WHEN writing about the history of Muslims or history of issues related to Muslim societies, there is nowadays a tendency to call this entire area of study ‘Islamic’ without much thought as to the use of this important epithet.

For example, in modern times, particularly in the Indian subcontinent, there is a strong tendency to call all Muslim histories ‘Islamic history’. Noted scholars have contested this subtle subversion leading to radicalisation or to an attitude that is characterised by exclusivist tendencies.

Interestingly enough, when classical historians wrote histories, they tended to use more neutral titles than ‘Islamic’ or even ‘Muslim’ in their history texts.

For example, the pioneering historian Ibn Ishaq termed his history book Kitabul Magazi al-Nabawiyya (The Book of Wars of the Prophet PBUH) without the use of the word ‘Islami’ or ‘Muslim’.

Similarly, take the example of Al Baladhuri’s Ta’reekh al-Buldaan. It translates as ‘The conquests of cities’ not ‘The Islamic conquests of cities’. These and many other examples of history texts tend to demonstrate that historians were very careful about how to title their works and showed great care in making these decisions.

However, in contemporary times, particularly in the Indian subcontinent, there has developed a tendency to show all caliphs and sultans, governors and generals as ‘Islamic’ heroes. This leads us to ask: what exactly is the difference between calling something/somebody Islamic or Muslim? And how does this make a difference?

Islamic denotes something/ somebody as mandated by Islam or having Islamic credentials to reflect Islamic character. The word Muslim, on the other hand, denotes an individual who happens to be a Muslim. It does not show what that individual did that was Islamic.

What this does is that it allows historians and scientists to be relatively free to discuss, examine and judge that person’s acts of commission and omission. When a strong epithet of Islamic is added to a concept or a person, it immediately exalts the entity to a ‘sacred’ status and makes it difficult if not impossible to examine it/him/her critically, using or applying the conventions of historical analysis/critical discourse analysis.

Interestingly enough, now this epithet (Islamic) is being used with so many personalities or concepts that practically anything done by a Muslim ‘hero’ or a ruler becomes sanctified and he/she becomes infallible. This appears quite contrary to the historical epochs that we call formative.

Even the common man or woman would question the caliph(s) about the truthfulness or otherwise of their actions. We see a different practice there. In earlier times, they used more natural, non-judgmental, non-religious and neutral terms to denote and describe the important personalities of their age or what they did.

Many notable writers have argued that by having a tendency to refer to acts by Muslims as Islamic justifies what they did and sanctions the act in religious terms, which creates many historical and intellectual problems.

Also, it is argued that this approach has tended to develop myths about history and historical personalities. Often, this tendency leads to an approach of ‘everything being perfect’. What then happens is that a set of myths are developed around a set of propositions or personalities that shroud and conceal the truth.

Particularly, history as a science of study of the past becomes a casualty because the study of history in such approaches then becomes more or less theology, or even may turn out to be devotional literature, having no characteristics of history.

This tends to lead to a loss of status for history, leading to loss of trust in the writer. History, among other things, is all about examining, critically analysing and studying the events or personalities of the past in a scientific way.

It is, therefore, no surprise that many of the scholarly students of history at advanced levels of their training tend to prefer more ‘serious’ historical literature mostly written in the academically advanced countries rather than in developing countries.

Exceptions apart, many history books written in Muslim countries, including Pakistan, methodologically, structurally, and content-wise leave much to be desired. Some history books are even sprinkled with curses and abuses for personalities whom the writers did not like or approve of. Such is the sad story of some of the writers of our history in many Muslim societies.

One reason why this tendency seems to have developed is that history is approached as a tool to justify sectarian or ideological positions and defame others. The purpose is not finding the truth in history but using history to justify theological positions based on their assumptions and interpretations of history, which might be called ‘theologised’ or ‘ideologised’ histories.

Many other nations also tend to do this in the name of nation-building, which may be called nationalised histories. As opposed to this phenomenon, one can find versions of history written by many Muslim writers who have tried to investigate history from a more objective position trying to draw so-called scientific conclusions.

One such marvellous example is that of Ibn Khaldun. Today, Ibn Khaldun is seen as a shining example of this trend where he tries to study history not as theology, but as a science, an objective study of history without attaching any epithet.

In sum, writers should use the terms ‘Islamic’ or ‘Muslim’ discerningly which can prevent standardisation of everything Muslims do or don’t do in a particular society at a particular time and in a particular context.

The writer teaches Histories and Cultures of Muslim Societies at a private university in Pakistan.

Updated May 17, 2013 10:43am

More From This Section

Comments (64) (Closed)


Ross
May 19, 2013 01:01am
If you are saying that muslims are converts, then think about other religions my friend.
Raj Hukkoo
May 18, 2013 08:34am
If Muslims and Islam are to b respected then Muslims should allow free debates, without retribution, between Muslims. Nothing should be off the table including the Quran and the actions and words of Islam's founder, Muhammad bin Abdallah. It is not the questions and answers that are important, it is whether Muslims can tolerate unhindered debates among Muslims. Once Muslims stop resorting to violence when Islam is criticized then Muslims will get respect. Today Muslims are despised not because a few among them commit acts of terrorism. Muslims are despised because the majority does not allow free debates about Islam and Muhammad.
Black
May 18, 2013 06:59pm
and further the interpretation of what is islamic should be further distinguished, which opens a can of whole new worms, and thus why West is better off being secular.
Nero
May 18, 2013 06:30pm
Yup! Blame non-muslims for "using Islamists militants, redical Muslims and fundamental, terrorist etc". Way to go!
Nero
May 18, 2013 06:27pm
The term "Islamic bomb" was coined and used primarily by Pakistani politicians and establishments. Don't have to blame west for everything.
pramod
May 18, 2013 01:04pm
Most of the Muslim justify their acts using the name of Islam.If some thing has done by using religion as a weapon then those act will be labelled as Islamic.
gangadin
May 18, 2013 12:30pm
Its not identity crisis or anything like that. It is misinterpretation of a very simple religion. Majority of the Muslims and I mean Majority, are ignorant and do not really understand the religion.
Ash Mirza (USA)
May 18, 2013 07:28am
Sal .....I agree with you, ....Islam is a great religion no doubt in my mind....But most followers are worse.. I see more Islamic rules and performance of people in Christian country such as USA, than any Muslim country, including Kingdom of Saudi Arabia... I hope Muslims stop Killing Muslim or Non-Muslim people and study more about PEACE, LOVE and HUMANITY te become better Muslims.... Sincerely, Ash Mirza (USA)
Khanm
May 18, 2013 11:36am
The world sees them as one and our lives are on the run....
Darbullah
May 18, 2013 12:27am
Why is it that Muslims wear their religion on their sleeves? Are they afraid that Sharia police is watching? For all other religions, worship is private as they trust themselves and their piety. For Muslims,its as if they are scared of thought police and need to reiterate every time and everywhere that they are Muslims. I find it funny.It doesn't look like a confident behavior. Also, why do you force people not to convert on the fear of death? So if this fear is removed, are you guys scared that you don't have anything to stand on?
Guest
May 18, 2013 11:25am
Brilliant analysis! Hats off to the writer. We often see history written by the winner (if it is immediately after an event) or by whoever is in power at a later point in time (we see this a lot in India depending on who is in power). Alternate is not to write history for the masses but for educational purposes in a limited setting where no one can question the content (we see that in both the main religions of India) and students are indoctrinated from a young age and parents with limited resources have no choice of where else to send their kids to. Where we have fallen as a society....
Ishtiaq Ahmed
May 18, 2013 09:22am
Very good explanation of the terms used so often without regards to their meanings and connotation. Just think about the term Islamic Bomb used by the Western media while referring to the nuclear arsenal held by Pakistan. It almost attaches divine sanctity to an otherwise destructive instrument. How funny but ignorant!
mubeen
May 18, 2013 09:09am
Need more of such articles to educate us.
Pappu
May 18, 2013 06:53am
So the writer is saying that the motivation and justification of an act of terrorism is not the terrorists belief ? Taliban is not doing for Islam or Jinnah didnt create a separate homeland for Muslims because he was a Muslim himself ? hiding from truth will not take you any where ? accept the problem and reform islam . every religion has reformed itself . Nice try .
Gulshan
May 18, 2013 05:10am
The tendency of theologizing history makes it a bias history. History is history and it must be subjected to analytical and critical methods of science. To use 'Islamic' with history is an attempt to make it infallible...
Abu ul Hassan
May 18, 2013 04:15am
The name Islamic republic does not qualify its inhabitants but the very ideology of that state. An Islamic republic is a republic with an Islamic ideology and constitution but it is inhabited by Muslims and non-muslims. If the ideology is not in keeping with Islam then it should not be called as an Islamic republic. Now, do you see any rift in this regard?
(Dr.) B.N. Anand
May 17, 2013 05:58pm
Mr. Khaki, indeed you have done a great job in initiating this discussion among a class of people who always thought Muslims and Islam to two sides of the same coin. For me, it does stimulate my fluid intelligence to ponder as to be able to learn the difference between the terms often used rather loosely. Am I correct to assume that an Islamic country may not be Muslim majority country or even vice versa I.e a country inhibited by Muslims may not necessarily be an Islamic country? Please correct me if I made a mistake in drawing my own conclusion from my very limited knowledge on this subject. I beg to be excused even if I made a mistake in coming to this conclusion. It is surely a learning experience. BNA
zoro
May 18, 2013 03:40am
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in: USA — 0.6% Australia — 1.5% Canada — 1.9% China — 1.8% Italy — 1.5% Norway — 1.8% At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among gangs.This is happening in: UK — 2.7% Thailand — 4.6% From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply.This is occurring in: France — 8% Philippines — 5% Netherlands — 5.5%. At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car burnings. Any non Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in: Guyana — 10% India — 13.4% Israel — 16% Kenya — 10% Russia — 15% After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in: Ethiopia — 32..8% At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and on going militia warfare, such as in: Chad — 53.1% Lebanon — 59.7% From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non believers of all other religions, sporadic genocide, use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in: Albania — 70% Malaysia — 60.4% Qatar — 77.5% Sudan — 70% After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on going in: Bangladesh — 83% Egypt — 90% Iran — 98% Iraq — 98.7% Pakistan — 97% Turkey — 99.8% UAE — 96% 100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar es Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, and the Koran is the only word, such as in: Afghanistan — 100% Saudi Arabia — 100% Somalia — 100% Yemen — 100%. Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
Dhk
May 18, 2013 02:12am
You really believe there was no ruler at all? This is the fallacy that fuels the extremist propaganda for an utopian state
Guest
May 18, 2013 02:41am
Identity crisis?
John
May 17, 2013 11:09pm
You may find literal differences but the world sees them as one.
gee
May 17, 2013 09:54pm
Hair splitting theories for nothing –nothing productive to think!
ahmed.jumma@yahoo.com
May 17, 2013 11:58am
Very nice article. It is very helpful to make understand the non-Muslims who are using Islamists militants, redical Muslims and fundamental, terrorist etc. while nothing exists in Islam anything like that. Muslims should also improve their characters and behaviour as Islam is not bound to clarify their deeds.
Anup
May 17, 2013 08:38am
Good read
sal
May 17, 2013 08:42pm
In Pakistan case this is ironic because while the country is full of muslims, the majority do not act in a islamic way.
zoonzoon
May 17, 2013 08:55pm
neither
Asad
May 17, 2013 05:48pm
Followers of the three Abrahamic traditions are essentially converts,you are right there. May be converted to something better?(35-40 %world population),unlike Hinduisim whereas you are either born brahmin or dalit(untouchable) and are stuck with it till the day you die.I don't know who has lost his mind when you say 99% of billion plus followers of Islam are illogical and extremists.
ammad
May 17, 2013 06:50am
i must say an excellent article...
ravi
May 17, 2013 12:56pm
the word ‘Islamic’ used because every act done by muslims was justified in the name of Islam, may be politically but it was
Alsahdiq
May 17, 2013 07:02am
The author has enlightened us with true misconception people have in their minds. Take for example the first Islamic regime. It was none other than a system of the people by the people, for the people. Could there be anything else? No none whatsoever. There was no King, no President, no Ruler so how did the system work? The Muslim people made the system work. Islamic State came into existence solely because the people at large practised Islam. Today Islamic State is not be seen anywhere as people at large do not practise what they profess. In the minds of almost everyone the concept of Islamic regime is Autocracy. But the very fundamental of Islam i.e. the Kalimah condemns autocracy of any man. The Kalimah stresses Autocracy of Lord Almighty alone and no one else. So people calling themselves Muslims must look at the first Islamic State as the role model of Islamic system. What followed later i.e. autocracy of men was no way Islamic as it contradicted the very fundamental of Islam i.e. the Kalimah. We know from history that when a true Muslim was brought before such autocracies, they refused to defile their Kalimah in favour of showing allegience to the usurper and consequently were murdered or martyred (to put it in right words) for their loyalty to Lord Almighty alone.
Beg
May 17, 2013 05:02am
What a waste.simple things are simple so kindly keep it simple. If you have slightest sense of language then why can't you understand the simple words Islamic and muslim. This is because you don't know arabic but trying to explain arabic terms. And that is unscientific. Kindly don't do that
RAW is WAR
May 17, 2013 04:32am
no difference at all.
Harf
May 17, 2013 04:28am
Superb!
Rocky
May 17, 2013 08:01pm
There is absolutely no difference between Muslim and Islamic. It is wrong to say that the use of the term Islamic tends to denote a darker shade of fanaticism as compared to the word Muslim. When Muslim jurisprudence is implemented in a society, it is called an Islamic society. So, let's not skin hair here. A lot of times if people see anything in print, they accept is as the final word of wisdom; but it must not be forgotten that misconceptions, half truths, ignorance and outright lies can also be printed. Lets look at the following excerpt: " Al Baladhuri’s Ta’reekh al-Buldaan. It translates as ‘The conquests of cities’ not ‘The Islamic conquests of cities’. " We all know "Ta'reekh" is a farsi word that means "History". So the author is wrong about the name to begin with. The correct name is "Fatah al Buldaan". Fatah means 'conquest' or 'Victory'. Most of us know that already. Let's talk about Al Baladhuri. He was Persian, not Arab. He may have studied in Arabistaan, but he had a strong sense of ethnic and cultural pride - that is very characteristic of the Aryan people of Aryamein (Iran). Unlike the nationalist Fars people, desi Aryans who were converted from other faiths by Ghazi wannabes like Taimur lang (Lame Taimur) ba zor-e-shamsheer (by the force of the sword) can sing endless paeans of praise for Arabs and not lament at their own history before they were massacred into accepting Islam... err... no not Islam, according to the author... into being Muslims! Till this day the Persians seethe when reminded of the plunder of their kingdom. It is because of this disdain that they call Arabs, "eaters of lizards(soosmar)" and "drinkers of Camel milk (Sheer-e-shutur) who dream of grabbing the throne of the Kiyanis." "Za sheer-e-shutur khordan wa soosmaar, Arab ra.... takht-e-kiyani konat arzoo" I am not defending their diatribe, only pointing out the reason for their disdain - their ethnic and cultural pride. I wish people from Pakistan looked at Mohenjo daro, Harappa and Taxila" and said, "That's our ancestral wealth. We are a people of our own beginnings - not of someone else's making.
pathanoo
May 17, 2013 05:30pm
WOW!!! Mr. Jan-e-Alam Khaki. I have read some very highly intelligent, evocative, honest and courageous articles by several author in DAWN. But you, Sir, have surpassed them all. What clarity of thought!! What depth of knowledge!! What insight in to the soul!! What penetrating intellect to analyse a subject which would not even occur to other writers, intellectuals or philosophers in the Muslim world. You, Sir, have my respect. And, I am not easily given to praise.
Akil Akhtar
May 17, 2013 03:51am
It is being done purposely to replace the word communist with Islamist in the minds of the populace. The funniest one was when Australian TV reffered to some mulims killed in Thailand as "Islamic deaths" while in custody and being transported in hot conditions in a tightly packed truck.
Irrfaan Akhtaar
May 17, 2013 08:02pm
The mindset of Pakistanis is stuck to the fourteenth century, they refused to accept this is twenty first century.
Yasin
May 17, 2013 06:21am
Very good read. Very relevant in present times.
Rzia
May 17, 2013 05:42am
A superp analysis it was. I am no student of history, but when little, my pakistan studies text book created a lot of mythical/idealistic concepts in my mind about the 'Muslim' (Pakistani) victories against the 'Enemy'. Growing up, when (if not all) those concepts were shattered by the unbiased truth and testimony, it was painful. Distorted and biased history documentation is evil; and its not confined to 'Muslim' or 'Islamic' history alone; it's a more wide-spread and deeper ill unfortunately.
Hassan
May 17, 2013 07:37am
Every nation in the world is promoting their religion, culture etc "WITHOUT" using the name of the religion. Why? it works better if keep it in a low profile. Today's world is about actions, we will be much better off if we talk less and work more.
Ram Mohan roy
May 17, 2013 06:00am
These days suicide bombers in the Middle East , Afganistan and Pakistan call themselves as True Muslims . Will they be called Muslim terrorists or Islamic terrorists . According to their belief they will enter heaven.
Saeed
May 18, 2013 01:43pm
Islam and Muslim are same specially Pakistani Muslim, I don't see they are doing different from Islamic way of teaching . The problem ,this thing is not working . So our educated people comes out with different ideas in order to protect religion. This article is one of them. Any religious base society is alway fail society.
HNY2013
May 17, 2013 08:16pm
A rose is not a tulip and a tulip is not a rose
TRUTH
May 17, 2013 05:57pm
Clearly shows the writer as well majority of the Muslims suffer from inferiority complex and prefer to use words other then Islam. The word Islam means peace and it is derived from salam. So instead of explaining this word to other get rid of the phobia of it that others have, the writer is giving opnion not to use the word at all. Let me tell u all the truth - From Thomas Edison to Albert Einstein all scientists didn't do inventions to serve humanity but to make money and all of the human inventions have had more negative effect long term and a small positive effect short term. Think about Light bulb, while it may be useful for everyday activities at night, long term all its giving u is light pollution and electronic radiation. U or I won't be taking degrees, iphones, these so called dawn columns that are we are reading to our grave. Meaning our only asset is not the knowledge we have about useless things, our assets are not our bodies or the inventions we do, our only ASSET is our belief in the unseen and our good deeds and the unseen is ALLAH (swt), His Angels and everything that HE has created that we haven't even seen.And Prophet(pbuh) (saw). Think about sun and moon and think about the tech goods u use, think about cell phones - everything has its technical problems. Now think about sun or moon, has it ever happened that sun has come out 3 days late and we have been conveyed a message that there has been a techincal problem - nope, sun always rises and sets on time and not a second late! Now think about trillions of other stars and planets, and think what the Creator can give us after this life, which is so beautiful that is beyond our imagination. All these so called human inventions such nuclear weapons, electricity or light bulb have done more harm than good, and they are addicting us to life this world and making us more materialistic. We only believe in physical and tangible things - materialism - and that is what hinduism is as well - worshipping idols - materialism. Islam is the only faith that conveys the message of reality - to believe in the unseen which ALLAH (swt) - the only Creator who can give us things beyond our imagination after this life. So we as Muslims should be proud of our faith and our way of life - ISLAM and shouldn't have inferiority complex that this media is spreading as this media is only for marketing companies and their owners working 24/7 to hide the truth and make money. Remember all u and i will be taking to our graves when we die is our deeds and our imaan - our belief in the unseen - ALLAH (SWT) THE CREATOR , Prophet (saw), and His Angels, Angels whose size is bigger than even galaxies! BE PROUD OF YOUR FAITH ISLAM!!!!
harsh
May 17, 2013 08:20pm
good then attack on muslim country shld nt be taken as attack on islam
BRR
May 17, 2013 08:33pm
Frankly, a muslim is one who follows Islam, and actions of muslims can be attributed to Islam, and should be called Islamic, especially when the actors themselves quote the exact line and verses that guide their actions. Also when leaders themselves (like Kayani did recently, and Ahmedinejad does frequently) quote Islamic injunctions to justify their actions, why is there any ambiguity?
Arish Sahani
May 17, 2013 11:11am
99% of islam followers are converts and these converts have lost their mind , reasoning power and logical thinking as now all hate their own culture ,own nation of birth bow to saudis land five times and are read their book and all are ready to kill any one if they think saudis god is insulted . How God can be insulted by a foolish man whom he created. Looks like religion of fools and uneducated masses.
P.R.Koduri
May 17, 2013 01:35pm
Very instructive and analytical essay.
Naveed
May 17, 2013 10:35am
very true and pertinent
zack_d_man2001@yahoo.com
May 17, 2013 03:01pm
Good article, and I totally agree with you.
BRR
May 17, 2013 05:45am
Perhaps an important difference, but most muslims today, especially the elite, want to sanctify their behavior and biases by calling it Islamic. Even the Taliban find sanction of their actions in Islam. Ayatollah Khomeni did so too while butchering the innocent and declaring his power grab Islamic. Muslim scholars in Pakistan seem to call the invasion of Indian subcontinent by Islamic warriors as devinely approved. Isn't Allah on the side of the muslims in wars, and therefore, isn't most wars by muslims to be called Islamic anyway?
b khosla
May 17, 2013 05:48am
The same would be true when applied to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
Ashfaq Khan
May 17, 2013 03:11pm
This article explains how we got to the position of sectarian conflicts. Very good analysis.
suhail kausar
May 17, 2013 02:56pm
The writer has highlighted an important and vital distinction which needs to be made between Islamic and factual historical presentation. This logical approach will also help to convince the west for them to understand the difference between Islam and those individuals who carry out undesirable activities against the teaching of Islam, but use the name of Islam consciously or unconsciously. Suhail Kausar
anony
May 17, 2013 02:47pm
Nowadays, the world has given a new meaning to muslim or Islam, by referring to any terrorist activity as 'islamic terrorists' or muslim fundamentals'. Its like as if we ALL are being labelled as a one bad person. Its a shame.
Hulegu
May 17, 2013 12:25pm
Great article Khaki. Its often said that half knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge. Same applied to history. Making up half-true history based on myths and imaginations, detached from reality is much more dangerous than not knowing history at all.
Banban
May 17, 2013 10:12am
Very nice. If you do surgery, you are a surgeon, even if you are lousy at that; if you follow Islam, you are a Muslim even though you may well be a quack in practicing it. In the final analysis, your surgery will be judged by the standards, set forth by inventors of surgery, that it must live up to; similarly, if you believe that Islam is a collection of standards set by divinity, then a Muslim, the practitioner, will be judged by the 'inventor' based on these standards. Hope this makes sense.
TRUTH
May 17, 2013 07:32pm
Clearly shows the writer as well majority of the Muslims suffer from inferiority complex and prefer to use words other then Islam. The word Islam means peace and it is derived from salam. So instead of explaining this word to other get rid of the phobia of it that others have, the writer is giving opnion not to use the word at all. Let me tell u all the truth - From Thomas Edison to Albert Einstein all scientists didn't do inventions to serve humanity but to make money and all of the human inventions have had more negative effect long term and a small positive effect short term. Think about Light bulb, while it may be useful for everyday activities at night, long term all its giving u is light pollution and electronic radiation. U or I won't be taking degrees, iphones, these so called dawn columns that are we are reading to our grave. Meaning our only asset is not the knowledge we have about useless things, our assets are not our bodies or the inventions we do, our only ASSET is our belief in the unseen and our good deeds and the unseen is ALLAH (swt), His Angels and everything that HE has created that we haven't even seen.And Prophet(pbuh) (saw). Think about sun and moon and think about the tech goods u use, think about cell phones - everything has its technical problems. Now think about sun or moon, has it ever happened that sun has come out 3 days late and we have been conveyed a message that there has been a techincal problem - nope, sun always rises and sets on time and not a second late! Now think about trillions of other stars and planets, and think what the Creator can give us after this life, which is so beautiful that is beyond our imagination. All these so called human inventions such nuclear weapons, electricity or light bulb have done more harm than good, and they are addicting us to life this world and making us more materialistic. We only believe in physical and tangible things - materialism - and that is what hinduism is as well - worshipping idols - materialism. Islam is the only faith that conveys the message of reality - to believe in the unseen which ALLAH (swt) - the only Creator who can give us things beyond our imagination after this life. So we as Muslims should be proud of our faith and our way of life - ISLAM and shouldn't have inferiority complex that this media is spreading as this media is only for marketing companies and their owners working 24/7 to hide the truth and make money. Remember all u and i will be taking to our graves when we die is our deeds and our imaan - our belief in the unseen - ALLAH (SWT) THE CREATOR , Prophet (saw), and His Angels, Angels whose size is bigger than even galaxies! BE PROUD OF YOUR FAITH ISLAM!!!!
Talib
May 17, 2013 06:10am
Good article with interesting vibes. Was ZAB "Islamic" or a "Muslim"?
amd
May 17, 2013 06:45pm
Excellent article,in Iran in 1979 there was Islamic revolution to throw out autocratic ruler Shah.Though Shah was autocratic he forced importance of education & modernity down the throats of young Iranians.During the 8 year war with Iraq,thousands of young Iranians embraced death in fighting against Iraq,as they were foolishly made to believe that death in war leads to heaven.Many of them gave up their education for war.Today 30 years later Iranians now feel that Shah was not that bad because of his emphasis on education for the young generation
zaf ashhab
May 17, 2013 06:42pm
I agree that history is science not theology.
kulukku baba
May 17, 2013 06:08pm
Some nonsense. Islam, muslim...who cares. Bombs are going on everyday. Does anyone care for Pakistan?
Ruhul
May 17, 2013 06:10pm
Mr. Sahani, Spewing out such venomous comments against "the fools and uneducated masses" do not make you any better than them . Besides your comments have no relevance to what is being discussed.
Khaja
May 17, 2013 01:02pm
On the same note, is it OK to call a Muslim majority country an Islamic Republic? What is the root of calling a Muslim majority country an Islamic Republic? Did prophet call Madina an Islamic Republic of Madina? Why some Muslim countries named their countries Islamic Republic while others not? Somebody clarify these points to me please!