A civilisation of monekys

According to a special report on Turkey by The Economist: "Turkey has an especially significant place in the Muslim world. Thanks to the legacy of Ataturk, it is a rare example among Muslim countries of a functioning secular democracy. (23 October 2010)"

Really? A country that is virtually at civil war can hardly be said to be a functioning democracy. Kurds are 14% of the people, and yet Ataturk's continuing legacy of nationalism foments hatred between Turks and Kurds. This was Ataturk's real legacy: a brutish nationalism that denigrated Islam and denied Muslim brotherhood, thus turning Muslim Kurds into pariahs. He may have been a good soldier, but he was a disaster as a statesman.

And look at their funny alphabet: instead of the beautiful cursive Arabic script, they have adopted weird Latin letters with marks above and below that make them incomprehensible. I can read Farsi with relative ease, but Turkish is a different story. By adopting an alien script, Ataturk has completely cut off the Turkish child from his and her cultural roots in the Perso-Arabic world.

The first time I saw a mini-skirt was in Istanbul - on a Turkish woman with, admittedly, good legs. The lower classes wore long skirts concealing their legs. This was in 1970, before I moved on to the real land of mini-skirts and hot pants: England. To monkey England and Europe seems to have been Ataturk's idea of civilisation.

To the best of my knowledge, monkeys don't have a civilisation. But they say six monkeys typing for a million years can produce a play by Shakespeare. I'm sure about that: I am equally sure that no number of monkeys typing away forever will ever produce even a verse by Sheikh Sa'adi.

Terrorism by Sanctions

tehran times : 77 killed, 33 injured in Iran plane crash: "The Iranian airline industry, which is heavily reliant on the second-hand Russian planes, has suffered from a series of plane crashes in recent years due to its aging fleet of passenger jets seriously affected by the Western sanctions banning the sales of planes and spare parts to Iran.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"


These 77 people who were killed in the Iran plane crash were murdered by the United States and its allies.

Iran is prevented from buying parts from and doing business with western suppliers. As a result, planes crashes are a regular phenomenon in Iran. What pleasure do the American people get in murdering Iranian men, women and children? What has Iran done to America? This is terrorism.

America armed Saddam and abetted in the murder of thousands of Iranians defending their liberty and country. Today, no foreigner can engage in financial transactions with Iran. I asked here in Bangladesh how I could send money to Iran from Dhaka; I was told that I couldn't. I wondered why, and I was told that dollar transactions have to go through New York.

Some of my happiest days were spent learning Farsi at the Iranian Cultural Center in Dhanmandi. What nice people they are! And what culture! Slowly, I began to be able to read Persian classics with the help of my teacher, Dr. Kulsum. Rumi, Sa'adi, and Omar Khayyam became accessible in the original. How can western literature compare or compete with Persian classics?

The only comparison possible is with Latin literature (and no doubt Greek, which I cannot read): there is a similar terseness and nobility of expression, both being Indo-European languages.

As for American literature, the less said the better: it is a derivative of a derivative culture, being derived first from English literature which in turn was derived from Greco-Roman literature. No one who has read Virgil's Eclogues will ever feel passionately about Wordsworth and Co. again, never mind the pathetic Whitman and Dickinson.

And yet the Iranian Cultural Centre hardly draws people who pass by without notice or pause: even the Alliance Francaise is full of young people learning another derivative language like English.

We prefer the murderers to the victims, however great.

The army, our constitution and our history

Front Page: "‘Two military regimes, the first being with effect from 15th August 1975 and the second one being between 24th March 1982 and 10th November 1986, put the country miles backward. Both the martial laws devastated the democratic fabric, as well as the patriotic aspiration of the country,’ the verdict said.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"


Did the military regimes put the country miles backward?

Let us review the facts. 50,000 people starved to death even when there was enough food in the country - and that food, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th edition,'famine'), was exported to India. Was this part of the 'democratic fabric' and 'patriotic aspiration of the country'?

Next, a one-party rule was instituted by the beloved Bangabandhu, thereby being guilty of violating the constitution himself, yet, to the learned judges of the Supreme Court, he is 'Bangabandhu' - friend of Bengal.

"The original constitution of the republic of 1972 was mercilessly ravaged by General Ziaur Rahman who erased from it, one of the basic features, “Secularism” and allowed communal politics, proscribed by Bangabandhu, to stage a comeback." This language, with all due respects, doesn't sound like the language of an apex institution of the country. 'Bangabandhu' was not the name of the first prime minister and president of Bangladesh. His name was Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. One would expect the learned court to use the legal, certified name of an individual, no matter who he is, instead of a popular appellation in a landmark judgment. The uncharitable may discern a certain servility here, of which our honourable judges are surely incapable.

Besides, the 'original constitution of the republic of 1972 was mercilessly ravaged by' Sheikh Mujib himself, as we find in the fourth amendment. It was the fifth amendment that nullified the fourth. One tyranny was replaced by another - a far better one. The country moved away from the choking socialism of the early '70s towards capitalism and free trade. Today, it is because of the move away from socialism undertaken by General Zia and General Ershad that the country's private sector is flourishing and GDP growth rate is high (although the poor have not benefited much, yet they are not starving in their thousands either).

Again, the military had to take over the country in 2007 because democracy was driving us to civil war. The current prime minister was indicted on five counts of murder - and yet there she sits in power and pomp. The two begums spent nearly a year in prison, where they, unfortunately, could not be kept confined for all 'eternity' (to borrow one of the words used by the judges) because of our constitution and its supporters. It seems that the people exist for the constitution, not the constitution for the people. But we will not commit 'shirk' and worship a few pieces of paper.

‘Martial law is totally alien a concept to our constitution.’ Fair enough. But it is not alien to out culture and civilisation - the Muslim civilisation. In his prayer for the emperor, Sheikh Saadi in the Golestan, refers to him as 'The shadow of Allah' - 'zel Allah' in the original language. Al-Ghazali and Al-Mawardi find no place for democracy in a Muslim polity. Sheikh Saadi observes: "A sultan rules by means of his troops'. Every learned person with whom I have discussed the subject, be he Bangladeshi or Iranian, has concurred with my view of the subject. "Zel Allah" is the attribute of a Muslim ruler. He is beyond criticism and controversy - the very opposite of democracy.

The Muslim polity - autocracy - has been the most tolerant of polities in history. A civilisation cannot be eliminated by a mere flourish of words; the apex court may command that a man be put in prison, but it cannot command that a man rid himself of his civilisation - or that an entire society comprising mostly of Muslims should do that.

History cannot be writted away.

Shaken and Speared, Not Stirred

we weren't conquered
by Shakespeare

we were conquered
then Shake-speared

an open
and shut
case of
de-Sa'adification

the beauty of Shakespeare

My compatriots are always going on and on about the beauty of Shakespeare, but how did this beauty get here?

We hadn't always known about Shakespeare. Before 1757, we had never even heard of him. Then after we were conquered, we learned English and began to study English literature, ignoring our very own Persian literature.

Thus, as a conquered people, we discovered the beauty of Shakespeare.

Now, after learning Persian, I see what we have lost: what is Shakespeare compared to Sheikh Sa'di?

But thousands of my compatriots each year will 'discover' Shakespeare and never think about our loss of freedom.

That is the tragedy of history.

Plassey Day

Two hundred and fifty three years ago this day, the Muslims of South Asia lost their independence at Plassey.

Mir Zafar Ali Khan, we well know, betrayed the last Nawab. Ever since then, we have had a long line of Mir Zafar's up to the present day.

We've had sixty years of nominal independence (and thirty years here) but on that fateful day we became mental slaves. Shall we ever again think like free human beings? I doubt it very much.

We may do so only if we reclaim our lost Muslim heritage: emancipate ourselves from the white man's spell and the spell of the Indian. Having studied Persian for the last couple of years, I know how strong and great our civilisation is. What is English literature compared to the power of Persian poetry? What is Shakespeare compared to Sheikh Sa'di?

But this is casting pearls before swine.

Our Vices, Their Virtues

What allows the western world to purchase us? Our vices.

We suffer from ambition, jealousy, greed, impatience, pride....

If we could give up these vices, they (or anyone) would be unable to get a purchase on ourselves.

In fact, if we followed the advice given by Sheikh Sa'di in the Golestan, then nobody could rule our minds. We must remember that the first struggle against the west was that of the dervishes - they had nothing to lose, and nothing to gain.

In order to acquire knowledge, we can and should travel the world. But the knowledge must be for our souls, not for greed and ambition and pride.

As Rumi said in his divine couplet:

Elm ra bar tan zani mari bod
Elma ra bar dil zani yari bod

Knowledge for gold becomes a snake
Knowledge for soul becomes a friend.

Quit greed, and be despised

"Az bugzar wa padshahi kun;
Gardan-i-be tam'a buland shawad." Sa'di, GULISTAN

"Quit greed and as a monarch reign
For proud his station who for nothing hopes."


If you can brush off the contempt of your father and mother, the ridicule of your brothers and sisters, the condescension of your friends and relatives, then - quit greed!

But if you are greedy and corrupt, your parents will love you, your brothers shall be proud of you, your friends will grovel at your feet.

Be careful, then, of taking Sa'adi's noble advice.

On Argument (essay)

http://southerncrossreview.org/66/sayeed-argument.htm

(click above for essay)


“Two wise men do not contend and quarrel,
Nor does a scholar fight with a contemptible fellow.”

- Sheikh Sa’di

Sheikh Sa’di advises us not to argue: it is a futile endeavour, and levels the fool and the wise person. For the latter, it is best to agree with the former, or remain silent.

my morally challenged elders (2)

One of my relatives (a perfect jerk) scolded me in no uncertain terms when I expressed my fervent hope that the military would take over the country (this was just before 1/11).

According to this minion of the west: "The army is for external defence, and it has no business running a country".

Well, I though to myself, none of your daughters have been raped by student politicians...if they had...!

Where did this British-period, America-inspired, Europe-indoctrinated retard get these ideas from?

Now, the bugger claims to be a devout Muslim, and he doesn't know the first thing about Muslim history - or Muslim literature.

Sheikh Sa'adi says: "A sultan rules by means of his troops."

Al-Ghazzali said: "Sixty years of tyranny are better than an hour of civil strife."

Al-Mawardi said: "An evil-doing and barbarous sultan, so long as he is supported by military force, so that he can only with difficulty be deposed and that the attempt to depose him would create unendurable civil strife, must of necessity be left in possession and obedience must be rendered to him, exactly as obedience is required to be rendered to those who are placed in command."


These people – our ancestors – lived and thrived under, and sanctioned, complete autocracy. My devout relation had never even heard the expression 'zel Allah' – the shadow of Allah, the Muslim world's expression for a ruler.

He is the shadow of Allah because he stands between order and chaos, which is Satanic.

This freak, with whom I am unfortunately related by blood, hasn't noticed that Muslims have a history, too – a far more benign and greater history than the white masters he bends before ("The white race is the cancer in human history," observed Susan Sontag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Sontag).

The military is only for external defence? Jeez!

Western civilisation since the Dark Ages has never had powerful kings because they couldn't raise taxes without the consent of parliament – a creature that was born in the stinking cesspool of the medieval world. (And this explains why the king and queen of Spain had to conquer the New World and enslave its inhabitants for gold and silver to fight their European wars – so that they could bypass parliament!)

WE – the Muslim world – NEVER had a Dark Age; WE have NEVER had any foul-smelling, nauseating, stomach-turning beast called 'parliament'.

Of course, I could never - much as I would have loved to! – tell mon oncle to shove democracy up his backside, to stay loyal to the west where he lives and to stop – stop! – exporting his masters' ideas here (the moron had the vapours when his son married a Hindu girl who refused to convert to Islam – he nearly went off his rocker, the modern, westernised bugger!)

But I never said all that – why not?

Because he is my murubbi, my elder – and, in our culture, you mustn't argue with an elder. He can tell me off, but I must remain silent.

That's our culture.

It is a non-democratic culture.

It is a culture of frigging obedience.

He knows it, I know it.

And yet he wants democracy, equality, argumentativeness (then why get the bends when your son marries a Hindu who won't convert to Islam!), the tearing off of pubic hair, freedom of expression, blasphemy, pornography....

Maybe I should give him a dose of his own democratic medicine and tell him to kiss my (equal) ass.