KARBALA: THE VOICE OF ISLAMIC CONSCIENCE

In his famous speech, On the Plight of the Oppressed People, Dr. Ali Shariati argues that Islam came as a challenge to the oppressive status quo of the time. But, after the death of the Prophet Mohammad (s), Islam suffered distortion and corruption like the messages of the previous Prophets. Islam was used to enslave helpless people for personal interests and glory of tribal dynasties of Ummayads and Abbasids and others. As Shariati puts it, “I saw the swords which were engraved with verses on holy war. I saw the places for worship. I saw those who prayed. I saw the saintly faces who spoke in the name of spiritual leadership, the Caliphs, and the preservation of the Prophet's traditions. Nevertheless, collectively, they took us into slavery!”

A Reason for Hope

Despite this deviation, in this and other writings, Shariati is optimistic that Islam can still emancipate the struggling humanity from the servitude of Pharaohs of the modern age because its universal message has survived not only in the text but also through the exemplary lives and sacrifices of Ali and Fatima, their children Zainab and Hussain, and Prophet’s companions Abu Zarr and Bilal. Below, I look at how the great sacrifice that Imam Hussain and Syeda Zainab gave on the plains of Karbala (Iraq) became the conscience of Islam.

As soon as Yazid assumed the seat of Caliphate after his father’s death, he demanded that Imam Hussain do his bai’at, that is, pay allegiance to him. Yazid was a tyrant, who was personally corrupt and openly mocked Islam. "If this Ummah is to be tried with a shepherd such as Yazid, then farewell to Islam," Imam Hussain declared at this point. Imam Hussain who was the inheritor of the knowledge and piety of the Prophet and the leader of the Ummah, his allegiance would have blurred the distinction between the true Islam and falsehood. Islam would have become a fatalistic ideology serving the rule of the Ummayads. But Imam Hussain’s response to Yazid’s demand for bai’at became the universal message for all the followers of truth and justice, when he said, ‘Someone like me cannot do a bai’at of someone like him’ (‘mujh jesa, yazid jese kii bai’at nahi kar sakta’), and ‘It is better to die on feet than to live on knees’ (‘zillat kii zindagi se izzat kii maut behtar hai’).

In a will Imam Hussain made before departing from Makkah, he declared: “Indeed, I have not risen up to do mischief, neither as an adventurer, nor to cause corruption and tyranny. I have risen up solely to seek the reform of the Ummah of my grandfather. I want to command what is good and stop what is wrong, and (in this) I follow the conduct of my grandfather and my father, Ali ibn Abi Talib.” Imam Hussain was martyred along with more than 70 companions in Karbala on 10th of Muharram (Ashura) in 61 A.H/ 680 C.E.

After Imam Hussain, his sister Syeda Zainab carried forward his message and spoke in the courts of Kufa and Damascus with such courage and eloquence that reminded people of the eloquence and courage of her mother, Fatima, and father, Ali.

Development of a Movement

Imam Hussain’s revolt was the first one of its kind in the Islamic history. It marked a clear distinction between the true Islam and falsehood, and inspired many movements in the later generations against the Umayyads and Abbasids and other tribal dynasties. Imam Hussain’s revolt became the conscience of Islam that challenged any fatalistic justifications for the tyranny of Yazid and his likes for all times and places.

An equally significant influence of this great sacrifice was the development of a cultural movement within Islam. Analytically separate, but in reality, the political and the cultural are the two facets of the same movement. This cultural movement started with the commemorations of the tragedy of Karbala that continue to this day. Each year, in the month of Muharram, hundreds of thousands of followers and admirers of Hussain come together and remember the great sacrifice. They narrate the tragic accounts and engage in public mourning. Imam Hussain’s struggle is recollected as an archetype movement about the eternal struggle of truth against falsehood in which blood triumphed over sword. These commemorations claim to represent an alternative history of Islam following the demise of the Prophet and a commitment to preserve Islam’s true message through recounting the sacrifices of the noble household of the Prophet.

Over the passage of more than a millennium, a discourse has evolved out of this cultural movement, in prose and poetry, oral as well as written forms, and through an array of symbols and images in different colors in different parts of the world. This is the discourse of human conscience, resistance, and universal justice developed by the survivors of Karbala, Shia Imams, historians, poets, mystics, reformers, and devotees among Shias, Sunnis, and even Non Muslims.

Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti, the Sufi preacher from South Asia, sees Hussain as the savior of Islam:

Shah ast Hussain, Badshah ast Hussain
Deen ast Hussain, Deen Panah ast Hussain
Sar dad, na dad dast, dar dast-e-yazeed
Haqaa key binaey La ila ast Hussain

Hussain is the Master, Hussain is the King
Hussain is Faith, Hussain is Refuge for the Faith
He gave his head but not his hand in Yazid’s hand
Verily Hussain is the foundation of La’Illah.

Muhammad Ali Jauhar, a Sunni reformer and a central figure in the Khilafat Movement in the first half of the twentieth century sees Hussain’s movement in this light:

Haqq o batil ki hai paikar hameha jari
Jo na batil se daren hain vahi Shi’an-e Hussain

The war between truth and falsehood is eternal
Those who are not frightened by falsehood are the partisans of Hussain

At another place, he presents his inspiration from Karbala in these terms:

Qatl-e Hussain asl men marg-e Yazid hai
Islam zinda hota hai har Karbala ke baad

In reality the murder of Hussain is the death of Yazid
Islam is resurrected after every Karbala

Faiz Ahmed Faiz, one of the prominent figures of the Progressive Writers Association (PWA), a literary movement for social justice in South Asia, takes inspiration from Imam Hussain’s sacrifice in these words:

(from a marsiya Faiz wrote)

Jo zulm peh la’nat na kare, aap la’een hai
Jo jabar ka munkir nahi, woh munkire deen hai

He is cursed who imprecates not the oppression
By not negating fatalism/suppression, he negates the religion

Over time these commemoration gatherings have developed some ritualistic aspects that may not be mindful of the underlying purpose of these gatherings. These gatherings nonetheless have retained the message of justice and resistance that serves as a conscience of Islam, and have provided the resource for political resistance against tyrannies in different parts of the world. This should be clear from the symbolic resource that the reformers in South Asia find in the message of Karbala. The Iranian Revolution in 1979 is another example.

These commemorations are much richer than what they appear to the outsiders in media and public observations. Without the underlying meaning, these commemorations would appear as merely a ritualistic street processions. But, for those who understand their purpose and message, these gatherings continue to inspire them and shape their subjectivities and worldview. These commemorations continue to influence the cultural discourse of the Muslim community. It is for this reason that tyrant regimes, like that of Saddam Hussein, wanted to suppress these gatherings. These tyrants, however, always failed due to the devotion and sacrifices of the followers and bearers of this movement over the last 1400 years.

Given its universal character and message, this movement is seen by the followers as the continuation of the struggles of all prophets, from the time of Adam to Mohammad (peace be upon them all). And for the same reason, it is understood as the conscience of all humanity. It is in this light that the mourners recite Ziyarat-e-Waritha (also spelled as, Ziarat-e- Warisa) at the end of each commemoration gathering, in which, with moving sentiments, they describe and testify the greatness of Imam Hussain’s sacrifice for the cause of Allah and make solemn pledge of their support for Imam’s mission:

An excerpt from Ziyarat-e-Waritha:

"Peace be upon you,
O inheritor of Adam, the chosen one of Allah
Peace be upon you,
O inheritor of Nuh, the prophet of Allah
Peace be upon you,
O inheritor of Ibrahim, the beloved friend of Allah
Peace be upon you,
O inheritor of Moosa, who received direct communication from Allah
Peace be upon you,
O inheritor of Muhammad, the beloved friend of Allah
Peace be upon you,
O inheritor of Ali, the commander of the faithful, and beloved of Allah
Peace be upon you,
O son of Muhammad, the chosen,
Peace be upon you,
O son of Ali, the one accepted by Allah,
Peace be upon you,
O son of Fatimah, leader of women in the world,
Peace be upon you,
O son of Khadijah, the great,
Peace be upon you,
O you, the one who will be avenged by Allah, and O son of the one who will be avenged by Allah.
O unique martyr, who was killed mercilessly.
I bear witness that you established the worship of Allah,
And the poor due,
And enjoined man to do good,
And forbade them for doing wrong,
And obeyed Allah and His messenger,
Until death came to you."
------------
Image: Candles lit for Imam Hussain, his household, and companions on "Shame-Ghariban" or "Evening of the Dispossessed". People all over Iran light candles in streets to remember the tragedy of Karbala on the 10th of Muharram.

"Iraq in Fragments": A Critical Review

Speaking of self-fulfilling prophecies and media images (see the previous post), have you seen this recent documentary called “Iraq in Fragments” directed by James Longley? (here)

Apparently, it has won tons of awards in the Sundance Film Festival and was also nominated for the Oscars. It was screened all across North America between November 2006 and April 2007. A few of us watched it last year. My immediate impression was: DISAPPOINTING - to put it politely. I jotted down below thoughts afterwards and shared them with a few friends.

Longley spent over two years in Iraq from 2003 for this documentary. He used the everyday, lived experiences of Iraqi people as a lens to tell a bigger story of the politics and experiences of factionalism in Iraq. The idea was great and the resources he had access to could have helped him knit an intricate and complex portrayal of the ground reality. Like it is in reality. But, that did not happen in this documentary.

The documentary focused on the obvious three communities in Iraq – the Sunnis, the Shias, and the Kurds – and how their 'differences' - political and to a lesser extent ideological - are disparately opposite and irreconcilable. No mention of commonalities among them - like shared culture and religion, and intermarriages, friendships, and tribal relations - that cut across these factional lines, which are widespread in that society according to many scholarly studies.
A logical question that may come to any critical mind is that if it's that bad, then how did these communities put up with each other over such a long history? Why did it become so bad recently? We get no answer to these questions. The documentary made no attempt at presenting the current escalation of violence in its political and historical context. Consequently, an uninitiated viewer only gets an essentialized image of the ‘differences’ that appear as irreconcilable among these three communities.

For the Kurdish and Sunni cases, the documentary focused on the lives of young boys and people surrounding them. You see innocence, suffering, feelings, emotions that are real and that any viewer can relate with. But in the Shia case, the focus was instead on a leader of a militia, his ideological views, rhetoric, leadership, etc. How are all these experiences comparable in the first place? Moreover, we see no representation of female experiences in the current turmoil. Such an imbalanced portrayal furthers the differences in the minds of the viewers and presents a division of Iraq as the only ‘natural’ solution.

A friend, who was with me at the screening, drew my attention toward an underlying and very subtle depiction of hypocrisy in all three stories in the documentary. The documentary seem to depict that what the adult say and what they actually want are two different things. It reminded me of the imagery of 'cunning' Arabs that cannot be 'trusted' which runs deep into the Orientalist discourse (remember the movie, "Lawrence of Arabia"). I thought that was an interesting observation.

I cannot help but think that this documentary was made with a specific kind of anti-war argument in mind: Iraq is a mess now; it may have been in a better state before we got in. The people are messed up, you cannot solve their ideological and political differences, they would keep fighting with each other. The best option for us is to get out as soon as possible. The reification of 'fragments' serves well for this argument.

Here is the screening schedule, fyi.

PS. I shared the above thoughts with a few friends. One friend wrote back with some insightful thoughts. Below, I copy a couple of points from my response to that feedback.

- My primary concern was about the simplistic portrayal of reality and the reification of identities in this documentary. I suspect that it is produced for the consumption of a specific kind of anti-war argument. This portrayal could also contribute to a policy consensus on the division-of-Iraq solution, although I don't think this was Longley's intention or his personal politics. But it works to that effect, in my opinion. My general argument is that no depiction of Iraqi reality in the US is without consequences on the future of Iraq. It would be too naive on the part of the director to simply think of portraying the reality with 'objectivity' and no concern for the political consequences. I don't think he is that naive. And I think that these kinds of documentaries, columns, blogs on Iraq all have profound effect on policy and politics.

- On my friend's point about the passive form of documentary structure, which avoids the issue of causal connection; that is, who is responsible. My comment: Reality is much more complex than the simplistic three categories Longley presents in his documentary. His documentary starts with a Sunni in Baghdad expressing that they were better off under Saddam. A particular kind of focus on a specific Shia Militia (them beating up people who sold alcohol; their militant might; how they want to control the country using the channel of elections) in the second section, following the Sunni case, would automatically make the viewer think that Shias have replaced the previous dictatorship. They are the new dictators now (something the an American-Muslim scholar recently claimed on his blog, calling the top religious authority in Iraq a new dictator after Saddam). True, Longley does not venture into tracing the cause-effect, i.e. who is responsible, what is the political and the historical context. But the structure of this documentary and its content inevitably leads an uninitiated viewer into make these causal connections, if un-intentionally. Documentary is a form of art, and art touches hearts and minds at a deeper level.

The simplistic causal connection that's coming off at the moment could be averted even in the passive documentary form, by presenting the complexity, the confusion, the contradictions, which is what the ground reality is. Why does the portrayal have to be in the neat, simplistic three categories? Does Saddam or ex-baathist represent all Sunnis and a particular Militia all Shias?

If Longley's aim was to present 'the other side of the story' or the 'actual experiences of people' or 'through the lens of their experiences a larger story', I don't think he did a good job at any of these. Hence, my disappointment.

Iraq in Fragments: A Self-fulfilling Prophecy?

The US Senate recently voted for a soft partition of Iraq. This was an unbinding resolution to divide Iraq on ethnic and religious lines into three federal governments. One wonders, who gave them to right to talk about dividing Iraq in the first place?! Who are they to decide the future of the Iraqi people? The US is part of the problem, not solution. As Juan Cole rightly says in his recent blog entry, "First they messed up Iraq by authorizing Terrible George to blow it up, now they want to further mess it up by dividing it. It makes no sense..." It seems to me that those in the US Senate are following a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is, a false understanding or prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true.

Here is how a false understanding is fulfilling itself in the Iraqi case: You are a typical senator. You rely mostly on your staffers and mainstream media to learn about matters pertaining to foreign policy. Especially when you are not part of the Committee on Foreign Relations. Even when you are, you obviously don't have time to read the core scholarly research on all international conflicts and different regions by yourself. So you prefer to get a simplified, straightforward, summarized view of each issue and each region, including Iraq. But you start off wrongly, as in your quest for simplified understanding, you perceive the Iraqi society as fundamentally divided into three neat categories: the Shias, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. These people fall neatly into these 'distinct' categories in your imagination with clearly discernable 'differences' in beliefs, attitudes, dialects, cultures, life preferences, etc. There is not much fluidity or overlap among these identities. Further, you perceive these groups in existential opposition to each other: they hate each other, they do not want to live together, otherwise, how can you understand the current conflict. That they only needed a catalyst, such as a sudden break up of the political status quo and state structure, to start killing each other. In this simplified understanding, the policies of divide-and-rule of the current administration, such as the "The Redirection" (here) or "Shifting Targets" (here, both articles by Seymour Hersh), are supposed to have no effect in politicizing and transforming sectarian relations. As if politics had no role in generating hatred among these groups in Iraq. In this understanding, politics matters not as much as the supposedly primordial differences between Sunnis and Shias do. You see the people and their identities not in their complex social reality, rather, in simplistic categories that can help you make voting decisions, or at least, justify your voting track. This simplified image is very far from the ground reality, but you think that it is the truth.

The result: a) You neglect the role of politics, and consequently, the possibility of finding solution through politics. That is, through talks, through negotiations, through trust building, through just solutions. b) You miss the possibility of finding solutions in the common cultural resources, in the commonality of religion among the Iraqi groups, in their shared culture and history. Hence, you end up suggesting the old colonial solution of dividing up people through territorial boundaries. And how do you validate it? With a justification like this: ‘because they were divided in the first place, hence the divide-up solution.’ You justify and validate this logic by referring to none other than the logic itself. Talk about tautological reasoning! How a false perception is causing itself to become true!!

How should we perceive Iraq then? I refer the readers to an earlier post where I shared similar concerns. There I pointed out the dangers of focusing only on the ‘differences,’ and I stressed that we should not overlook the common cultural and religious factors that bind the Iraqi society together (See here).

It is so terrible to see that the public is also buying into this distorted imagery, this wrong portrayal of the Iraqi social reality. Even some Muslims, outside of Iraq, who are deeply saddened by the violence and bloodshed, have also started to see the division as the best solution. This is the power of media. It effectively distributes the public opinion messages, which reproduce themselves in the minds of the general public. Through these messages, these perceptions, these lens, the general audience interprets the news about Iraq and would judge political solutions like the division of Iraq. It is through this combined role of policy making (power) and media (knowledge) that the self-fulfilling prophecy about Iraq is materializing itself.

Another example of such this self-fulfilling prophecy can be found in the “clash of civilizations” theory by Samuel Huntington, which for many people has become the standard examining glass to interpret terrorism and the war on terror. (See its criticism here.)

In my next post, I want to look at James Longley's documentary, "Iraq in Fragments" (see image). This documentary is a good illustration of the concerns I share above.

The Askariya Mosque and the Muslim Ummah

The desecration of the Holy Askariya Mosque is a painful sight to all lovers and followers of the Prophet and his family. My condolence to all of you on this tragedy.

We are at a very sensitive juncture of history. Our collective actions as Muslims and as people of conscience are largely going to determine our future. The two attacks on the Askariya Mosque were evidently aimed at furthering sectarian violence and destabilizing Iraq. Perhaps even aimed at spilling sectarian violence out of the Iraqi borders into neighboring countries. It is difficult to ascertain who perpetrated these crimes. But it is clear that the situation in Iraq only worsened after the last attack on February 22, 2006. That is what the perpetrators wanted. The occupying forces are ultimately responsible for the protection of the civilians and the holy sites. They have obviously failed so far.

Iraqis need to take charge of their future in their hands. Only through unity can they defeat the plots of those who wish to divide them. And only through peace can they speak out to those who wish to provoke violence. The Muslim Ummah needs to send a resounding message to the Iraqi people and to all the people of the world - Muslims and Non-Muslims alike - that all Muslims are united and cannot allow such violence to be perpetrated in their name. The Muslim Ummah should denounce the sacrilege of all holy sites and the bloodshed of innocent lives across Iraq. And they should urge all people of conscience to join them in this cause.

The three images show the sacrilege of the Askariya Shrine after the two attacks. From top to bottom: a) Taken in Feb 2004, b) Taken after Feb 22, 2006, c) Taken on June 13, 2007.

When Skies Wept Blood: A Review

Guess what I found at a local Islamic CD shop last week? A copy of "Karbala: When Skies Wept Blood"! (trailer) The documentary was released in January of this year in the UK and the US. I did not expect it to arrive here this soon.

An impressive effort. I especially liked the question, the puzzle, in which they framed the whole documentary: The tragic event of Karbala did not start in the year 61; rather, its historical roots should be traced back to the time the Prophet (s) passed away, or more so, to Ghadir.

All throughout, I was absorbed by its powerful visuals and the insightful interviews from various scholars and followers of the Ahlul Bayt (as). The documentary was sort of structured like a majalis. It started with making some historical arguments, then narration of faza'il (merits) of the family of the Prophet (s) and their sacrifices, then mas'ib (tragic accounts of Karbala) along with expressing mourners' devotional attachment to the Ahlul Bayt (as).

A good reminder to the Shia audience, I thought, while watching it. We need more productions like this one, done on an important topic with devotion and creativity. Not just for a reminder to ourselves but also to clarify many misconceptions about our devotion to the Ahlul Bayt (as) and to spread their noble message to a wider audience. I have sent more detailed comments and suggestions to the production team, Red Tears.

Universalize Imam Hussain

A point that I especially emphasized in my comments was this: Would a non-Shia viewer find this documentary equally inspiring too? They can at best 'tolerate' the documentary, as a "Shia thing", just like they must have watched TV Today's Muharram programs, but I am not sure if they could also 'relate' with it. To achieve the latter would require a more subtle approach.

Nearly all of more than a billion Muslims on earth revere the noble family of the Prophet (s). The challenge for us is to build a vocabulary, a language, a discourse through which we can share the same level of inspiration with them. A focus on Islam and universal principles/values for which the Ahlul Bayt (as) sacrificed their every thing would be the key. What we need is to universalize Imam Hussain and Karbala, for all Muslims and for all of humanity. And we need to do that with a proactive approach (opposed to merely reacting to events). For the world today needs that inspiration - of relentless struggle for truth and justice - more than ever before.

The famous Urdu poet Josh Malihabadi has beautifully said:

Insaan ko bedaar tou ho laynay do
Har qaum pukaray gi hamaray hain Hussain

Give humanity a chance to gain consciousness,
Every nation will call out, 'Hussain is ours!'

OF GRIEF AND PASSION: LADIES MAJALIS IN OUR COMMUNITY

(Written by KZ with valuable input from family and friends)

I have been meaning to get back to my writing for a couple of months now. Just couldn’t. You know… how our schedules get like during Muharram. I usually had three to four majalis invites for each day. If you live in Karachi, you must have had a similar experience. It’s amazing how our whole community gets mobilized during these days. So much could be said about our majalis gatherings.

The majalis continue after the first ten days of Muharram, especially among the ladies. From the corner areas of Karachi - like Malir, Safora Ghott, Sohrab Ghott, Korangi, Lyari, Queens Road, Defence - to the central areas - like Saddar, Soldier Bazar, Guru Mandir, PECHS, Rizvia - literally hundreds of majalis continue to happen everyday for over two months.

Walk into Soldier Bazar during morning hours in one of those days. You will see individuals and groups of women walking or driving from one end to another end of the muhalla (town) attending the majalis, one after another. You will notice their hands full with niyaz, tabarruk, household items that they bought in bazaar on their way to attending the majalis.

The primary motive, of course, is to remember the great sacrifice of Imam Hussain (as) and his dear ones in Karbala, Kufa, and Shaam. And to gain some practical messages from their example. But, there also are the secondary motives or the ‘latent functions’ of these majalis gatherings, including maintaining networks and doing ‘homework’ for building ‘new’ networks after Muharram!

Even if you do not live in Karachi, you can probably still relate to this experience. Wouldn’t you agree that our majalis gatherings seem to have lost its focus, its meaning, its purpose somehow? Somehow, the secondary motives have become the primary motivation.

If you happen to be a young female, you must accompany your mother in the majalis in our Khoja community, not necessarily for the majalis itself, but for your ’screening’ in front of other aunties. The aunties take it as their responsibility to scrutinize every bit of yours: how you dress, how you carry yourself, how you weep. I wouldn’t have mind if the purpose behind their ‘care’ was to make sure that we young ones do Azadari the right way, that I am learning from the majalis, that I am feeling the pain of Ahlul Bayt (as) in my heart. I wish as elders they would do that instead of distracting themselves and making young ones self-conscious about unnecessary things while attending the majalis.

It's a whole culture that has developed in our majalis gatherings involving certain roles and expectations and instrumental justifications of using the majalis avenue for that purpose. I wish we had other purposive public avenues within our communities that would cater to these other social needs.

Another Concern - The Tableegh Aspect

Back in older days, as I have been told, niyaz, tabarruk, sabeel would attract the non-Shia and the needy to our majalis. Our gatherings tended to be more inviting of other people. Now, our majalis are more exclusive sort. We just feed each other: I invite you to my majalis, you invite me, and we feed eachother - the already fed ones - with the best available niyaz in market.

Really, how much do we generally learn from these majalis, even after years of attendance? Talk about the culture of our majalis - how many times have you seen a thoughtful followup discussion after a majalis among the ladies? The comment I hear after a majalis is usually 'very fine' or 'bohat achchi thi', some times the talk may be about the masa'ib, but then the discussion would move on to other 'usual' stuff. We seem to have missed the tableegh aspect of these majalis. Part of this is because of our self absorption and exclusiveness (exclusiveness even among ourselves, as known to us by the labels 'khoja', 'urdu speaking', 'punjabi' centers).

My neighbor is a Sunni Muslima but she loves to attend Muharram gatherings and has a special place for mourning and tabarruk in her heart. Each year she asks me to take her to a few majalis gatherings. To do that, I really have to consider so many things: where should I take her, what are my options, how many zakiras really deliver substantial material? How inviting would the audience be? Alhamdolillah, I am always able to find a few gatherings where I feel comfortable taking her.

But I so wish that our majalis gatherings - where at times people come for food, business, and other sorts of dunyawi (worldly) chores - instead of being bazaars (as they feel like sometimes) they become true Universities of Imam Hussain (as). Like in a university you have different specialized classes on different topics, I wish our Muharram ‘Ashras in different households and community centers become specialized classes for Akhlaaq, History, Current Affairs, Social Problems, Fiqh, and Aqaid. And after attending hundreds of these majalis each year and for several years, we and our new generation would become graduates in Islam.

The increasing numbers of the likes of the Hafsa Madrassa (here, here) and the tough, rigid kind of their students, who seem to be the least tolerant of differences, should really concern us. There are similar madrassas close to our areas too. What kind of Islam are they learning? Have we done any outreach to them or at least the general Muslim population? What can we do?

It is important more than ever before that our majalis become a source of education and inspiration and we invite our non-Shia fellows in even greater numbers in them. We need to get out of our shy, self-absorbed exclusiveness in our interaction with other communities.

(April 18, 2007)

Photo: A wall frame inside Gamay Shah, Lahore.