Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - _Waziri_

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32]
General Board / AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« on: May 21, 2004, 06:25:07 PM »
Ok Usman, Thanks once again for your clarification. But yet how do I find it easy to believe you are not my Nephew when your pics at Mac-graffiti website, you gave above, say it all? The anonymous you, how can I find it easy to believe that you are only using the account of my Nephew to represent yourself when there is no difference between the first post made on this board under this account and the “last” one,  at the level of diction, choice of words and expressions? Please for God’s sake what makes the difference between how you wrote to me before your purported trip to Europe and as in the above post? Unless if you and Usman are identical twins. Perhaps you could see that by these alone I have enough evidence surpassing mere rumor to reach my conclusions.

 I have gone through the conversations you held with Hausanicious the other time but unfortunately our conclusions was you were only trying to play with our intelligence. And before I forget, I think I noticed up there how you indicated that both of you (you and Usman) work on graphics. But unfortunately on the site I saw only one black person (Usman) amidst other whites. Or do you resemble Usman that much?

And about the issue of you asking me to lend a helping hand here, I believe it is not necessary in anyway since you do not know the role I have played or am still playing in the “evolution” of this site. After all for a person of a very good sense of etiquette, that suggestion should have come thru a PM, for you will definitely not expect me to come up there and tell you what I am doing. With this in mind I concluded you are only attempting a ridicule.

For the rest of what you say about me trying to balance between intellectualism and pride I will not comment. And if you really want to continue the debate you can go ahead. I will stay expectant. But I would want to remind you that I believe we have all grown up enough to understand that in our kind of a debate there is no quest for a looser or a winner, we are here to educate ourselves. In fact in my nearly 2 years stay at k-online only you (weird as that may) I come across who speaks in terms of loosing or winning in a debate.

You should also try to differentiate between an attack on personality and making points. If you make a charge of vague presentation or one being a small child, you go ahead and substantiate it with an example. If you do not do that it becomes a personal attack. Students of debate call it “fallacy”. And in that situation nothing your opponent can say.

And finally I noticed you trying to bid us good bye. It really is saddening. Men are not cowards. If itt were daggers crossing over heads the would stay and fight. If at a point they find reason to runaway then we say they are the losers in the battle field. If it is in verbal battle then we say they are defeated. So my dear Nephew do not allow me to defeat you, though knowing fully that my wordings are as painful as blades when they are harsh and equally they are as sweet as honey when they are soft. You have felt the rough side of them (though, I thought you could withstand the intensity of there hurt) but I am sure if you continue to be with us you will have the soft side of them.

Usman perhaps this is telepathic, but you know fully  that nobody will miss you the way I will if you were to go away, cos’ in your posts here, are sporadically, many praises you poured on me and here in nobody earned your respect  enough for you to chant the Arabic words of praise:" Iza sara rabbul baiti….”.

Yes Usman, I know that  Abul’ ala al Ma’ari was right when he said: “A grief at the hour of death is more than a hundredfold of joy at the our of birth”. But I yet I feel you should try to be bracing and understand Waziri when he speaks bout his nature like this:

"A fearing whom I trust I gain my end,
But trusting without fear, I lose my friend
Much better is the Doubt that gives me peace
Than all the Faiths which in hell-fire may end

Among us some are great and some are small
Albeit in wickedness we are masters all
Oh! If my fellow men are like myself
The human race shall always rise and fall

The air of sin I breathe without restraints
With selfishness my few good deeds I taint;
I come as I was moulded and I go,
But near the vacant shrine of Truth I faint.

A church, a temple or a Ka’aba stone;
Qur’an or Bible or a martyr’s bone__
All these my heart can tolerate
Since my religion is now LOVE alone."

For the rest of the forumnites, while I am remorseful of  your plight, know that I have no cause to apologise to any body. In me is always what will hurt you and later give you pleasure.


« on: May 19, 2004, 04:03:24 PM »
Thanks Bro. Taofiq for the kind reply. But i suppose you read thru' the article very well again for it appears like it is not my article you are discussing. I spoke about modernity actually not civilisations.
Thank you and God bless

« on: May 19, 2004, 04:01:52 PM »
Salam brothers and sisters,

Below is another response from our brother Taofiq Abiola
Mallam Waziri,

I have only now just glanced thorough your article and
I have to say on first few paragraphs I have to
strongly disagree with you.

In an effort to dismiss what modernity represent you
have disregarded its meaning. Let me quote
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary meaning of

“1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of the
present or the immediate past : CONTEMPORARY b : of,
relating to, or characteristic of a period extending
from a relevant remote past to the present time
2 : involving recent techniques, methods, or ideas

First of your do no confuse modernity with
‘civilization’ that I again quote as follows:

1 a : a relatively high level of cultural and
technological development; specifically : the stage of
cultural development at which writing and the keeping
of written records is attained b : the culture
characteristic of a particular time or place.

From the above you can see that modernity and
civilization are two different things. You cannot make
comparison of ‘modern’ societies but can make
comparison of civilized societies. For modernity is
never permanent it can change as the wind while
civilization last for a period of time.

When making references to civilized society always
mention all of them; you forgot to mention the most
civilized society even the present West today will
acknowledge was more advanced than theirs: the
Egyptian civilization.

Now on to your definition, the present era of
modernity and western civilization started with the
Technological revolution that resulted in the ability
to mass produce goods on a large scale. You probably
may not realize it, this is the only contribution the
West has made in comparison with other civilizations
and which stands out and sets it apart from others. On
political thought and democracy I’m afraid they
borrowed all that from the Roman Empire that had a
Senate that could rule when Ceasar was not available.
Plurality of government is not a new thing and
therefore cannot be the ‘pinnacle’ of political
thought as the Japanese reference you quoted

I will come back to why in the event of a third world
war democracy as you know it will cease to exist
later. To me, democracy is just a convenient
invention of the present system of mass production to
gain access to cheap labor: women and the masses, and
make it look like you are contributing something when
actually you are not. Please read the quote below that
was dusted from the archive when George W. Bush
launched his war on Iraq and got the US Congress to
support him:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither
in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE
LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it
is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship,
or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or
no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

Back to the issue of modernity and Islam you cannot
define modernity with reference to traditional Islam.
I quote the dictionary definition of traditional as

1 : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of
thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice
or a social custom)
2 : the handing down of information, beliefs, and
customs by word of mouth or by example from one
generation to another without written instruction
3 : cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs,
and institutions
4 : characteristic manner, method, or style

In order words do you prefer an Islam that is handed
down from your father and grandfather without
criticism, without reference to its original sources?
Do you prefer that Islam that has been mingled with
culture to that Islam that requires the use of your
intellect, question and verification?

On issues such as stoning do you prefer interpreting
the Maliki School that accepts pregnancy is enough
evidence for zinah without reference to what Imam
Maliki himself said of his rulings or to the
historical events of the time? Do you just apply the
law now without additional Ittihad or Qiyas? The key
here is re-examining existing rulings in the light of
new (scientific evidence) and methods USING
established Islamic principles of fiqh, shura, etc.
Here are some of the differences between using
inherited (traditional) laws as opposed to modern

On the role of technology in modernity, obviously if
you live in a less developed country you would not
realize the difference between countries today that
gives it unspeakable advantage is TECHNOLOGY. Who
would dream of attacking Pakistan or India today? What
makes them now untouchables? Nuclear capability! So
what my dear Mallam Waziri were you talking about?
Today technology defines modernity, if a Japanese were
to produce a piece of machine and sell it to you, you
have three choices to be able to use the machine: (1)
send someone to Japan to learn how to use the machine
or (2) get a Japanese to come to your country to teach
you how to operate it or (3) Make the same machine
yourself. When you purchase a piece of artifact on the
technological ladder from someone you are also
purchasing a piece of that person’s culture that in
turn influences you for good or bad. The words
Toyota, Ford, Suzuki, Dell, and Hewlett Packard are
the names of people who founded these companies in
case you don’t know.

Islam it not adverse to modernity or technology;
because you encounter the bad aspects of modernity
does not translate to going back to traditional
inherited ways that are even more detrimental. Instead
it has been part and parcel of Islam and Islamic
thought (when Muslims were active) to develop a
filtering mechanism: take the good and throw out the
bad. The Muslims did it when the Persians were
conquered: most of the magnificent mosques today are
based on Persian architecture that was dominant at the
time. As you have mentioned previously a lot of
philosophical ideas were borrowed by the Muslims from
the Greeks. So what is the current problem between
Islam and modernity now? A lack or non-existence of
Islamic thought.

The re-invigorating or resurgence of this though is
what is frequently referred to as “modern Islam”. It
is not fitting for you to belittle the efforts of
several Muslims scholars to solve the problem of
interest finance, by finding alternatives for Muslims
and calling it Islamic Banking. The whole system in
the West is based on it, it is not the best, they
themselves have acknowledged but nobody is yet to find
an alternative. If the Muslims were to do so we will
not only be helping ourselves but the whole of
humanity as well.

On the issue of Muslims being labeled Shi’a, Sunni, if
you are familiar with business principles and the
theory of the firm I will borrow from them here.

Shi’a, Sunni Mutazilite and Ba’athist, can be referred
to as vertical differentiations because the divisions
revolve around fundamentals in the religion. For me it
is dangerous to quote sources along vertical
differentiations as sources of Islamic Law as Mallam
Sanusi does.

Wahabi, Qur’anites, ‘traditionalist’ and ‘modernist’
can be referred to as horizontal differentiations
because these divisions do not revolve around
fundamentals, rather intellectual divisions with the
Muslim Ummah.

Diversity: here I would introduce a third terminology
called diversity. By diversity I mean the differences
in understanding between different people on the same
subject. This is as a result of experiences, intellect
or learning style. Now this diversity normally leads
to differences in political opinion and the way
forward. A classic example is the difference between
the conservatives and the progressives in today’s
Iran. The holy Prophet (SAW) in on of the reported
hadith welcome diversity in the ummah as a source of

Of all these divisions the vertical ones are the most
serious and damaging.

Wa salaam alaikum,

« on: May 19, 2004, 03:40:11 PM »

Brother AbdulSalami, thank you for the kind reply. As for the paragraph it is obvious I got everything wrong. My assumption as a student of logic is when we say something is lacking in vanity and pomposity, impliedly we mean there was, before, another thing that was full of vanity, and it was with that impression I penned down that paragraph, as the Hausa would say:In babu rami mai ya kawa maganan rami, meaning, “if there is no trench on the road why speak about trench”. Anyway I think I am in its full picture now and I sincerely apologize for the misrepresentation.
 Certaily you made a very good observation. It is not what happen but how we respond to what happen around us that matters most. Though I disagree with you that our grasp of realities around us improves. Because if it really does it would mean one day we will come to a stage when humankind will understand everything in his surrounding. I can still remember when Stephen Hawkings, the looming authority in physics, wrote his book, A Brief History Of Time, in 1988, he started his introduction by saying:

"Today we still want to know why we are here and where we came from. Humanity's deepest desire for knowledge is enough justification for our continuining quest. And our goal is nothing less than a full description of the universe we live in."

In the conclusion of the book he said:

" But if we find the answer, it will be the ultimate triumph of reason... for then we will know the mind of God"

To Stephen Hawkings I composed and sent the following poem, under the title, "KNOWLEDGE" as a rejoinder:

”Know ye not Man, seek ye Knowledge”

Myriad millennia have passed us at the stream of knowledge

Vulnerable we are yet, amid the bulk of our knowledge

Where does lie the assumed peace acclaimed in knowledge

Where is the pride in knowing when we cannot exhaust knowledge?

Why must we know?

Who then is the ignorant?

When we will always be haunted by that craving desire to know more

That desire to know again is always at the trail of our knowledge

The more we know the more we realize that there is much to know

Know ye not Man seek ye knowledge

Until you can fall helpless at the footings of the providence

? I. A. Waziri, 1999
While I maintain that only technology in our life change, I believe there is nothing new added to the conscience of humankind. The so-called improvement you find in the field of knowledge and understanding in the Shari'a always revolves around with the clock of history. Just recently I saw the Ahli Hadith, in my area praying the Zuhr prayer 2:00pm instead of 12:30pm or 1:00pm. I asked them why? and they said a "new" Hadith has been discovered that says when the sun is hard in its heat it is desired that Zuhr prayer time should be shifted to when it is a bit cool. I asked them saying years back people used to pray 2:00pm but you were condemning them why change now?
You can see how cyclical even knowledge can be. Before in the Western world it was Evolution is as opposed Creation, but now people are increasingly coming to believe Creation. And one thing is if you trace back ancient Egypt you would see that there were times when Evolution reign, then Creation, then Evolution, then Creation, then Evolution again. This is just the point and as such I find it easy to conclude that there is nothing new. Modernity  is only a fashion. It is only  a vogue as they say.
Finally, when our Muslims scholars call for modernity in these years you would find that they mean to adjust to the conditions set by others not for us to struggle to set conditions ourselves. For example, recently Shaykhal Azhar gave a Fatwa that those muslims ladies in France that were denied the right to put on Purdah should adjust to that and even those appearing in media television in Egypt should not put Purdah. If we also read the real Muslim modernist like Muhammad Abduh we would see how he tried very hard to adjust to the ways of the West in terms of marrying wives and many other things which I believe you are versed enough to remember. This is just the sketchy overview. I know you can also remember Abdullahi Anna'im and Mahmud Taha for their new breakthroughs in legal theories.

General Board / AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« on: May 19, 2004, 10:59:26 AM »
Kai Nuruddeen, I really did not want to make reference to these things as you know our value system as Fulani, Pulaaku and Kawaici, make you just let go somethings in order to give your partner a room to save his face. I am sure Usman would have even disputed coming from Zaria if not for the mistake he once made and said it. But really am not suprised, it has been his culture to deny his background, childhood friends and even relatives. If really Usman is not interested in the ppl behind his keboard why did he have to talk about me majoring in Computer Science? It is only my prayer   that he will leave to face the reality in the wordings, home sweet home.

And at the level of the debate. You can see how in that "Open letter to Mr. Waziri", he began by saying " In your letter to me". But the truth of the matter was I did not write him any letter, I only replied his letter. I really dunno why he was very much eager to create an impression to the public that I have written him a letter.

This is what in intellectual judo we call "Intellectual dishonesty". If really he wanted to tell about  our personal correspondence he would have achieved that by telling the truth. I smelled that dubiousness and quickly put a stop to that.

Then he came up with this "AMIDST CONFUSIONS" . I intervened to keep the spirit and tradition of k-online. But at a point he asked me to show him where he said he too has faith not reason. I quoted him verbatim and went ahead to draw his attention to some unsubstantiated claims he put forward. Like the issue of me being vaig in presentation and me being like an 8yr old child. I think naturally in a debate if you put forward a charge you are suppose to give examples but he did not. But only gave out a BURST that only the wounded can fight  :roll:  And that I must go and read and think. That I was using emotions :roll:

My next action was to abandon the subject matter completely before this boy will come again ridiculing me "Waziri still struggling with religious issues? huh". You are a major in CS why not advice them to improve the coding of this site? .....What rocks up your cradle....

As a result I had to come back again

And now you can see him saying it is because some public deem me intelligent that is why I will not succumb to his defeat. I really had to ask myself defeat? in what way? I am a Muslim who does all what he does in the hope of achieving a higher goal not because I am craving for praises. Or why won't my Nephew   allow others to tell him that he has defeated me first? Why must he use the intellectual dubiousness again to bamboozle his ways?

Well, one thing that is categorical in my public life is, I have encountered many ppl of different mindset and worldview. There is no condemnation today that will be directed towards me that can outweigh the ones I came across in the past. And ofcourse no praise you would praise me today that will surpass the kind of praise I received in the past.

Most accomplishing is the kind of praise, shower of  blessings, I received from my father whose second to the last expression before he passed away in 1987, agonising in pains, was  " Khalil ne kusa dani" meaning "is that Khalil by my side" I answered in the affirmative, and he said " Allah Ya shi maka albarka duniya da Lahira" meaning, "may God bless you in this world and the world beyond".

This is the kind of blessing I want Usman to get by coming back home. For me what remains is this kind from my ageing mother. She is over seventy yrs now, very frail, and the day she would say it before passing away will be the day I will hit the climax of my achievements. I will give thanks to God and confront the demons of the world with bolder EYES, for this world contains nobody other than my PARENTS, MY POETRY, MY POTENTIAL PARTNER, MYFRIENDS, my ultimate MY GOD and those who want stay at the other end agoninsing over what Waziri does and to them we pronouce the last two verses of Suratul Falaq.

« on: May 19, 2004, 09:37:12 AM »
Salam Brothers and sisters, below a response from our beloved brother, Abdulsalami Ajetunmobi in respect to the above assertion. Thanks once again

I find your essay on the above invigorating. I agree with the main thrust of its arguments but not some of its conclusions. First, let me correct the wrong notion that I poured scorn on your previous scholarship. The paragraph you referred in your essay actually praised your work. A reproduction: ?€œThanks for all the correspondence which I found refreshingly lacking in vanity and pomposity.?€? That was meant to be a praise and not condemnation.


On wider issue, there is no doubt, as you expounded, that human basic psychological urges which work as underlying motive forces of human behaviour, remain unchangeable. Indeed, human sensory perceptions may widen but their recognition of sensory stimulators like the sweet, the bitter, the savoury, the unsavoury, heat and cold, noise and silence, comfort and discomfort, pain and pleasure and a myriad of other similar sensory stimulators will not undergo any change. However something is changing.


What is changing is the response we give to our motives and actions. For instance, one?€™s hunger can be satiated by eating meat or vegetables. The quality and freshness of meat and vegetables continue to vary. And so as society develops, our responses to the fundamentals of life continue to evolve and become more and more refined and sophisticated. Time continues to refine our conceptual faculties, forever widening our horizon and our grasp of surrounding realities.


So, when leading contemporary Muslims scholars call for modernism in Islamic world, they are only urging us to develop our line of thinking in accordance with the time-frame created by God and not to be restive. The justification for this is in the fact that our understanding of things is subject to constant change and also that our understanding of religious knowledge has a human basis that developed gradually, and we cannot claim to have learned everything we can about the religion based mainly on the opinions of the established scholars of the old.


To this end, Islamic modernity means not Americanisation neither alcohol nor promiscuity. It means an ongoing, all comprehensive continuous process like evolution. It means that our understanding of the Shariah must be compatible with and affected by the knowledge of our time, and that it is there that we will find healing answers to our problems. Truth is always constant but not the understanding of truth. And while what is perfect is constant, not everything that is constant is perfect.


The West had been successful by absorbing ideas from elsewhere there is nothing wrong in we also absorbing tested and established facts from without to widen our grasp of surround realities. The knowledge we gain through revelation is quite different story from that of the knowledge gained through secular scientific investigation. The Divine scripture is not a textbook of science, hence any reference therein to scientific subjects could not be merely incidental. The main purpose of Revelation is to establish the unity of source; to prove that the material world and the spiritual world are both the work of the same Creator. So, while Shariah for example, talks about many things including agriculture, industry and trade it leaves the essentials to the experience of the people. Therefore, Islam in the modern world is not weak and brittle, but strong.



General Board / Economicism and the Reality of Human Happiness
« on: May 18, 2004, 11:08:17 AM »
Ok ma good pll. I thank you most for all the kind remarks, the encouragement. Sincerely to you belong all the credit for without your kind of encouragement I wouldn't have achieved anything. Thank you once again for the kind remarks.

General Board / this madness in the name of God
« on: May 17, 2004, 02:59:04 PM »
Yes, Aminuddeen you are absolutely right.

« on: May 17, 2004, 02:54:06 PM »
Assalamu Alaikum;

Dear brothers and sisters,
What follows is a contribution to a debate with our brothers, Sanusi L. Sanusi and AbdulSalami Ajetunmobi. We have created an emailing since after the other debate we had at on the issue of apostasy in Islam. Though it is an emailing list there were many people, therefore this thing is not private. I reproduce it here in anticipation of your invaluable contributions. I will also try to see that I publish each and every contribution from any other brother responding thru' the emailing list. I pray we will all find reason to learn from this discourse, especially my blood, Maqari who found reason to leave us in search of what is modern in the goldmine of USA.


Ibraheem A. Waziri

“Everything that I shall say has been told, all have walked through the garden of knowledge”
- Firdausi, Book of Kings

Dearly beloved,

I think we have by now had enough rest to enable us look at issues more objectively with the hope of achieving higher goals. What indeed prevented me from raising more points the other time, was the disposition of brother Abdulsalami Ajetunmobi, as he reacted to some of the points I raised. He asserted my ignorance in an earlier mail, but when I denied that and tried to tell about who really I am, he said I was pompous and resorting to vanity. This of course is discouraging and portrays an aim of getting rid of one. Waziri constitutes a danger to his kind of interpretation of Islam and therefore must be destroyed, and not with superior arguments, no, but with outright denunciations. Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi on his part did not help matters.  For when I tried to refer him to an error he once made in attributing the writings of AlQadi Iyadh to Khalil in defence of what he called “ignorance” on my part when I attributed the writings of Ali Shari’ati to Ayotollahi Mutahari, he protested and asserted that he still stands by that. One wonders why all these? In this phase of the debate I pray we will be identified with more objective sense of purpose than in the previous, since the goal, presumably, is to bring to plane the reality of things as they are for the benefit of the discerning public.

I wish to identify three major strands of arguments in Muslims discourses and try to understand the real issue behind them. These are: Modernity as referred by brother Abdulsalami and Sanusi L. Sanusi; Islamic Banking as mentioned by Sanusi in one of his mails and thirdly; the classification of Muslims as Shi’ites, Sunnites, Qur’anites, Modernists, Moderates, Traditionalists, Progressives and Conservatives. This at least for my observation of Sanusi’s and Abdulsalami’s disagreement with such classifications by myself, without much regard to the fact that Mallam Sanusi uses this kind of classifications, with a sense of righteousness in his essays, especially the terms progressives and traditionalists.

I wish also to approach this discourse with the conviction that we are all creationists who believe in the divine, hence the scientific evidence of creation of humankind. It would also be good to understand that all social theories of “modern” western educational system, in the last two centuries were built on the presupposition that humankind were evolved by chance, not created by God, and as such the whole concept of development, and the so-called modernity, both among the social and liberal democrats, is built on the assumption of a continuous refinement of human race to a most “civilised” height in this world. Thus, Francis Fukuyama of the Frankfurt now Chicago school at the turn of this century would write his celebrated and yet controversial book, The End of History and the Last Man, concluding that liberal democracy represents the end of ideological evolution, and the people in the west represent the peak of the “evolved” man. We the creationists have evidence both by reason and revelation to believe the contrariness of such claims and assert the truth that the whole issue of modernity is a ruse in intellectualism and discourse on it is nothing surpassing an intellectual triviality.


As brother Abdulsalami would say “practicing Islam in modern times”. Here comes the inevitable question, what is this modernity that Islam has to adjust to? What is modern as opposed traditional, as we frequently see in nowadays literature?  Is it technology? If it is technology, why is it that Muslims have to adjust and change their interpretation of the Qur’an just for the simple reason that a new machine has been invented thereby subjecting divine rules regarding social behaviour, business and political life to the service of a newly invented technological device? Is conscience not the most precious possession of humankind? Or must conscience be subjected to the product of human skills? After all we know that it is not a Burqa or a long beard that shows how one can operate or create a new device. Technology in the life of humankind has always been there and no human beings can claim that their proficiency in dealing with a particular machine is due to their religious belief, race, and colour or family background. Neither can we also say our technological backwardness as Muslims today, is due to our religion or interpretation of it, because different people of different background and mindset have been on the lead in the field of technological advancements over the centuries. In fact no scholar of civilisation can claim a fair sense of precision in explaining the reason why civilisations, Egyptian, Babylonian, Roman, Indian, Chinese, Greek or Islamic crumbled.

Certainly the discussants know that technology is not what they mean by modernity as it relates to Muslims character and disposition. No. Most of it is what is considered a new thought in social, economic and political theories. You hear modern psychology, modern politics, and modern sociology, latest breakthroughs in legal theories and financial dealings which Muslims are expected to leave what they see as the correct interpretations of their religion in that regard and follow the other one, or mould there ways to suit that new arrangement, they should keep subjecting there religion to condition set by other people and must strip Islam from its revolutionary attributes, which always seeks to change condition to that which is less tempting for them to maintain their faith in this temporary abode. Thus the statement, “Modernity has come to stay and Islam must learn to adjust to it”, is attributed to Ali Mazrui.

The truth of the matter is, in the life of humankind, their behaviour, political and social, they remain themselves right from time. They have not changed and the fact that something called “new” is “introduced” into their life does not mean it is truly foreign to their character. The concept of humankind being a savage and they keep changing for the better over time is an intellectual treason imported into social theorems. The reality is human beings right from time have been friends, enemies, they marry, they trade, and they are capable of exhibiting bestialities, can be compassionate, kind, and just. They can also be foolish, wise, godly or ungodly. They have conscience and their quality in reasoning and system belief, emotional attributes and dispositions has never changed. Read the preface to the book, The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Green, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, by Stephen R. Covey and ultimately the Holy Qur’an, which in its text and context always remind humankind that their like in everything have been to this world in the past.

To buttress this point further, we take the example of the phrase “modern banking”, which suggests that there is something novel about banking business, but in actuality it is business in usury that has been there right from time immemorial (I will come back to this when I take Islamic Banking). Also there is this issue of modern democracy, the legislature, executive and the judiciary, rule of law and freedom of expression; government of the people, for the people and by the people; people’s participation in governance and other things. But in reality if you check the history of humankind you find that, these are natural things and there was not a government in the past that did not rule with the exclusive claim to the abovementioned insights. Even Prophet of Islam is often quoted as saying: The most rewarding Jihaad is telling the word of truth on the face of a tyrant. In fact the most developed democracies like the USA within the 200 years of its existence produced 40 or slightly more presidents, while Zazzau an independent nation and an aristocracy once produced 60 kings within 200 years. One would find reason to ask here as to which system gives more room for people’s participation? Also in the USA you will find that only the Anglo-Saxons rule, which is akin to what is obtained in aristocracies. We even witnessed the case of a son inheriting his father’s seat, George Bush Snr. and George Bush Jnr. What is then the “modern” thing about this as opposed traditional? Also you would see that Iran is always condemned as not being democratic by having the Jurist Consult, the twelve Ulama’, who are the democratic watchdog of the nation, whose power overrides the national assembly and the executive. They are even compared by some writers to the old Christians Europe where the priests are said to have monopolised everything. One writer referred to their system as the “dictatorship of the learned”. But yet it is no longer a secret today that the Jewish lobby is in the control of American government and moulder of its policies, this they do outside the physical and logical layers of the government. But yet you see   people condemning Iran’s democracy as traditional but the USA’s as modern and developed, not to even term it to be “ the dictatorship of the rich Jewish bankers”.

Another thing also is the democratic culture in social living, which, as it is portrayed, gives freedom of choice of ways of life to individuals and groups.  Its recent scores, among other things, is its acknowledgement of people’s right to become whatever they want including homosexuals. This too is never new in other cultures even before democracy is known in this form. For long, Hausa societies understand that these characters have to exist and they can do what ever they want. We have grown up to hear people being addressed as ‘Yan daudu, they are dandies and behave like women. We also have Magajiyan Karuwai, which is a title used to identify known head of prostitutes and dandies. One then, would be inclined to ask as to what is “modern” or new in this “freedom” that mark a phase in human development?

Discourse on modernity is only media hype and a sort of psychological intimidation in order for some group of people to impress a certain carefully defined perception of life. A careful study into the intellectual history of humankind will reveal that there is no time in history when human beings use faith alone without reason. But a dubious classification of the age of humankind into an age of faith and age of reason is everyday being projected. The whole body of Islamic literature and the methodology it follows before it establishes a law or ascertain the authenticity of a Hadith is purely logical and reasonable, even the knowledge of grammar right from time follows a strict rule of logic and finesse.

Islamic Banking

Another issue is that of Islamic banking, “progressive” Muslims think that since we are in an age of “modernity” which “has come to stay” we have to bend our rules and subscribe to the notion of banking, though in this case, an “Islamic one”.  Here we must call to mind that the idea of banking in itself is usurious in attribute and there is nothing novel about usury. Our reading of the good satiric work, The Jew Malta will give us insight into how the people of Europe struggled with the Jewish merchants of the then, who sought to establish their usurious banking system. Also a reading of the activities of the Roschilds, the Jewish rich family and how they were able to influence policy makers to yield to their demand of banking system is revealing. Today, though the Muslim apologist may find reason to say that his own banking in the “modern world” would be “interest free”. This definitely he would say without reflecting on the central nature of the banking industry across the globe. How could his bank be relating to all those usurious banks in the world? The idea of Islamic banking from a very practical point of view cannot really be Islamic. It is only an attempt to make the Muslims yield to the demands of Talmudic Judaism and compromise their moral decency by not demanding for changes, in issues relating to financial dealings.

Attached also to banking is the inevitable consolidation of the use of paper money, which helps the domination of the people of the world by the minority in the banking industry. It is certainly a deliberate attempt by these people to chain humankind, flouting all rules regarding their freedom and making them to capitulate to the wishes and aspirations of the bankers. In the beginning, money are counted in gold and silver and the mine for this is anywhere on earth, its management is left to nature and its acquisition is left to the abilities of those who may come across the mine. But this gold and silver is now replaced by paper money. Each country will have its own and in complete subscription to an international law that suggests the limit a nation will print those moneys. Some individuals who are influential not only in the major financial houses in the world but also in politics everywhere across the globe own these money banks. They make and unmake leaders, and are interested in every sphere of human endeavour. Being guided by no good sense of morality, they can always print whatever amount they want whenever they want something. They control everything; they deny the entire human race the hope of seeking this bounty of God freely but through their hands. Islamic banking cannot be a welcome idea since the issue of paper money is not settled among the jurists.

The Muslim Umma

In supposition of my reader’s agreement with the views expressed above, I will now go ahead to discuss the issue of classification of Muslims. No doubt today the body of Muslim umma are classified into different groups by their unique methods through which they read the world via the divine scripts, the Qur’an. In our history, colonisation of Muslims lands by the imperialists’ European nations accelerated the coming up of more groups since the Muslim governments that can to curb people’s excesses were no longer in place.  Yes,  it is desired if today  all these groups could mend their differences and see the world through one angle of the scripture. But how true this can be when difference in perception among individuals is as true as their physical selves? Yet, it suffices to say that Muslims are all in consensus that the Qur’an should form their first paradigm in thought and action. No dispute on this. But yet the first set of Muslims after the demise of the holy prophet found themselves facing many difficulties because they differ a lot in the way they did interpret Qur’anic injunctions, this accompanied with the fact that they had to continue acting, making laws within the confines of the faith. As a result, they narrowed down their differences further, by seeking for how the prophet correctly interpreted some verses. Later the collection of his words and actions together formed the body of the literature we today call Hadith. Now, in this “modern” world, I believe the reader will agree with me that if we drop all Ahadith and just use Qur’an directly, we will find ourselves in the same pit, because logical but yet contradictory interpretations will everyday be coming up and as a result we cannot act, we will only keep arguing. As such we have to have ourselves a sort of an anchor. Let’s get to the root and find out how the prophet did it. Allah says in the Qur’an: “Verily you have in the messenger of Allah most excellent pattern of conduct”.

 There are of course some Ahadith that are completely a fabrication, and because of the fear of exchanging them for a precious gem, a science was evolved that checks the authenticity of Ahadith, it checks the personality of those who reported any particular Hadith, among other things. In this the Shi’ites raise questions on the personalities of even some of the Sahaba but the Sunni do not raise questions on the personalities of the Sahaba as part of the convention. And both camps have logical and “reasonable” reasons for doing that. But one thing we cannot deny both the two camps is the fact that they both have strong arguments against or for each position they take.

There are also some other Muslims that are known as the Qur’anites, Mu’tazilites and what have you. In my opinion the Qur’anites, the Shi’ites,  Mu’tazilites, or Wahabites  have the right to adopt a particular convention that leads them to making conclusions always. In as much as that system or convention is rounded enough to solve practical human problems reflecting the sentiment of the Qur’an and its teachings. In this we can see that the conventions in Shi’a and Sunna are the only ones that transcended the level of mere opinions/ideals to practical applications. And to them belong the credit of the highly stimulating Islamic culture, which poses a threat to “modernity”.

If then we are to adopt and practice that of Mu’tazilites or the Qur’aniyyun then we have to be ready to come across many ideals that only remain “sweet” and “reasonable” ideals but cannot achieve being practiced because they carry within them the seed of the destruction of the system itself. Although Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi always tries picking from different schools of thoughts in order to achieve what he may term to be “the correct” opinion. But yet picking from different conventions makes one to easily end up without a boundary, he becomes impracticable, he tends to be susceptible to the invasion of the demons that push people to be selective not objective. Because this objectivity we are saying in it is subjective since it has to draw from different objective arguments that all make a complete sense. For a good student of Mallam’s works with a little background on Muslim History, Law and Philosophy, will see that his position maintains a kind of incoherency and inconsistency. In his work The West and the Rest, he has gone along way in his show of admiration to the ways of the Wahabites, the Ahli Hadith but in so many other places disagreeing with their conclusions or adopting that of the Mu’tazilites. This is like a case of a person endorsing the ways of empiricists but yet subscribing to the views of a poet who base his conclusions just on emotions.  

Others like Abdullahi Anna’im who are today putting forward new claims about Islam and Shari’a in the hope of evolving a new convention, of moulding Islam to suit the demands of “modernity” always come up with an Islam that does not reflect the sentiments as expressed in the context and the text of the Qur’an.

We can see from all these that classification of Muslims into these groups is something that we cannot do without. But what is the most important is to have a worldview, a paradigm that sees the world from the spectacle of the divine script reflecting the sentiment of the Qur’an.

 The only classification that may not fit is the one that suggests a gap between Muslims progressives and Muslims traditionalists, because modernity as we have said above is a ruse. Therefore the progressives cannot progress to anywhere since they are not creating a new boundary in the humankind’s ruminative mind and living conscience. Humankind have always have conscience and nothing in the studies of their character ever suggested an improvement along this line.


To the mind of a Muslim and all other people of faith and of course from the records of the prevailing reality over time, this world is a temporary abode for humankind. Through their deeds they will one day be judged and a permanent abode will be merited to each and every soul. Here, what exists in the realm of human action is in the definition of good and evil. And the greatest gift their creator gave them is conscience, which affords them the privilege of sifting what is right from what is wrong. They also have instincts, which provide them with the drive and the ability to take the ways of evil or good for themselves within the confines of reason and revelation. These attributes of humankind have been with them right from time immemorial. What changes in their life is only technology, which is supposed to be a vehicle through which humankind will seek for the realisation of the purpose of their creation. And to every person of reason, will see that justice can only come among humans when they use their conscience very well not when they mould it to the service of a newly invented technological device.

As for modernity in social theorems, we can easily conclude that it is not true, for nothing today is new. Any attempt to re-fashion Islam to suit a claim of modernism is a fraud, an attempt to cajole the Muslims into subscribing to the consolidation, hence the political, social, economic and the intellectual domination of the rest of the world by the empire of greater Israel, which in its over one hundred years of existence never offered mankind anything than blackmail and terror.  Therefore the Muslims must not capitulate. Those things that are forbidden no matter the nature of their embellishment by the hurricane of “modernity” will remain so; those things that are legitimate will remain legitimate no matter their characterisations by the “modernists” as ancient, savage and archaic.  The 21st century is the same as 1st century in as much as life in human beings is the same as conscience is life.

We can understand that no matter the kind of setting or people or faith practiced, human beings will continue to be cruel, just, kind compassionate, bestial, godly or ungodly. They will marry, be friends and enemies. They will continue to be an embodiment of intellect and emotions, a carriage of soul and body and a combination of faith and reason. After all, when did the West gain ascendancy that our apologetic Muslims would feel we have to mend to their ways or hit the rocks? Is it not in the past 200 years? Did the empire and the system in Spain not spend over 800 years before another system crumbled it? Why then are we too much in a hurry that we are ready to compromise the precious dictates of our conscience? The task of ours intellectual Muslims today, should be a quest to a paradigm shift that carries the potential of restricting the “beast of prey” called humankind. Therefore, Muslims in the 21st century demand for nothing more than these, among other things:

As Allah says “ Say unto my servants to say the best when it comes to speech” so we demand that all media houses both electronic and print must depart from the creed in journalism that says “news means trouble”.  All movie houses and music industries must adhere to this rule and all pornographic industries must be scraped. Let intellectualism be distanced from the dubious theory of evolution and the real truth of creation form the bedrock of intellectual arguments.

 As Allah says the essence of humankind is to serve and obey Him, so we demand that the concept of right and liberties be revisited and be defined within the boundaries of duties and obligations. As Allah forbids usury so we demand that the world financial institutions be reshuffled and reorganised. Let the relationship between men and women be redefined. Let all fashion houses amend their definition of fashion and give way for decent outfits to take control over all humankind. Let the atmosphere be convivial for us to practice our faith and all human beings will walk with less temptation and increase in guarantee to having access to the paradise promised to us by God.

It is then we will give thanks to Allah and say to the people of the world “ Islam is here to stay and the bulk of humankind have right to choose to adjust or not to adjust to it”
I remain most grateful,
I ask for your forgiveness and;
 Wala Udwana Illa Alal Zalimin

[There is no enmity except against those who transgress the limits (set by God)]

General Board / AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« on: May 17, 2004, 12:28:47 PM »
Well that's it, not been here for long!


Atleast by now I have confirmed what you could not have told me on one to one. You cannot dispute being my Nephew. And for Ummita and Admin, I would have preferred you stayed out of this. It is a discovery I am making. I know you konw me too well to know the extent I can go in this. I have held many peaceful dialogues with more reasonable people around here long. More matured ppl not tell one to go and read read and not talk f comparing one to a child or ask him advice others to improve a site or even ask him bout what rocks up his cradle. Complacence does not make a reasonable person and nor does it breeds a highly cultured character. This definately should make me remind Maqari bout what he reads and what he does. Perharps he wants to know how much I know bout his cradle. For the views he expressed above I think we have done well in letting him know that they are not new in anyway and cannot claim any authenticity.

For Maqari again you can send me a PM. Only tried to make you see that I care as an uncle and would want to you back and If you are not Usman then you know Usman right? So pls link him up to me. Here home we celebrate his love everyday and wish to get him home. But sincerely speaking I owe nobody no apology I am only after my nephew and ppl go out of their way to do these kind of things. Admin and Ummita I reallly detest the idea of you intervening.

General Board / AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« on: May 13, 2004, 10:08:08 AM »
Yup, Usman I mean measure and I believe if you would start reflecting you will begin to believe am right. Remember words are tools and I am a poet (at the risk of sounding immodest).

But please could you tell me who made the following comments under our discourse on The Jews the other day?

Quote from: "Maqari"
i know many of us are aware of the infamous hausa termKUNAR BAKIN WAKEand the folklore behind it,i know in my heart that if some forces are to invade Zaria and start raping and murdering my sisters and mother i will voluntarily strap myself with explosives enter their territory and decombust, in understanding of a primitive human nature u will realise that any living organism will do whatever i stress

 Is it Usman Maqari or the anonymous you? Remember Maqari is a very unique name in Zaria that is preserved only for that family. You must tell the truth and only that, for you know as well that prophets never tell lies unless if what you write above as your new religion contains lies and liers in it. Usman I have your dossier right before me including how you got into the states. Your story is a very good example that will feed the intellect of k-onliners and nourish their souls. But next time when you are making comments remember not to compare yourself with the prophet of Islam.

General Board / These Religious Unrest!!!
« on: May 09, 2004, 10:13:28 AM »
Middle Belt was right, Bola Ige once said Hausa-Fulani are the Tutsis of Nigeria and therefore deserve what the Hutus of Rwanda are doing to the Tutsi's there. Perharps our people and leaders as well you young intellectuals will find reason to open up a discussion on these things. Cetainly we you find some people voicing out these kind of sentiment you stay cork sure there is more than what tongue can tell.

General Board / Economicism and the Reality of Human Happiness
« on: May 09, 2004, 10:08:55 AM »

Thank you for the compliment, I remain most grateful. See ya

General Board / AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« on: May 09, 2004, 09:56:40 AM »
Oh interesting! I did not come this way for long. Yes, I am a measure in CS but if you really do not mean pun you can advice the admin without making refrence to me, not to even ask me as to how's religion.

Maqari your methodology is cagey, if not, how would you do something  and still accuse your opponent of being that thing? How in God's name do you want to me to respond to a charge of me being an eight year old? You will agree with me that this is not an issue you are raising but an exibition of an intention to ridicule.

No, your kind of personality attack is nothing new to me. I have been  an activist all my life. Nothing you would say can have the potential of geting me provoked.

When I reprimand and rebuke you it is because the kind of your deviation is unequalled in the history of our family. In fact the only part of this discourse which I find difficult to show your father and mother is the part which you confessed eating pork and no longer practicing Islam, I know they will not sleep and may continue to cry to eternity.

Usman Maqari, I wonder how you can gather the courage to tell people you want to engage in a sincere intellectual discourse. Usman how could you be bold enough to tell me to read, read, read and read again? Usman when did you read enough to have a new thought that you can compare to the reveletions sent down to Muhammad?

Perharps you do not perceive the person you are speaking to all along. Usman you are tall and fair in complexion. You were born 1978 and spent all your life within the confines of Zaria city before you left to Egypt in 1996 to read Arabic. You are the third son of Mallam Ahmad Maqari. Your father was brought to my family since when he was about ten to read. He grew up and saw our house as his school. Your briothers and sisters are hear always reminiscing and thinking for the day they will set you in their eyes again.

Usman I have never seen a person who responds more to his emotions than his reason as you do. How could you leave all of us here and carve for yourself a new identity and belief separate from the pride of our great ancestors? Remember you are not the first among us to have been to USA enough to discard all relations. Usman my heart bleeds and as an uncle to you I pray one day you would find meaning in looking towards our direction. If for nothing, that your mother may smile again and be glad that her beloved son is back again. Ibraheem, Saeed and other well wishers send their greetings and we all say we miss you. I pray you would have a rethink.

Affectionately yours

General Board / Economicism and the Reality of Human Happiness
« on: May 08, 2004, 08:09:29 PM »
When I wrote the following article several weeks back, I did not know the ideas as expressed in it could mean a serious breakthrough in system thinking, in the intellectual world, that will be worthy of publication in an internationally recognised academic Journal. Though focused as I was, the article started as a mere post at K-online which later was refined and published at where the scholars saw it and requested for a revised version for inclusion in the journal. While I remain most  grateful to all k-onliners, friends and well wishers, I hereby reproduce the edited and refined version of the article for your intellectual mind to decipher and digest.  I remain most grateful once again

 Economicism and the Reality of Human Happiness in the 21st Century

Ibraheem A. Waziri, System Network Administrator,
Iya Abubakar Computer Centre,
ABU, Zaria

(As revised for publication in the Journal, African Renancence, London)

"Oh me Oh life of the questions of these recurring!
Of the endless trend of the hopeless;
Of cities filled with the foolish;
What is amid thee oh me oh life?!"  

- Whit Whitman

It is true that the ultimate goal of human life in this world is to attain a state of absolute peace and happiness. Even in Western philosophies, evil is understood to mean nothing more than that which brings agony or displeasure, constituting the disruption of the flow of peace and happiness of humankind. Based on this, it is often assumed that the key struggle in life is to conquer evil. There has been a debate, since time immemorial, as to which way is the best for humankind to follow in their quest to achieve this. Different philosophers have offered different prescriptions at different turns of human history.

Religious institutions have always maintained that absolute peace and happiness is attainable only when humankind recognises that life is a struggle to meet with the requirements of a certain omniscient being called God. Thus Christ is often quoted as saying: ?But seek ye first, the kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you" . The religious institutions usually argue that this should form the essential building block of all nation-states, including their political and social structures. This approach sees evil in the light of the spiritual, and as such discourages people from unlimited indulgence in leisure- seeking exercises, for a promise of a future world that will bring all leisure to one?s doorsteps.

Those who are against the religious notion of happiness tend to see everything from the other side of the moral divide. Karl Marx for instance re-wrote history based on Darwin's theory of evolution, and concluded that the history of humankind is nothing more than the story of creatures who are trying to survive, through a quest for peace and happiness via economic liberation. His monumental work, Das Kapital  is more a re-appraisal of the statement attributed to Christ: ?Seek ye first the economic kingdom and all shall be added unto you". The argument seems to be that since human beings are only products of chance as "confirmed" by Darwin , their life is nothing more than a service to the flesh. Let them eat their fill, drink to brink, accumulate wealth, have sex, and do everything according to the cravings of their heart. They should have no obligations or responsibilities, but rights and liberties. For proponents of this philosophy, only that, which can be seen, deserves attention.

 This brought about the notion of material description of the world, in terms of man's social activities: Social Darwinism. From this evolved the two dominant economic theories, Capitalism and Socialism. These two theories have had profound influence on humankind in the last two centuries. Since then the indices of national development everywhere in the world are measured in terms of the kind of food people eat, mortality rate, life expectancy and other things that have direct correlation to what the eyes can see and hands can touch. It is even assumed that only economic activity should mark the level of the liberation of human mind.
Socialism failed. We are today left with Capitalism, which is nothing different from the other sister-theory, except perhaps in form and structure. But the goal is the same: a materialistic description of the universe and a certain belief that peace and happiness could only be achieved through economic empowerment. But capitalism has not fully delivered.   In America, where the system is practised in its most advanced form, rather than attaining the goal of peace and happiness, we see constant complaints by people of various forms of subjugations, including that their lives have become meaningless by their reduction into a struggle to feed and survive. In other words, there appears to be a pervasive feeling that despite the country?s wealth and power, life ought to be more than what the system is offering them.

When Maria Pruetzel, the mother of the onetime Broadway Star, Freddie Prinze, wrote an account of what made him commit suicide, she concluded thus:

Freddie had come to the Hollywood with a dream he believed about to come true. But in Hollywood he stopped being a person and became as he put it - a piece of 'merchandise'. He was offered a fortune to endorse lunch boxes bearing his trademark quip...Freddie the product had replaced Freddie the person.

She concluded by asking a series of rhetorical questions

 ... Was all this what killed Freddie? Was it that the dollar was more important than the human being with feelings and emotions? Was the image more important than the real person? .... If this is the case, then we live in a society suffering from spiritual malnutrition.

Many people around the world today experience similar dissatisfaction as Freddie Prinze did despite having totally dedicated themselves to the service of the flesh. I cannot remember how often I have heard Michael Jackson, the self-styled King of Pop, say he is not happy. This is despite his tremendous wealth, and the attention he constantly garners wherever he goes. One writer summarised the dilemma of humankind in relation to happiness in the 21st century thus:

Today we have higher buildings and wider highways,
but shorter temperaments and narrower points of view.
We spend more, but enjoy less.
We have bigger houses, but smaller families.
We have more compromises, but less time.
We have more knowledge, but less judgment
We have more medicines, but less health.
We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values
We talk much, we love only a little, and we hate too much.
We reached the moon and came back, but we find it troublesome to cross our own street and meet our neighbours.
We have conquered the outer space, but not our inner space.
We have higher income, but fewer morals....
These are times with more liberty, but less joy....
With much more food, but less nutrition....
These are days in which two salaries get home, but divorces increase.
These are times of finer houses, but more broken homes?.
The failure of the economicist system should be a wakeup call for humankind.  There is a need for a new system that will truly serve man?s innate need for peace and happiness. The new system should include, among its indices of national development, not just material poverty or wealth but also stability in marriage, individual happiness and elements that relate to the spiritual upliftment of humankind. The new system should also look at humankind from a point of view of creatures that have obligations and duties, not just rights and liberties, which often turn them into selfish beings that seek only their entitlements,   often with disregard to the feelings of others.  The new system must equally strike a balance   balance between the spirit of man and his physical self.

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32]

Powered by EzPortal