This concludes that whatever has been written down for everything will happen exactly as it has been written. The pens have been lifted and the pages have dried. There is no changing or editing in Al Lauh Al Mehfuz. Al Lauh Al Mehfuz full, first and final version because Allah has recorded everything in it, and because Allah does not err, so there is no need for revisions. If there is change of destiny of someone even that is recorded, for example such and such person had life of this many years, but because of this action of his, his life was increased to this many years. Al Lauh Al Mehfuz is the full, first and final version of whatever is going to happen down to the fate of the tiniest atom.

Knowledge of Ghaib

Only Allah has the knowledge of Ghaib, no one else has it except for whom he chooses to discloseit to, i.e. Messengers. Quran says, “Allah would not leave the believers in that [state] you are in [presently] until He separates the evil from the good. Nor would Allah reveal to you the unseen (Ghaib). But [instead], Allah chooses of His messengers whom He wills, so believe in Allah and His messengers. And if you believe and fear Him, then for you is a great reward. (Al Imran, 179)

Coming from the previous knowledge that everything has been written in Al-Lauh Al Mahfuz, and that it is preserved for no-one to see as explicitly stated in Surah Burooj, Ayah 21-22 “But this is an honored Qur’an. [Inscribed] in a Preserved Slate.”

Putting these together means that Al-Lauh Al Mahfuz contains details of everything even the slightest weight of an atom cannot be changed and none except Allah knows what is written in it. He shares this information with whom He wills. Those with whom He shares this information are a very select group amongst men and angels. Furthermore, even they know an extremely small part of the vast information in Al Lauh Al Mahfuz, the biggest example is that nobody knows when will the day of Qiyamah be. Quran says, “They ask you, [O Muhammad], about the Hour: when is its arrival? Say, “Its knowledge is only with my Lord. None will reveal its time except Him. It lays heavily upon the heavens and the earth. It will not come upon you except unexpectedly.” They ask you as if you are familiar with it. Say, “Its knowledge is only with Allah , but most of the people do not know.” (Al A’raf, 187)

Reason for Explaining Ghaib in Destiny

The reason for discussing Ghaib is to allow us to understand the authority and accesses of decrees of destiny, especially the knowledge of Angels as they are the bearer of three kinds of destiny.

  • Al Lauh Al Mahfuz is only accessed by Allah, it is from His Perfect Knowledge and Allah reveals whatever He wants to reveal and to whomsoever He wants to reveal.
  • The other two other type of records are accessed by Angels, these records are susceptible to changes, and Angels know that whatever they have is susceptible to changes. Among the reason Angels are writing our records is because they do not know what we would do and we do not know what we would do. Only Allah knows what exactly is going to happen and how is that going to happen.

The knowledge of the Angels is limited, they do not know what is going to happen tomorrow, for tomorrow might be the day of Qiyamah, and they would have no knowledge of it. While Allah has full and complete knowledge if tomorrow is indeed the day of Qiyamah.


  • Every single thing is recorded in Al Lauh Al Mehfuz
  • Nothing can be changed of what is written in Al Lauh Al Mehfuz
  • No one has knowledge of what is written in Al Lauh Al Mehfuz, except what Allah has revealed to them.
  • Ultimately, whatever happens is written in Al Lauh Al Mehfuz and it happens exactly as it is written in Al Lauh Al Mehfuz.

The Age Old Question

If everything is already pre-ordained why should I work towards good deeds and restrain myself from sins, I will do whatever is written that I will do, and why should I be held accountable for it?

Dr. Zakir Naik has explains this in best possible manner. He asks us to imagine a school child who doesn’t pay attention in class, is least bothered about what is being taught or what teacher is teaching, is should be writing essays and short biographies but his writing skills are not yet beyond pig and hen. Always up to mischief and generally not good. If the teacher declares that this child will fail the exam, will the child fail because of the fact that teacher announced that he is going to fail, or because the result of child’s exam be dependent on child’s own skills and interest and the decision that child takes in the examination. But remember teacher only knows about one part of his life and knows the nature of the child, hence can only comment on the part she is aware of. But Allah knows even the smallest insignificant detail of a person’s nature, his conscious and sub conscious mind, his habits, attitudes, his reactions, his emotional quotient, his intellectual quotient, everything. Thus, it is possible for Allah to write everything about that person. He has knowledge and ability to write everything that the person will do. However, the person will not perform those actions because they have been written down. But perform them because that is what he wants to do.

When Allah gave freedom to Iblees to drive men away from His path, at the same time, He gave freedom to men to choose between the path of Allah and the path of Iblees. Indeed Allah wants all of us to worship Him alone, which is why He sent messengers to guide us. However, it is not His will to make us follow what He wants us to follow as Quran says:

  • And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed – all of them entirely. (Yunus, Ayah 99)
  • And thus We have made for every prophet an enemy – devils from mankind and jinn, inspiring to one another decorative speech in delusion. But if your Lord had willed, they would not have done it, so leave them and that which they invent. (Al Anam , Ayah 112)
  • To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ. (Al Maidah, 48)

What these Ayahs state is that if Allah had Willed no one would have done anything evil, but then the whole test of life would have been insensible. Hence, Allah has allowed a lot of things to happen which He does not like.

The Will of Allah

Many people get confused because of Quranic statements like this in Surah Takwir, “For whoever wills among you to take a right course. And you do not will except that Allah wills – Lord of the worlds.” (Surah Takwir, Ayah 28-29). I find this verse explained by Abdullah Yusuf Ali among the best, he says, “Allah is The Cherisher of the worlds, Lord of Grace and Mercy, and his guidance is open to all who have the will to profit by it. But that must be exercised in conformity with Allah’s Will (Ayah 29). Such conformity is Islam. Ayah 28 points to human free will and responsibility, Ayah 29 to its limitation. Both extremes, viz. : cast-iron and Determination and an idea of chaotic free will, are condemned.”

Hence, what this verse really means is that there are two things that would make anything happen. The first is our own free will, the second is approval of Allah to perform that action. To understand it with an example, a couple intends to go on Hajj in a certain year (Ayah 28) but Allah has already put a seal on husband’s life a day before they start journey (Ayah 29), hence neither husband nor wife can make to hajj that year. Another example could be that every treasure hunter puts in tremendous will, effort and investment in finding treasure, but Allah has not approved it to be found by him. Hence the treasure hunter fails to locate the treasure, later Allah may give it to someone who may not be even aware of it. Finally our own will is actually optional because there are so many things in which we do not have a will, I call this environmental limitations. By Environment I mean the circumstances that are before us, which were not created by us but we are trapped in them anyway, for example birth is an Environmental Limitation, to whom we would be born, whether our parents would be nice or cocaine addicts is not really our choice, hence our will is only limited to our where we have options to choose from and not all actions.

This two-step process for anything to happen,

  1. Our own will (optional)
  2. Approval/Will of Allah.

And that is why we say “In Sha Allah” meaning “If Allah Wills” or as Christians say, “God Willing”.

Throughout the ages people with limited understanding of destiny have said that their evil deeds are due to Will of Allah, if Allah wanted he could have create different circumstances that would not require them committing their evil deeds. This is a completely false accusation, as explained previously that a man is not forced by Allah to do anything, everything happens because a man willed for it happen and Allah approved it to happen. But Allah’s approval of something happening should not mean that He endorses that action. For example Allah allowed Nazis to exterminate Jews, a truly evil action, here Allah’s approval of Nazis committing atrocities does not mean that Allah has endorsed and approved that action, it merely means that He has allowed it to happen. One can argue that why does he allow it happen, and the answer is Free Will.

Allah has denied that evils of men should be blamed on Him. It is mentioned in Sahih Muslim, in the Book of Prayer, Hadith 1695, “All good is in Your Hands and evil is not attributable to You.” Furthermore Quran vehemently denies it in several places

  • And whatever strikes you of disaster – it is for what your hands have earned; but He pardons much. (As Shurah, Ayah 30)
  • And We did not wrong them, but it was they who were the wrongdoers. (Az Zukhruf, Ayah 76)
  • Indeed, Allah does not wrong the people at all, but it is the people who are wronging themselves. (Yunus, Ayah 44)

SECTION 2 – The Decree that can be changed

Having understood the two basic type of destinies and the need for two types of destinies, in this section we will discuss about the amendable destiny.

Decree before soul is breathed in foetus

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had explained: “(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature’s) deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him. So, a man amongst you may do (good deeds till there is only a cubit between him and Paradise and then what has been written for him decides his behaviour and he starts doing (evil) deeds characteristic of the people of the (Hell) Fire. And similarly a man amongst you may do (evil) deeds till there is only a cubit between him and the (Hell) Fire, and then what has been written for him decides his behaviour, and he starts doing deeds characteristic of the people of Paradise.” Bukhari (Book of Beginning of Creation, Hadith 430) and Muslim (Book of Destiny, Hadith 6390)

Decree on Laytat-ul-Qadr

We know about the Night of Power (Laylat-ul-Qadr) that comes in Ramadhan

  • Indeed, We sent it down during a blessed night. Indeed, We were to warn [mankind]. On that night is made distinct every precise matter. [Every] matter [proceeding] from Us. Indeed, We were to send [a messenger]. (Dukhan, Ayah 3-5)
  • The angels and the Spirit descend therein by permission of their Lord for every matter. (Al Qadr, 4)

It is important to understand that Angels are given details of all matters, that will come from Allah; i.e. those matters on which we do not have any control such as life, death, birth, rainfall, etc.

For the avoidance of doubt, let me clarify the importance of Laylat-ul-Qadr, it is important because those things that are sent down by Allah are those that will create circumstances for the test of life for that year, someone will lose his only son in his ripe old age, while another will be find diamonds while digging a water well. In both of these situations are tests for these two individuals.

The Daily Decree

There is a Sahih Hadith is Sahih Al Haakim in the Book of Tafsir (3,519), Ibn Abbas said, “From the things that Allah, the Most High, created Al Lauk Al Mahfuz. It was created from a white pearl and its cover are red rubies. Its pen is light and its book is light. Everyday, Allah looks at it 360 times. In each of these times, He creates, provides, gives life, ordains death, gives honour, and degrades and does as He wishes. So that is the meaning of His saying, “Everyday He is engaged in some matter” (Surah Rahmaan, Ayah 29)” Furthermore it is mentioned in Surah Rad and has been explained previously, “And We have already sent messengers before you and assigned to them wives and descendants. And it was not for a messenger to come with a sign except by permission of Allah. For every term is a decree. Allah eliminates what He wills or confirms, and with Him is the Mother of the Book. (Surah Ar Rad, Ayah 38-39)


From the above discussion we can conclude:

  1. There are two types of decrees one that cannot be changed, and another that can be changed.
  2. Al Lauh Al Mehfuz is the full, first and final version of destiny, because Allah has recorded everything in it. And, because Allah does not err, hence there is no need to revise it.
  3. Allah alone has full knowledge of Al Louh Al Mahfuz, He has revealed only some part of it to us. If anyone other than Allah knew all of it, it would break the principle of Ghaib as He would know everything as well.
  4. Angels are primarily aware of that part of destiny that people are able to change, thus no one knows the fate for sure, protecting the principle of Ghaib.
  5. A person is responsible for his own deeds.
  6. Action or deed have a two-step process
    1. Step 1 – Will of the Person (Optional)
    2. Step 2 – Approval/Will of Allah
  7. No evil can be attributable to Allah, because desire to do evil is of the person who intends to do it,      Allah only approves or disapproves it to happen.

Since we started with Iqbal, we will go back to what wrote, and try to understand his poetry “Khudi ko ker buland itna ki har tadbeer se phele; Khuda bande se ye puche bata teri raza kya hai” It is quite clear that what he is referring to is the changeable taqdeer, however because he says ‘Khuda bande se ye pooche’, it implies that all kinds of Decrees can be changed. As we have now seen that certainly is not the case. As whatever is written in Al Lauh Al Mehfuz is the full, first and final version of whatever is to happen.

Above all, we must not start learning our Deen from poetry. One should learn Islam from the Qur’an and Sunnah. If one were to start looking into poetry for guidance, one would be completely lost as a lot of poetry includes grievous misguidance even shirk. These are a few examples:

Jis rang mein dekho vo parda nashin hai, aur uspe yeh ki parda hi nahin hai; mujh se koee puchche tere milne ki adaayen, duniya to kehti hai ki mumkin hi nahin hai – Jigar (implies that Allah often visits Jigar and Jigar has seen Him, while Quran says that no eye can grasp Him (Al Anam, Ayah 103)

Zahid peene de sharab masjid mein baithkar; ya phir voh jagah bata de jahan Khuda na ho – Daagh {this implies that Allah is Omnipresent, which is wrong as Allah has established Himself on the Throne (Sajdah, Ayah 4)}

Vaaiz na tum peeyo, na kisi ko pila sako; kya baat hai tumhari sharab-e-tahoor ki – Ghalib (makes fun of a blessing in Paradise)

Posted in Uncategorized

Kashmiris; Insurgents, Militants or Terrorists?

Before we can start to answer this question, we need to understand what do they mean. I have decided to rely on etymology and linguistic meaning as they are probably the best source to describe them. Next to find out what these adjectives mean we would have to look at the meaning of noun that these adjectives stand for, ie meanings of terrorism, militancy and insurgency.

Insurgency: An active revolt or uprising. The word finds its root in French where adjective is better way to look for etymological meaning, ‘in’ means ‘against’, and ‘surgere’ means ‘to rise’, ie someone who rises against something, it does not matter whether that is violent or non violent.

Militancy: The use of confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause. The word finds its root in French where the word militant it means who is engaged fighting or warfare. Hence anyone who fights or has confrontational attitude in support for a political and social cause could be classified as militant.

Terrorism: The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. The word finds its roots in French Revolution and Reign of Terror. This is far simplistic view of French Revolution, but after French Revolution power fell into hands of Jacobins led by Robespierre. Jacobins believed that France was surrounded by enemies all around and these enemies were working with traitors inside the country, trying to overturn Revolution. For traitors there was no court, no judges, no hearing of accused, their name on the list was enough to take them guillotine. Everyone was scared because every other day a new list would come out with names of new traitors. Soon names of several Jacobins started to feature in the list who ended up on guillotine. One day Robespierre announced he has a new list of traitors who would be dealt with. Everybody, including Jacobins were terrified as anyone could be on the list and they decided that instead of living in this fear they would rather kill Robespierre and end Reign of Terror. So that is what they did. This is what terrorism is, it is a situation where a civilian is terrified of his future, he fears the violence that could befall him or his loved ones for nothing that he has done.

Having understood the meaning of what these words means let us apply them in Kashmir situation…

Insurgents: YES, many or even most Kashmiris are insurgents, because they have risen up against India, they don’t want to be part of India. This is an indisputable fact covered even by international media that a mob rushes to save a militant during an encounter with Indian Forces speaks a lot.

Militants: YES, Kashmiris are fighting Indian State with arms and munition, so it is beyond dispute that they are militants.

Terrorist: NO because unlike Jacobin rule of France, no one in India is afraid to step out of his home, no one feels scared that he is going to die because a Kashmiri militant is going to plant a bomb or fire indiscriminately into a crowd. Hence I strongly contest calling Kashmiri militants as terrorists. In fact till 2001 WTC Attacks never had anyone called Kashmiris terrorist, they called them Militants. It was only after 2001 did Indian Army and other Government agencies started calling Kashmiris terrorists to discredit the insurgency.
Primary target of Kashmiri militants is government agents and agencies, not civilians. What terrorists do is quite different their primary target are civilians, terrorists fly airplanes into buildings (New York), terrorists fire indiscriminately at crowds (Bombay), terrorists get into schools and kill children (Peshawar), terrorists release poisonous gas in closed spaces (Japan), terrorists bomb and destroy city centres (Manchester), etc. Kashmiri militants do none of that, hence the only conclusion is Kashmiris are not terrorists. Government of India calls them terrorists because it suits her narrative in discrediting the insurgency movement, but their is no shred of truth in it. Had Kashmiris been terrorists they would have bombed railway stations, fired live rounds indiscriminately in a market, released poisonous gas in cinema halls in Delhi, Bhopal, Lucknow, Calcutta and other places. However they have not done nothing like that, hence it is absolutely wrong to call them terrorists. 
And for those who want to shout Kashmiri Pandits, Yes an injustice was done to them, and yes they were terrorised and thrown out. But that was 30 years ago, today no one has reports militants threatening Pandits who have gone back and settled. So calling insurgents of today as terrorists is completely and utterly wrong. As for News Anchor Nationalists that don TV screens every night would do Pandits living in the valley a little favour if they toned down their hateful rhetoric against Kashmiris.

Posted in Uncategorized

Assam, NRC and myth of Bangladeshi immigration

 It is without doubt the whole process of NRC run by BJP/RSS Government is to disenfranchise Indian Muslims from Assam of their Citizenship and hence voting rights. That is the objective of the exercise irrespective of what the government says. The Prime Minister and his accomplices are well established liars, no further proof is necessary. And in a country where Prime Minister Mr. Modi can not prove his educational qualifications and his stooges present a degree in “Entire Political Science” and his mark sheets keep jumping from typed to handwritten, in such a country they expect poor uneducated people to have documents almost 40 years old to prove their citizenship. This is truly pathetic. My own opinion as I have expressed several times is that I do not believe in borders, and I am open to migration of people irrespective of their cause or religion.

Coming back to topic, instead of Assam let us start with Tripura, another state that borders Bangladesh, a border three times lengthier than Assam’s. Assam’s border with Bangladesh is only 262km long, while  Tripura’s border with Bangladesh is 856km. A huge stretch of India Bangladesh border in Assam runs through Bhramputra, which makes it even smaller. The case I am making for is that if people wanted to come from Bangladesh to India they would come to Tripura rather than Assam, sheerly because the Tripura Border is much easier and lengthier to cross than Assam’s.

The Big Table

Tripura has a declining Muslim Population

The 1951 Census has the Religious Population of Tripura had 75.2% Hindus and 21.4% Muslims, by 2011 the percentage of Muslim population in Tripura had fallen to 8.6%, a drop of almost 60%. So the question that needs to be asked is that why has Muslim share of population fallen so much after 1951. Remember the population exchange happened in 1947, and not after 1951. So, I asked my father who was an officer in BSF and spent later 60s, all of 70s to early 80s in the North East. He said that even after independence the borders were so porous that population exchange kept happening, Muslims kept leaving India and Hindus kept coming here. The conclusion is contrary to what BJP-RSS tells us. So it is far more likely that people coming to Assam from Bangladesh are more likely to be Hindus than Muslims, just like Tripura.

Considering Assam & India

The 1951 Census had 24.9% Muslims in Assam. In short there was already a sizeable Muslim population. By 2011 this had grown to 34.2% of the population, which means that Muslim share of population in Assam had grown by 37.3%, but comparing it to all India levels, we still see a decline. In India in 1951, Muslims used to be 9.8% of the population, while in 2011 they made 14.2%. An increase in share of population by 45.2%. Now compare this to Assam’s 37.3%. Assam actually has seen lesser growth in relative population than rest of India, ie the Muslim share of population has grown far more in rest of India than Assam. If Assam has seen lesser relative population share growth, clearly it is Hindus who are indeed coming from Bangladesh than Muslims.


Apart from the fact that NRC is a disaster from Human Rights perspective and the basic rules of justice and fair play it is also indulged in high class propaganda of hatred, bigotry and injustice. Looking at the data from these two censuses of these two states it is concluded that it is Bangladeshi Hindus who are migrating to India and not Bangladeshi Muslims. Calling anybody ‘termites’ is deplorable, be it Hindu or Muslim, but small men can not understand that. I hate the idea of looking at migrants from the angle of religion, but this whole exercise is based around victimising adherents of one religion, Islam. Hence this comparison , albeit unethical and immoral needed to be done.

Posted in Uncategorized

Islam for Dummies

Allah: Allah is the personal name of God Almighty. Open a Arabic Jewish/Christian Bible (see Genesis Chapter 1) and you will see Allah (الله‎) written everywhere instead of God Almighty. Allah is defined in Quran as someone who is Unique, someone who has power over all things, someone who does not depend upon anyone for anything, someone who has neither ascendants or descendants, no one is like Him and neither He nor His attributes can not be imagined, if you can imagine any aspect of Him, that is not Allah. Example, Allah says of His Mercy that He sent only 1 part on Earth and kept 99 parts with Him for the Day of Ressurection. This one part is responsible for mercy even animals show to each other. So, to imagine His Mercy you have to divided into all days life has survived and will survive on earth and then distribute that it to all animals and humans that ever existed and will come to exist. Since this is an unimaginable task, His Mercy is unimaginable. Anyone who fits this description will be considered Allah by Muslims, even if that diety is called by some other name, like God Almighty, Elohim, Parmatma, Wahe Guru etc.

Start/ Origin: No. It did not start with Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, it ended with him. Prophet Muhammad ﷺ  was the last Prophet of Islam, not first. Islam started with the first man Adam (peace be upon him) , who was the first Prophet of Islam. Between Adam and Muhammad 124,000 Prophets came to each nation at various times. All Prophets were sent for their people for their time alone. Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was the last Prophet hence his message is for all humanity and till the end of time.

Whose Religion are Muslims in: Muslims are in Religion of Abraham (Peace be upon him), Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was also in.

Religion: Religion of every Prophet was Monotheism. All monotheistic religions before Prophet Muhammad ﷺ were all in this religion. The religion has always been one, but its practices and laws were not necessarily the same, it could be different for each Prophet. Think of it like a constitution in a country that has a permanent structure that can’t be changed everything other clause can be changed. The basic structure of the religion was Monotheism, Truth and Justice, etc and was taught by all its 124,000 prophets. The changeable clauses were, how to pray, whether to pray once in a week or five times in a day, what kind of foods are they allowed to eat or not; such smaller issues of constitution could be different for each prophet. To us Muslims, the faith of Prophet Abraham, Moses, Jesus and all other 124k Prophets was Islam, they were all Muslims. But because of the difference in their laws and practice it gives an illusion that they were of different religions..

Monotheism, The True Religion: There is only one true God, Worship Him Alone, Seek Help from Him Only. He is called by many names, His Personal name is Allah, although that is not His Only name. The One True God’s definition is given in Quran and anyone fulfilling this criteria is Allah to Muslims, “Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He  begotten; And there is none like unto Him.” In simple one, He has to be unique and unimaginable, if the diety can be imagined, it is no God. Who qualifies this criteria, Allah, Elohim, God Almighty, Parmatma, Wahe Guru, etc. Those who do not qualify Jesus, Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Muhammad ﷺ, Adam etc.

Sources of Islam: When debating Islam this is what you should be quoting from 
1. Quran: The verbatim word of God. 
2. Hadith: Saying and Actions of Prophets, divided into several sections from Sahih (authentic) to Hassan (Good) to Doubtful (Daef) or Fabricated (Mouzu). Several sections in each type of Hadith as well. The six usually agreed books of authentic Hadith of Sunnis are Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, An Nasai, At Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah.

5 Pillars: Witness/Creed, Ritual Prayer, Fasting, Charity, Pilgrimage. Witness/Creed is, “There is no God except Allah (God Almighty), and Muhammad is His Slave and Messenger” ﷺ. Ritual Prayer to be done 5 times in a day. Fasting for 30 days for a full month of Hijri Calendar (Ramazaan). Charity, 2.5% of all your savings belong to poor, give it away. Pilgrimage, to Makkah once in life if you are eligible for it (eligibility is one having means to do it).

Mosque: Central to Islam as Ritual Prayer must be offered in congregation, the place where this congregation happens is called Masjid. People are called to prayer by a person getting on the Minaret of Masjid and asking people to come for the ritual prayer. It could also be place of gathering, living, a sarai (travelers accommodation), eating, feasting, etc.

Outlook on People of Other Religions: Quran says that no religion is acceptable in eye of God Almighty except Islam, however this is not without a caveat. Quran also says that Allah can forgive anything except Polytheism. Islam has several categories of peoples based on religions they follow
1. People of the Book, Books like Pentateuch, Pslam and Gospel: Jews & Christians. 
2. Monotheists: All other Monotheistic faiths apart from Judaism and Christianity.
3. Polytheists, Atheists and Antitheists

Hell: Hugely debated topic, two scholars Ibn Taimiyyah and Ibn Arabee, never agreed on almost anything except that there would be a day when Hell would be locked and its fires extinguished. Majority of classical scholars do not believe this. Anyone telling you that this has been settled is lying. Deep arguments about Quran and Islamic philosophy with loads at stake.

Paradise: Wow!

Jihad: strive to improve oneself. Often wrongly used in conjunction with Qital (blood letting). Qital is only a small part of Jihad. Several complicated rules are there for Qital, and it is impossible to justify killing of non combatants, innocent men, women, children and old people. This book counters every possible reason given by nut-heads to justify why they are killing innocents.

Ghazwa-e-Hind: Authenticity seriously doubtful. Clue 1. Ghazwa refers to battles that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ Himself participated, Prophet ﷺ died in Medina over 1400 years ago. so if he did not conquer India then he is never going to do it. Clue 2. Western India was Conquered in 7th century, Delhi Sultanate was established in 11th Century. Almost all scholars agree that this is a reference to past not future. 3. People with Political Interests use it forward their political goals. 4. Most Muslims do not know the difference between Jung and Ghazwa.

Posted in Uncategorized

Terrorists and Nutters with Arms

Rebels, Nutters and Murderers have always existed in the world, and always will. It doesn’t matter if they are Anders Behring Breivik or Seung-Hui Cho or Omar Ismaël Mostefai, they could be Black or White, Asian or Caucasian, Arab or Oriental, Christian or Hindu or Muslim or anyone else. Nutters and crackpots are everywhere, but historically they were not a problem like they are today. So what has changed? What is the difference between the nutters and murderers of yesteryears and today? The only difference is the arms they use when they do their terrorist activity.

I think the first massacre by a civilian, without any military or police involvement was the massacre conducted by Andrew Kehoe. Commonly known as Bath School Disaster of 1927, a man seeking revenge from a community who voted him out of office led to series of explosions killing several students and teachers. This was the defining moment in the history, where a single disgruntled person could kill scores of people. But nobody saw where the world was going. Historically, it would have not been impossible for Kehoe to do this, because killing 45 people and injuring 58 others with a sword or knife is impossible, one would get tired because people will fight back. Even with a Musket it was impossible, think of Andrew Kehoe deciding to go to a market to commit an atrocity with a Musket. He would shoot, put the Musket on the ground, clean the barrel, load the bullet, put the gunpowder in, hold it in postion, aim and then take another shot, it is impossible to carry out a mass murder with a Musket. But bombs made it easy, think of it this way, had Andrew Kehoe had used a Musket or sword how many  could he have killed and how many could he have injured?

But the wars didn’t stop, neither did the weapons development. We invented several types of bombs and explosives, several new types of guns, by 1945 we had invented and exploded atomic bomb on civilians. Then came 1947, Klashnikov came to market, 100 million+ of AK-47s have been sold in the world, sold from Alaska to Australia, in Sudan a version of AK47 sold for children to operate is sold in black market for less than US$50. We have around 875 Million guns in the world. Roughly for every seventh person in the world we have a gun. US has 90 guns per 100 Americans followed by Yemen, 67 guns per 100 Yemenis.

At this juncture I recall statement of a famous dacoit Phoolan Devi, she had said, “If you kill one, you will be called a murderer, but if you kill dozen you will be called rebel.” The reason for quoting Phoolan Devi is that all sorts of criminals understand that one needs to kill a lot of people to get their message across and terrorise the intended audience, and truly after killing two dozen men in one night, she became a terror. Now, the terrorists, nutters, murderers and every weirdo of every kind who wouldn’t have killed anyone because the sheer impact of their dastardly act would not have made a dime’s difference to their cause. They can now kill hundreds and their act would make a difference it would matter.

And on top of this there are several in the world who wants to give out more weapons to more people. Excellent, Please make more weapons so more people can be murdered. Invent new weapons so it becomes more easier to kill even far greater number of people. Total arms trade in the world is US $1.5 trillion and charity is less than US $0.1 trillion. Heil Humanity!!!!

With new, better and easier to operate guns it suddenly became easy to kill. Nutters and Murderers are not supposed to have guns, but we have given it to them….

Posted in Uncategorized

Nationalism – Vile and Violent


“It is the aspect of a whole people as an organized power. This organization incessantly keeps up the insistence of the population on becoming strong and efficient.” said Rabindranath Tagore, however my favourite definition of a nation is by William R. Inge “A nation is a society united by a delusion about its ancestry and by common hatred of its neighbours.”

Patriotism and Nationalism
Patriotism and Nationalism were often used synonymously, around middle of last century people started defining both of those differently. One (patriotism) being a positive trait and the other (nationalism) being a negative trait. Hence when I quote certain people who lived before middle of last century, they would use the word patriot which if used today would certainly refer to a nationalist. 

So let us try to understand the difference between patriotism and nationalism, starting with George Orwell, “Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.” The author and journalist Sydney J. Harris, differentiated between the two as, “The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war.” Or as Tagore defined “Nationalism is the training of a whole people for a narrow ideal; and when it gets hold of their minds it is sure to lead them to moral degeneracy and intellectual blindness.” Charles de Gaulle distinguished them as, “Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” But, my personal favourite definition of nationalism is by a  British bureaucrat Geoff Mulgan, “All of nationalism can be understood as a kind of collective narcissism.”

Keeping the definitions above in mind we can easily figure out the nationalists and patriots among ourselves by looking at our attitude towards our neighbouring states. That is why I believe that EU is a dream project and must be kept and maintained at every cost, London is the second largest French city, this was unimaginable before EU. What worries me is that today in India, we can easily see the narrow ideal that Tagore referred to in form of Modi led BJP government. Award Winning author Miguel Syjuco said, “I don’t believe in nationalism. I think it’s a bunch of slogans. It’s a bunch of poor attempts at creating pride. My problem with nationalism is that it becomes exclusionary. We start to exclude people.” Today, in India several leaders, parliamentarians and even members of cabinet are making exclusionary statements, giving out certificates on allegiance to India to their fellow citizens, asking for dead women of a particular community to be dug from graves and then raped.

I have never had a problem with Patriotism, as I am a patriot myself. Of course everyone loves the place he was born, the language he speaks, the culture and traditions he follows, my problem is with the nationalists. I think they are proud, vile, violent (physically or verbally), they do not have any respect for others or their feelings, no sense of reason, logic, justice and fair play, their conversations are usually rants devoid of any bit of intelligence, they are abusive and generally don’t know how to behave like decent humans.

Who is a Nationalist?
George Bernard Shaw had said, “Patriotism (Nationalism) is, fundamentally, a conviction that a particular country is the best in the world because you were born in it….” Arthur Schopenhauer explained a nationalist as “Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.” Voltaire expounded him as, “So it is the human condition that to wish for the greatness of one’s fatherland is to wish evil to one’s neighbours.” He later expanded this further, “It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot (nationalist) one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind.” Pascal saw the stupidity in being a nationalist, “Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarrelled with him?”

All nationalists are complete and utter hypocrites as George Orwell correctly described them, “All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side . . . The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them” Whatever, your own country has done is fine, but when the other country does the same thing, it is despicable, the mentality that eminent historian Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius described as “Our side has agents. Their side has spies.” 

And the hate nationalists are filled with for other humans on account of the other human being born somewhere else is inhumane if not outright sickening. Nationalists on two sides that hate each other without realising that a few minutes after birth, someone else decided their names, nationalities, religions and sects. And then taught them to spend rest of life defending something they did not choose in the first place. Of course such corrupted minds are not in intelligentsia as Von Goethe had described “National hatred is something peculiar. You will always find it strongest and most violent where there is the lowest degree of culture.” But, unfortunately the world’s largest democracy is being ruled by lowest degree of culture, hearing the rude and ill mannered responses many ministers give. And, when they can’t defend their own policies they say something to the tune of that soldiers are dying on border and you are complaining about this. It has become the butt of many jokes in circulation, one I read recently goes like this, a husband complained to the wife that there was too much salt in the curry, to which wife replied that our soldiers are dying on border and you are complaining about salt, after few days the wife complains that the husband didn’t get her any gift from his trip to London, to which the husband replied that the wife had never thought about wife of a soldier who froze to death. Samuel Johnson was completely right when he said, “Patriotism (Nationalism) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” And indeed, all nationalists are scoundrels of one level or another.

Usually, people are not born nationalists, they are programmed or manufactured, rarely by parents. Professor Benedict Anderson blames it on the media, “Print language is what invents nationalism, not a particular language per se”. And, often nation states themselves promote it, as author and human rights activist Byrant McGill puts it, “Nationalism as we know it, is the result of a form of state-sponsored branding.”

What Nationalism leads to….
Nobody in Europe doubts that Nationalism was one of the big reasons for the First World War and the biggest reason for the Second World War. Many who lived during those wars abhorred it, “Patriotism (Nationalism) is the virtue of the vicious” said Oscar Wilde. Einstein regarded nationalism as infantile and measles (measles was a deadly disease then), he said that, “Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism (nationalism) – how passionately I hate them!” Eminent Social Psychologist, Prof. Michael Billig has an advice for us, “If the future remains uncertain, we know the past history of nationalism. And that should be sufficient to encourage a habit of watchful suspicion.”

I have hope, as people change, Rabindranath Tagore was born in a family of nation worshippers and himself was one but he saw the inhumanity in nationalists and nationalism and became one of the most vehement opposers of nationalism, “Even though from childhood I had been taught that the idolatry of Nation is almost better than reverence for God and humanity. I believe I have outgrown that teaching, and it is my conviction that my countrymen will gain truly their India by fighting against that education which teaches them that a country is greater than the ideals of humanity.” Recently, while reading an article on Tagore’s view on nationalism the writer summarised Tagore’s views on nationalism as follows, “Tagore took the view that nationalism was only an “organisation of politics and commerce” (Nationalism 7), that brings “harvests of wealth” (Nationalism 5), or “carnivals of materialism” (Soares 113), by spreading tentacles of greed, selfishness, power and prosperity, or churning up the baser instincts of mankind, and sacrificing in the process “the moral man, the complete man . . . to make room  for the political and commercial man, the man of limited purpose” (Nationalism 9). Nationalism, according to Tagore, is not “a spontaneous self-expression of man as social being,” where human relationships are naturally regulated, “so that men can develop ideals of life in co-operation with one another” (Nationalism 5), but rather a political and commercial union of a group of people, in which they congregate to maximise their profit, progress and power; it is “the organised self-interest of a people, where it is least human and least spiritual” (Nationalism 8). Tagore deemed nationalism a recurrent threat to humanity, because with its propensity for the material and the rational, it trampled over the human spirit and human emotion; it upset man’s moral balance, “obscuring his human side under the shadow of soul-less organisation” (Nationalism 9).”

Finally this is any excellent piece of work on Nationalism done by New York Times…

Posted in Who Am I

I, Nation, Nation-State and Countries

This is my first blog hence most people do not know me. But those who know me know that I do not believe in countries, in fact I loathe the concept of countries. As I finalise shape of my thoughts on Nations, Nation-States and Countries, I thought it would be a good idea to write and express them. But, before moving ahead let me define each of these entities as many people will use them interchangeably without realising the difference between them.

Although used interchangeably for Nation-State and Country, a nation essentially is a group of people of shared background or history or ancestry or idea but essentially they do not form a political entity or governance nor it is necessary for them to live together as they could be spread throughout the world. To me, the core idea to a nation is ‘people’, no one assigns a nation to a person. People assign themselves to a nation. Lack of central authority means no one has any authority to throw anyone out of a nation nor has power to force someone to join a nation. It is very personal choice dependent affiliation (exceptions are there, like race, I can think and act like Anglo-Saxons but I will never be an Anglo-Saxon). So, I think some examples would be appropriate at this juncture I would say that there is a Parsi Nation (based on religion), a Kurdish Nation (based on race) or a Communist Nation (based on an idea of economy). I certainly believe in nations as they provide you a comfort group, a sense of belonging, a sense of calling someone your own. The idea of belonging to a nation has a lot to do with your identity and I will discuss this later.

When a nation, especially those who are united though race, religion, language, culture, traditions or history becomes a political entity controlling land with army to defend it, has its own law and governance they become nation state. Here the crucial thing is controlling the land that is perceived to belong to a nation. And, with land comes power and urge to dominate, example are of several linguistic and race dominated countries dotting the landscape of earth, Bangladesh (a linguist Nation-State), Albania (racial Nation-States). I must say that I have sympathy for Nation-States because I think that they have some legitimacy for their existence, they are uniting people by something natural and intrinsic in humans like language, religion, culture or traditions. Technically I approve of Nation-States, but Nation-States will remain an object of my rejection and rebuke because Nation-States almost always act like countries and not Nation-States. Practically, Nation-States are just as bad as countries if not worse. For example there are active succession movements in both Bangladesh and Albania and instead of acting as a Nation-State and letting the Non-Nations (ie minorities) go these Nation-States are holding on to them like Countries, holding on to their lands and populations and not allowing succession. The Nation-State is usually termed wrongly as Nation. Nationalism which derives it etymology from Nation arrives from this misnomer of calling Nation-State a Nation. Nationalism has nothing to do with Nation, but it has everything to do with the Nation-State.

They are usually defined as an area of land with its own government, army, law, structure of governance  etc. Basically country is a ruthless idea where land, control and power are supreme and the idea of people united through a natural order of race, culture, language, heritage are not. Of course people form the back bone of the countries as well, but primary occupation of countries is exercising control over its people and increasing their power within their land borders if not expanding it. This control and power is irrespective whether people within those land borders want to remain in that country or not. China, Spain and India among several others are among those countries whose land borders will move as soon as a binding referendum for independence is announced, China will lose Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet, Spain will lose Catalan and Basque and India will be completely Balkanised. I do not think any country in the world has any legitimacy to exist, and I think all of them should be broken up into Nation-State to provide them some legitimacy to exist. Most are also unnatural entities which will eventually split up forming natural borders of Nation-States as time weakens their Central Authority. The reason they are unnatural is because there is a very small connection between its populations, for example Pakistan and Bangladesh separated, although they were joined by religion, but they were divided by language and culture.

Then there are superstructures like European Union and I like the idea of such Unions because what it does is it tries to create super citizens and global citizens. The outlook of these people is very much global and humane and not restricted to their own intrinsic view of the single islands of Nation-States or Countries, many citizens of these are well travelled and have far more respect for other cultures and people than those who have grown in a single island Nation-State or Country. The idea is that those people who want to live together should be allowed to together and those who don’t want to live together must be allowed to leave along with their land and resources. I wish India was a Superstructure  with independent or at least autonomous Nation-States.

The Reason Nation-States and Countries are same
Now, because Nation-States and Countries essentially act in the same way I am going to call them countries because the difference between them is legitimacy of existence, while Nation-States have some legitimacy for existence, Countries have none. And whatever legitimacy that the Nation-States had of existence they have lost it because they do not have a process for succession when a minority nation living amongst themselves want to leave, like Jumma people of Bangladesh who do not speak Bengali and Greek population of Albania.

Countries and Nation-States as ideas of Domination and Hate
Rabindranath Tagore holds unique title of being the only person in the world to pen National Anthems of two countries had said, “I am not against one country in particular, but against the general idea of all countries.” He defined a countries as “It is the aspect of a whole people as an organized power. This organization incessantly keeps up the insistence of the population on becoming strong and efficient.” One of the countries he penned his national anthem was India, India went on to prove his definition is as  accurate as it can be. When Indian constitution was written, members of parliament swore to ‘interest of  India’. Hence, historically if someone wanted to support a secessionist movement he could argue that it is not in interest of India to have these people with us because they don’t want to be with us. But, this argument is dead now, in 1969, the Indian Parliament passed the 16th amendment which changes the pledge of Parliamentarians from ‘interest of India’ to ‘sovereignty and integrity of India’ closing the door to even discussing secessionism in Indian Parliament. If anyone wants to discuss secessionism they would be breaking their oaths and processes to shut them up will come into action. This amendment lived up to the definition given by Tagore, ‘This organization incessantly keeps up the insistence of the population on becoming strong and efficient’. The basic idea is that those who don’t want to live together should be allowed to secede, and those who want to live together should be doing, there should be no forcing your will on another nation.

The problem with Countries is that they are basically ideas of hate, hatred for neighbours, hatred for strangers, hatred for anyone who disagrees with you inside your own country and a special hatred for those who want to secede from your country. Most countries actively promote Nationalism which is one of the vilest ideas ever, the idea of Nationalism has dragged humanity through several wars and unspeakable acts of violence and cruelty. Most of them, at one level or another are anti-human. The really nasty ones that make nuclear bombs and make or use personal land mines, when victims of both of these are almost always civilians, while children make the largest victim group of land mines.

My Nation
This is tricky to answer. This is a case of several identities that is being continuously changing, because belonging to a nation is so intermingled with the identity of a person. Hence I think it has to go down to how people identify themselves, and once they do that, they can assign themselves nations. In spite of the problem with identity and nation what I am certain about is that I reject being belonging to a Nation-State or a Country, primarily because I belong to many. For all practical purposes, I have to remain a citizen or a national, but that is out of compulsion not choice. So let us review my identities because those will guide me to nations I belong to:

1. Humans: I am first and foremost a human. Humans are far more valuable to me than anything else. To me giving money to an animal charity while humans are suffering is a crime. If I came to know that killing every Canidae will save humans from a deadly virus, I will kill all Canidae irrespective of whether the Canidae is suffering from the virus or not. I will feel bad about it, but it won’t change my decision, because human life is the most important thing. Human life in inviolable except that human has committed an extremely serious crime which allows to be punishable by death.

2. My Religious Identity: Undoubtedly I belong to Islam. As a Muslim the most basic principles of my life are governed by Islam, the most basic values and mannerisms are influenced by Islam, I am definitely a member of nation of Muslims. This however raises an important question to answer. Because, Islam is not just a religion, it also demands rules and laws of its own to follow, hence in short Islam wants to become a Nation-State. My argument is, the last time Islam was a Nation-State was during the time of Hazrat Umar, infact it died when Hazrat Umar was stabbed and Muslims have not behaved like Nation-State since then. We have slaughtered each other, discriminated against each other, looted each other, forced each other things to do that are forbidden in Islam and what not. The fact that Bangladesh went away from Pakistan in less than 20 years and United Arab Republic could not stay together for even 3 years shows how weak as a Nation we are. We must keep the idea of have one Islamic Nation on the back burner till Mahdi or Christ comes back, because any idea to implement that could lead  up to the slaughter as seen in Bangladesh.

3. My Cultural and Linguistic Nation: Doab (of Ganga-Yamuna) and Urdu. Most people from this region are the ones I think I would be most comfortable with and would spend most of my time with as they understand me, my language, have many similar habits and value system. In Urdu speakers I include people who speak Hindustani and Non Sanskritised version of Hindi as well, basically anyone in the world who speaks Urdu or Hindustani or Non Sanskritised version of Hindi as their first language (Non Sanskritised version of Hindi is the Hindi in which Bachchan and Neeraj wrote, not Indian Government Spokesperson who speak Hindi that I can’t understand). These people belongs to my nation irrespective of whether they live in Hapur, Delhi, Lucknow, Hyderabad, Karachi or London. This is one of the biggest reason why I reject countries, because if I am stuck at airport for night with someone from Karachi and someone from Mizoram, who do you think I would most likely end up talking to, obviously to Urdu speaking person from Karachi. Mizos are as strange to me as Peruvians, like Peruvians I have never met a Mizo in my life, although they belong to the same country I come from, India.

4. My genetic identity: Being born in a family of Pathans. I am a Pathan, hence all Pathans are my brothers irrespective of whether they live in Kabul, Peshawar or Khurja.

5. My identity of Political and Social IdentityI am a Londoner, I like the way so many different people from so many different places from around the world live here. And I really like the idea that overwhelming majority of Londoners are not racist narrow minded bigots, but large hearted compassionate individuals, I am more socially like a Londoner than any other area I know of. Next undoubtedly I am a European of EU, because a lot of my ideas are influenced by the ideas of European Union, and I am a fan of Guy Verhofstadt. I love the way that European Union works, like a controlled democracy where populist majority cannot exercise its will without restraint. I think of direct democracy as stupidest idea ever, Brexit happened because 51% of idiots thought Britain would be better off outside Europe. Resulting in British Government making that a law, tomorrow if majority vote on 2+2=5, would we have to agree to that? Hence, democracy needs to be controlled and have some other supervision. I love EU because it promotes tolerance and wants people to be exposed to other people, languages and culture. And, it is completely opposed to Nationalism. I am definitely a European from the perspective of how I view the world and how I think it several processes should be run in the world.

6. Being Indian: The identity I concealBeing an Indian is an identity I conceal. Because, the Indian I am is not the country of India whose capital is New Delhi, but a culture and tradition called India that spreads from Baluchistan to Assam, from Gilgit to Maldives. I don’t use India as my identity because people associate it with a country, and I don’t want that tag on me. I don’t believe in countries like India, Pakistan, Russia, China etc., just like I don’t believe in Nation-States like Ireland, Thailand, Poland, Deutschland, Afghanistan, Turkey, Tajikistan or Turkmenistan.

Finally: My Idea of India

The India I want to belong to is an India that is cultural and historical concept. I believe that all SAARC nations should come together to form a super structure like EU. This would be my India. Although my India would be something like RSS’s Akhand Bharat in land mass but that is where similarities between my India and RSS’s Akhnad Bharat end. My India would not force anyone to stay in its Union when they don’t want to stay in. The power should be decentralised from Centre and sent to States like in EU. In other words I want this Union to be similar to European Union. And it is very important that many things are changed for example I want both Punjabs and Bengals to be united, because they are one people with same linguistic and cultural background. I also want the states within states to be able to form their own identity, like demand for Vidharba, Gorkhaland or Chittagong Hills. There should be a mechanism to facilitate that. If some states want to form a sort of Union for closer collaboration and work like one nation they should be able to do it, for example Southern States of India forming a Dravidstan.

Posted in Uncategorized

Seven Deleted Posts

Some of my earliest posts got deleted by mistake and by the time I realised it was too late. Anyway I am restoring those posts from my back up by the dates are now changed. Here is the list

  1. I, Nation, Nation-States and Countries
  2. Nationalism – Vile and Violent
  3. Terrorists and Nutters in Arms
  4. Islam for Dummies
  5. Assam NRC and the Myth of Bangladeshi Immigration
  6. Kashmiris; Insurgents, Militants or Terrorists
  7. Divine Destiny in Islam