Men who grow up without fathers(adapted)

Every fathers day or so, despite the excessive condemnation of man hating feminazis..we are reminded that fathers are important. Why? because they teach there children, especially boys..what it means to be a man.

But then, what exactly does it mean to be a man? How can we define men? After all they do come in all shapes and sizes. There are men who are the Arnolds in this world.Plus men who are the Rod Stewarts in this world. And mostly they are everything in the middle. So how is it possible to become a man by 'learning from your father'?.

Ill look at it from my own example.
My own father died when I was barely a year old. Both Grandfathers were dead before my parents were even married. I had uncles, but they couldnt care less about me. I have a loving caring mother, and a loving and caring grandmother who both mean the world to me.

Till I was in my teens, not having a father was merely akin to something inanimate which I didnt posses. Like a Cricket bat, which I didnt have but my neighbour and friends did. So pretty much, I didnt care beyond a certain level of interest.

But things started to change as I grew older. At around 11ish, no longer could I tag along with my mother when she went and socialised with the 'aunties' because I started feeling out of place. I had to then find my self in the mens block. But there too I had no clue what to do, because no matter how much at age 11 I wanted to be a man I wasnt one. While other boys my age had there fathers with them, I used to be sitting in a group of scruffy men all alone. While they could 'contribute', even though it used to be infantile..but I couldnt because I was scared of making a fool of myself.

Moving onto sports it was the same case there. I was good at most sports I played. Even at a young age I could play with the 'big boys'. But there again something was missing in my life. No one really cared what I did. I used to come home all excited to talk about the number of sixes I hit or the number of goals I scored, but there was no one who really had an interest in what ever I did in the sports field. Sure enough my mom enrolled me in all sorts of sporting activities and even made sure that I attended them regularly, but beyond a certain point, she couldnt be interested even if she wanted too( which im certain that she did). And then gradually and slowly, achievement in sports stopped meaning anything. I stopped caring whether I got a gold medal or I came last. It was too immaterial to matter to me.

As far as academics were concerned there was not much difference there. My mom accepted a second best effort from me, probably to compensate for the loss of my father, and in her own way not trying to be too hard on me. But gradually this started becoming third best, too fourth best and so on. Just like sports, academic studies too didnt matter. It became worse when all the academic laurels in my family were won by my sister, or my female cousins. Again it was the fact that beyond a certain point, my mom couldnt do much...even if she had wanted too.

Even now as an adult, life is difficult. Social situations are most cumbersome to deal with as most of the times, one doesnot have a clue what to do. Hence Its still an uphill task trying to be confident around people, let alone people of authority.

Having said all this, reflecting back on my life...I do not know whether having my father alive would have made much of a difference. Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldnt. Also I am taking nothing away from my mother. She was the best thing that ever happend to me, and if it wasnt for her love I would have probably killed myself by now.

So then what do boys learn from there fathers? God knows. I never had one. But I do wish someone would have taken some interest in me beyond a level with which my Mom did. Taught me how to play sports, kept up with my accomplishments, whether I won or lost in sports, and pushed me hard to do my best. Mothers are great. But they cant do all this, no matter how hard they try. Its not there fault. Firstly single mothers are overburdened with 2 parental roles both in the house and outside it, and secondly...mothers are women and boys grow upto be men. So there must be some level of disconnect present. Its natural. But there are always positives. Men without fathers know what they missed out on and can become the best damn fathers out there.

P.S: Most importantly single moms` need not worry much. There Sons are unique, and even though it may seem as a disadvantage but the experiences they go through actually make them good human beings. It may take some time, and the journey maybe fraught with disappointments. But if you persevere, and have faith in your sons, they will pull through and become the men that you always wanted them to be.

My new Blog

Check out my new blog at:

http://moviescandysaw.blogspot.com/


I Have reviewed movies that I have seen there, and where possible have added the download links. So happy reading :-)

Roots of violent Islamism and the emergence of Al Qaeda

ACT 1

Some 50 years ago lived a man in Egypt by the name of Syed Qutub. A school teacher, Qutub in his early career devoted himself to literature as an author and critic, however on a scholarly trip abroad to the US in the period 1948-50 he became disillusioned with aspects of American life he described as decadent materialism and extravagant sin. On his return back he left the civil service and joined the Muslim brotherhood.

At that time, the writings of Maulana Maududi from the Indian subcontinent became exceedingly popular. Qutub was drawn to Maududis ideas of creating an Islamic State and started to berate current Muslim governments as having reverted back to the pre-Islam state of "jahiliya" or ignorance. His Ideas were further cemented and radicalised when the Egyptian military dictator Nasser cracked down on the Muslim brotherhood and imprisoned qutub along with other leaders. It was during his incarceration that he wrote the Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (Milestones), one of the most comprehensive works on Islamism.

Qutubs ideas hence became more radical and he called for the violent overthrow of Muslim governments who, as I mentioned, he considered having reverted back to jahiliyah. Obviously, a military dictator wouldn't stand for this...Nasser had qutub tortured and finally sentenced him to death. He was Killed on august 29 1966, with most of the top cadres of Muslim brotherhood either gone underground or kicked out of the country.


It was at this time, that Mohammad Qutub, Syed Qutubs brother....fled to Saudia Arabia and became a university lecturer. A young Ayman al Zawahiri was one of his followers, as was Osama bin Laden, who used to come and attend Mohammad Qutubs weekly lectures at King Fahad University.


As luck would have it..the soviets invaded Afghanistan and Reagan and his cronies impressed on the Muslim world the need to fight "godlessness". Western Countries along with there Muslim adherents created whole groups of "freedom fighters" to fight the evil soviet army. It was at this time that a man called Abdullah Azzam rose to prominence. He theorised that it was the moral obligation of Muslims to fight where ever and when ever there Muslim brethren were in trouble. Fortunately for him..at that particular time the west had accepted these ideas, as they needed jihadis to do there bidding. Abdullah Azzam however was soon killed when he was not use full any more..but his teachings stuck with one of his followers...the 30 something Osama Bin Laden.


Fast forward to Act 2 Part 1: The Saudis asked the US to "help" in protecting its territory from Saddam's expansionist plans..this off course was not going to sit well with the Osama and his ilk. He condemned the Saudi prince hood for allowing foreigners in sacred land and as a result was thrown out of the Kingdom only to resurface in Afghanistan during the late 90s. There in 1998 he made a public announcement saying that it was the moral duty of each and every Muslim to liberate Al Aqsa and Kabaa from the grip of America and its allies..


Act 2 Part 2 and the tragic end manifested itself on the 11Th of September 2001.

Should Islamiat be banned?

Islamiat, or Islamic Religious instruction was introduced into the school curriculum by the late Pakistan president Zia ul Haq as a part of his Islamization campagin in Pakistan.

But is this really the way to go forward? Is Islam really something where it is more important to know stuff about Islam rather than implement its teachings? Is getting an A in Islamiat really a certificate of being a good Muslim?

In my humble opinion these are all important questions that we must answer. Similarly contrast Islamiat with any other subject taught in school eg. Physics or Economics. Both subjects are precursors to the career tracts taken in University and then later in the Job field. On the other hand, we have Islamiat, a subject filled with important information, but which hardly gets replicated later on in life. Hence factually and sadly most of what we learnt in Islamiat, beyond what we utilise in daily life, will be forgotten. So in the essence isn't the whole purpose of studying Islamiat defeated?


Its, thus better to have tools that can help us later on in life as well. In this regard I suggest that Islamiat be replaced with Quranic Arabic. Have basic religious instruction in primary school and replace o level Islamiat with Quranic Arabic so that instead of forgetting everything we know, the students can at least take something forward for the rest of there lives and hence provide a much better understanding of the Quran and other aspects of Islam.

Terrorism and the Modern World

Terrorism. This word (and all others associated with it) has so captured the lives of many ordinary folk post 9/11. Routinely people are told to be vary of terrorists, vigilant of terrorist activities and if they fail to do so, they maybe victims of terrorism.

But what is terrorism?. C Douglas Lummis describes it as such:

Terrorism is not the name of a crime. It is the name of a tactic, simply put "a mode of combat". The acts that constitute terrorism are in the same category as other modes of combat such as frontal assault, flank attack, siege, saturation bombing and so on. Some of them are legal, some of them arent, but we do not call them by different names depending on who does them. A non state entity using terrorism as a tactic is in no way different from the state doing the same.

So then what makes a Terrorist? A terrorist is one who uses the tactic of terrorism. He is a terrorist because he uses terrorism, not because something intrinsic in him, just as a criminal is a criminal because he commits a crime and not because he is a born criminal. So just like criminals are determined by the crimes they commit, terrorists should also have the same leeway.

Sadly the things as they stand today are different. President Bush has routinely stated that the Terrorist is evil. The word "evil" is not a legal term. No one can convict you for being evil. Evil is a religious concept. An evil person is not someone who has taken a wrong path, say as a criminal would have, but he/she is intrinsically bad. A person who has come into this world, for the express purpose of doing bad. You put "d" in front of evil and you get the enemy of God. Nothing can get as bad as that.


In John Walker Lyndhs case for example, the question raised during his trial in the (US) newspapers was not about what crimes, if any he had committed..rather it was about whether he was a terrorist or an ordinary American boy. Same is the case with the missing persons in Pakistan. "Terrorists" are not allowed legal facilities such as a lawyer, fair trial and so on because they are "terrorists" thus allowing Pervaiz Musharraf to pick up and sell many "terrorists". Henceforth becoming the blued eyed boy of the west. Mullah Zaaef, the talibans ambassador, for example, had no diplomatic rights, because he was a terrorist. Thus despite him asking for diplomatic immunity..he was sold to the Americans by the bastion against terrorists ie. Pervaiz Musharraf.

Same is the case with the "terrorists" in Guantanamo Bay. They are not to be tried under civil laws, because they are "terrorists".


This whole scenario thus brings forth a very frightening point. If people are terrorists; they can be placed in a separate category. The important

distinction being that this determination is made BEFORE a legal point of view regarding guilt, comes forth.

But while contemporary law doesn't judge what a person is, in the past there have been instances where courts did claim to make this judgment. One example is the witch trials. If the person was a witch, then anything else they did was secondary. The logic dictating the present terrorists is also the same. Thus we have the large amount of "suspected" terrorists dying everyday and the total glee with which it is accepted.




Adapted from Terror and the Terrorists ( The dissenting Knowledge pamphlet series) by C Douglas Lummis

Satan, Mullah-types and Burgers

Satan's Story according to Islam goes something like this. The dude was a chilled out cool guy and quite close to god. Then one day God made man. Satan was like all pissed off and said to God..."what evvvvaaaaaa". Then God told em all to prostrate to Adam...and satan was like " Talk to the hand!". And from then on started the long war between Mankind, satan and his legions.


Satan plotted and plotted and then found the perfect stratagem. He decided to test Man and then placed him into 2 categories:

1.The resolution of fearlessness and bravery; or:
2.The resolution of turning away and abstention and contempt.

For if Satan sees that his mainstay upon the soul is contempt and abstention, he then begins to hinder him and weaken his endeavour as well as his intent from that which he was commanded with. Thus he makes it burdensome for him, and so he demeans it upon him in order that he should abandon it – such that stage by stage he abandons it; or falls short in it; and so neglects it.

However if he sees that the mainstay over the sole is: the strength of fearlessness and being strong-hearted; he then seeks to cause his underestimation of that which he was commanded with. Thus he causes him to fall into the illusion that he has not sufficed in it; therefore needing exertion with that along with that which is additional.


Henceforth,the extremists are formed. Men and Women who fail to see the demarcated middle path and fall of the edge sadly.

ie in colloquial terms "Burgers" and "Mullah-types" are born

(adapted from Salafi publications)

Secularism and democracy: A means to an ideal?

Ever since the rebirth of Muslim political thought from the beginning of the last century, no issue has been so much on the forefront than defining an "Islamic" system of governance. At that time, most Muslim countries were gaining independence and the need of the time was a proper set of rules, whereby muslims could govern themselves.

With in such parameters, an ideal came forth: an Islamic State consisting of all Muslim countries and governed in accordance with Shariah law. Ok, fair enough. But this led to severe schisms with in the muslim society, where brutal dictators suppressed any such movement from coming at the forefront. Hence, those adhering to these principles, were imprisoned, tortured and eventually killed off. But, just as violence never kills of anything, the movement thus didnt die.

And today its biggest adherent is the man we know as Osama bin laden.


Thus, finding a true "islamic" form of governance is at the very core of all Muslim ailments at the moment. During this time, the other types prevalent in the world; Secularism and Democracy, were shot down by a lot of people as being evil and an inherent "western" concept. On the other hand, Western powers, who selectively "imposed" these hampered the understanding of these principles amongst Muslim masses. That is why today, people have a hard time differentiating between Secular and Liberal. "Liberals" like Pervaiz Musharraf, are called secular instead.

So lets now see what exactly secularism is:

In political terms, secularism is a movement towards the separation of religion and government (often termed the separation of church and state). This can refer to reducing ties between a government and a state religion, replacing laws based on scripture (such as the Torah and Sharia law) with civil laws, and eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion. This is said to add to democracy by protecting the rights of religious minorities. (wikipedia)


Simply put: one removes religion from the affairs of the state, ie the irrelevance...not complete absence of religion in state governance. What, this means is that although religion will be irrelevant, no one will have the right to impede religious practices. As for civil laws replacing divine law....well lets see how different Shariah Law is from Secular Law:


1) Secular Law ensures that all persons, irrespective of caste or creed have an equal opportunity to become head of state.

2) Freedom of entering and leaving all religions, without any reprimand.

3) Freedom of preaching all religions, without any reprimand.



As for point no. 1, since at present there is no Islamic state, only states with Muslim majority, hence being a muslim isnot a precussor to showing "allegiance" to the state ( not to say that it is definite that in an Islamic state, the non muslims will be traitors ). If the fear is that a Muslim country headed by non muslims will lead to "UnIslamic" injunctions added to the constitution of the state... that too isnot a valid since A) There are conservative non muslims too and B) a muslim majority in the country will mean a muslim majority in the parliament and hence any thing "unislamic" will not be passed by the government of the time.


As for point 2; there are different versions regarding this. Some people claim that apostasy is a crime punishable by death and others claim that there is no such thing. Regardless, Muslims have never left Islam enmasse...so this too wont really be that big of an issue.


Point 3 is somewhat related to point 2 as well. As muslims have not historically left there religion enmasse, allowing non muslims to preache, wont be counter productive but instead should lead to Islam "winning". Why? because:

"Truth stands out clear from error" Surah 2 Baqarah Ayah 256

If Islam is the truth, and truth shall succeede no matter what ever impedes it


The biggest fear of secularism, on the other hand is that it leads to "fahashi" which loosely translates into free booze, validated prostitution and so on. Okay, but there is a slight twist. Any country which has a conservative outlook can muster up a 2/3rds majority in parliament and thereby ban Alcohol and other social evils deemed impermissible. India, for example, has some states which are "dry"..ie the prohibition of alcohol is enforced.


Now with this diversion over..lets us look at how Islam and Muslims are faring in Secular countries. Europe and its "secular" countries are facing a wave of xenophobia and panic because the "muslims are taking over". There are already calls for stricter clamping down on immigration and "checking" of Mushlim dominated areas. Whereas partly, such talk is legitimate, but by and large most of it is based on Xenophobia. Moving over to America we see people being flabergasted at Keith ellison, the first muslim to be elected to congress:

On November 14, 2006, Glenn Beck of CNN Headline News[103] asked Ellison to, "prove to me that you are not working with our enemies," saying, "And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.( wikipedia)

Barack obama drew a lot of ire because his middle name was hussein. Some circles even claimed he was Osama Bin Ladens candidate for the white house.


All in all, the underlying tone is that Muslims are taking over: "America is doomed. Muslims have begun to infiltrate the government. It’s only a matter of time before America is Islamicized and it’s citizens slaves to the peacful religion called islam" writes one blogger.

But one must ask, why do they think Muslims are taking over?. Is it because the secular nature of laws in these countries is allowing Muslims to rise up and become "active" in these countries. Yes, thats it precisely. So by all means.....a secular enviroment and democracy is conducive to Islam.

On the other hand. Lets briefly look at the state of affairs in Muslim countries. KSA and its banning of non muslim places of worship is used by Islamophobes to demand closing down of mosques in western countries. Bhai persecution in Iran is deemed an example of how much Muslims hate others. Consistent xenophobia against hindus in Pakistan and other countries like Malaysia leads Hinduvta organisations to further cement there organisations. Attacks on christians in Indonesia, give christian fundamentalists the impetus to malign Islam as an evil religion. Add that, to the general disregard of Law and basic human rights in muslim lands that cause people to wonder that is Islam really peacefull. Thus, whatever is happening in the Muslim world is actually undermining Islam.


So now coming to the crux of the argument: Should we accept, something less than Ideal (ie democracy and secularism) to achieve an Ideal condition ( an Islamic state)?. My answer: Heck Yeah!!

Do Muslims kill and be killed to get laid in heaven?

The tragic events that took place on the 11Th of September 2001, shocked the world. America too, despite all its magnificence, was prone to evil of such magnitude transpiring in its midst. Then some years later, the world had to face the madrid train bombings and 7/7 in England. And just like all major tragedies of this kind several attempts were made to "figure out" what had caused such a truly terrible incident to take place.

A lot of theories sprung up in trying to understand the motives of the perpetrators. Some were spot on, others missed the mark by a bit, but one theory that was circulated soon after 9/11...was particularly bizzare..."Muslims kill to go to Islamic heaven so they can get laid" . This will be the topic of discussion in this post. I shall tackle it in Two parts.

Part 1: http://whatcandywrote.blogspot.com/2009/02/do-muslims-kill-to-get-laid-in-heaven.html

Part 2: http://whatcandywrote.blogspot.com/2009/02/do-muslims-kill-and-be-killed-to-get.html

The Curious Case of MQM

Those of us who have witnessed this Altaf Bhai classic: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHMGLUE_uhE&feature=related often come to ask ourselves how is it that a person who, at best, comes of as a mediocre comic can A) make it as a politician ? and B) be a successful one, capturing the minds of so many people? . The mohajirs after all were one of the most educated classes of Pakistan.....so how can they revere a person such as Altaf bhai so much?

The most oft repeated answer by opponents of MQM is that, Altaf bhais cadres "terrorise" people into voting for his Party. This however, in my own humble opinion is a very simplified understanding of his political support, and this is where parallels can be drawn with another Pakistani party of the 50s.

Read more here:

http://whatcandywrote.blogspot.com/2009/02/curious-case-of-mqm.html