Hi everyone,
Been a long time since my last post! A combination of work (lots – both at office and at home!), Windows crashing (Thank You, Mr. G.) and a temporary writer’s block (miniscule) led to this.
However, things seem to be back to normal (lots of work is now normal – and I’m loving it :-)), so here’s my latest – on Hindi Films Behind the Veil.
Sometime in 2004, I was travelling between Riyadh and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Upon entering the flight, I saw an elderly, distinguished looking Saudi gentleman in my place, animatedly talking to the gentleman next to him. Realising that he could have made a mistake, I said, “Excuse me Sir, I think you’re sitting on my seat.” He gave me a beatific smile and responded, “Young man, I know I’m sitting on your seat!”
My consternation must have been immediately visible. Seeing me flummoxed like that, he explained that the gentleman on his left was an old friend from his youth. They had lost touch, and had bumped into each other after nearly 25-30 years, and were catching up on all the lost time!
Then he asked me, “Where are you from?” I still remember his words when I said I was from India. “Aah! The land of Amitabh Bachchan.”
Huh!!! I mean, I know that a lot of people across the globe love Hindi Films, and a lot of people would recognize Mr.B. Egyptians, for instance, are crazy about him. But this was Saudi Arabia.
Conservative, puritan Saudi Arabia.
Where films are not made, there are no cinema theatres and expats watch movies from their country on their DVDs at home.
And virtually no Saudi understands Hindi.
I must have showed my amazement on my face, to which the gentleman explained that there were cinema theatres in Saudi Arabia earlier. He had grown up watching Hindi films on his 16 mm projector in the Old City of Jeddah, and was a big fan of Amitabh Bachchan, having watched all his films from Zanjeer onwards.
I thought that possibly the older generation of Saudis - who had seen some Hindi films – must have some knowledge about our cinema. But for the younger ones, who have grown up on American culture and swayed to Lebanese pop music, our films must be as alien as possibly someone from Alpha Centauri.
That notion changed about a year later, when my wife and I were out shopping in Azizia, Jeddah – an area populated by people of the countries of our sub-continent.
Those who know Jeddah would know that the Pakistani populated area of Azizia is one of the best places to get pirated CDs. One can get decent quality CDs within a day of the movie releasing in India, and sometimes even the day before – from hawkers, who are discreet when they have some ‘information’ and pretty blatant otherwise, spreading their wares on sheets on the footpath.
Well, coming to the point, my wife and I were shopping for some fresh vegetables, next to this hawker of CDs, when a group of 5-6 very excited Saudi girls chatting animatedly came up and asked the hawker for the latest “John Ibraheem film”.
???
After they’d done their purchase and moved on, the hawker shared that after his shirtless debut in Jism, our Abraham was the latest heartthrob of Saudi girls, and he actually had to stock better quality, extra CDs of John’s films.
Well, well, well! I wouldn’t even have dreamt of that!
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
How many friends do you have?
How many friends do you have?
Let’s think! School friends, college friends, friends in office, friends at home, at places we frequent regularly, and then some phenomena possibly unique to Mumbai City - train friends.
Then there’s the new technology-driven revolution. Facebook, Orkut and other social networking sites, through which we now have hundreds – if not thousands – of friends!
The measure of a person’s popularity is the number of friends he has.
But just wait. Are these friends? Or are they acquaintances, colleagues, neighbours, associates etc?
The Oxford Dictionary defines the word ‘friend’ as ‘a person with whom one has a bond of mutual affection, typically one exclusive of sexual or family relations’.
I believe this simple definition is not enough! It falls far short of the real understanding of the word.
I read a nice poem (I don’t know the author) which defined friendship as follows-
A friend is a tender shoulder
On which to softly cry
A well to pour your troubles down
And raise your spirits high
A friend is a hand to pull you up
From darkness and despair...
When all your other “so called” friends
Have helped to put you there
A true friend is an ally
Who can't be moved or bought
A voice to keep your name alive
When others have forgot
But most of all a friend has a true heart
For from the hearts of friends
There comes the greatest love of all!
And a much more profound definition of a friend was given by Aristotle, who said, “What is a friend? A single soul, dwelling in two bodies”.
I remember having read a very nice story of a businessman who had just one friend, while his son had hundreds. The son used to keep telling the businessman that he would have succeeded much more in life if he had more friends, and used to keep referring to himself and his friend circle.
Then one day, the businessman told his son, “Son, let’s check if your so-called friends are really your friends. Tomorrow morning, go to all your friends one by one and tell them that we have lost everything in our business, and we’re destitute – on the streets. Tell them that you need their help. Ask them for a place to stay and food for our entire family and some of our servants for one month. Tell them that we would manage on our own after that.”
The next morning, the son did as he was told. He went to each of those hundreds of friends and asked them for help. But under one pretext or the other, he was turned away by all of them. Each one – except for two.
He returned home and narrated the entire episode to his father. The businessman asked him about the statements of the two friends who had agreed to help him. He replied, “Dad, the first friend asked me, ‘How many people are you?’ When I gave the answer, he asked me to come on over and stay with him. The second friend said, ‘Come on over. By the way, how many of you would be there?’.”
The businessman told his son, “See, you have possibly just two friends. Nurture and cherish their friendship, especially of the second one. Because he could be possibly your only friend.”
While the son had got the message, he was still puzzled as to why his father still said that these two were ‘possibly’ his friends. So he asked his father. And the businessman said, “Now let me show you what a friend really is. Go to my friend and tell him the same story.”
The son went to his father’s friend. Upon hearing the story, the father’s friend said, “Son, you come in and rest, while I go and fetch your father and everyone else. And you need not worry about one month or whatever. You can stay here for as long as you want. And I’ll help you and your father to build your business again.”
So, how many friends do you have?
Let’s think! School friends, college friends, friends in office, friends at home, at places we frequent regularly, and then some phenomena possibly unique to Mumbai City - train friends.
Then there’s the new technology-driven revolution. Facebook, Orkut and other social networking sites, through which we now have hundreds – if not thousands – of friends!
The measure of a person’s popularity is the number of friends he has.
But just wait. Are these friends? Or are they acquaintances, colleagues, neighbours, associates etc?
The Oxford Dictionary defines the word ‘friend’ as ‘a person with whom one has a bond of mutual affection, typically one exclusive of sexual or family relations’.
I believe this simple definition is not enough! It falls far short of the real understanding of the word.
I read a nice poem (I don’t know the author) which defined friendship as follows-
A friend is a tender shoulder
On which to softly cry
A well to pour your troubles down
And raise your spirits high
A friend is a hand to pull you up
From darkness and despair...
When all your other “so called” friends
Have helped to put you there
A true friend is an ally
Who can't be moved or bought
A voice to keep your name alive
When others have forgot
But most of all a friend has a true heart
For from the hearts of friends
There comes the greatest love of all!
And a much more profound definition of a friend was given by Aristotle, who said, “What is a friend? A single soul, dwelling in two bodies”.
I remember having read a very nice story of a businessman who had just one friend, while his son had hundreds. The son used to keep telling the businessman that he would have succeeded much more in life if he had more friends, and used to keep referring to himself and his friend circle.
Then one day, the businessman told his son, “Son, let’s check if your so-called friends are really your friends. Tomorrow morning, go to all your friends one by one and tell them that we have lost everything in our business, and we’re destitute – on the streets. Tell them that you need their help. Ask them for a place to stay and food for our entire family and some of our servants for one month. Tell them that we would manage on our own after that.”
The next morning, the son did as he was told. He went to each of those hundreds of friends and asked them for help. But under one pretext or the other, he was turned away by all of them. Each one – except for two.
He returned home and narrated the entire episode to his father. The businessman asked him about the statements of the two friends who had agreed to help him. He replied, “Dad, the first friend asked me, ‘How many people are you?’ When I gave the answer, he asked me to come on over and stay with him. The second friend said, ‘Come on over. By the way, how many of you would be there?’.”
The businessman told his son, “See, you have possibly just two friends. Nurture and cherish their friendship, especially of the second one. Because he could be possibly your only friend.”
While the son had got the message, he was still puzzled as to why his father still said that these two were ‘possibly’ his friends. So he asked his father. And the businessman said, “Now let me show you what a friend really is. Go to my friend and tell him the same story.”
The son went to his father’s friend. Upon hearing the story, the father’s friend said, “Son, you come in and rest, while I go and fetch your father and everyone else. And you need not worry about one month or whatever. You can stay here for as long as you want. And I’ll help you and your father to build your business again.”
So, how many friends do you have?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The Qur’an on the Cosmos
It has been a fortnight since I’ve written the last post, and what a hectic fortnight it has been!
Added to that, when I sat down to make my notes related to this post, it ran into more than 20 pages!
It has taken a lot of editing to bring this post down to manageable size, although I’ve had to leave a lot of references out.
What I’ll try and do in this post is to mention a few theories, relating to the earth and the universe, prevailing in the 6th century AD or later, give one or two references (if needed) on each, and mention what the Qur’an has to say about them. Later in the post, I shall specifically mention a couple of celestial phenomena that were completely unknown when the Qur’an was revealed – phenomena discovered only in the past 40-odd years – and see if the Qur’an has any references to these.
Theory 1: The Universe is without beginning or end
As late as the first three decades of the 20th century, scientists believed that the universe was static - without beginning or end. Even Albert Einstein, in his general theory of relativity, added a cosmological constant to his theory to try to force it to allow for a static universe with matter in it.
The idea of the universe expanding was proposed by Hubble only in 1929. And it was only in the 60s, with the works of Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose that the majority of cosmologists accepted the Big Bang theory, where the universe began a finite time ago.
On this point, the Qur’an says,
Awa lam yara allatheena kafaroo anna alssamawati waal-arda kanata ratqan fafataqnahuma wajaAAalna mina alma-i kulla shay-in hayyin afala yu/minoona
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (Qur’an 21:30; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Revelation – 6th century. Acceptance by scientists – 20th century. And an interesting use of words – ‘clove them asunder’. Striking resemblance to the Big Bang, isn’t it?
There’s another verse which has a clear reference to the Big Bang.
Thumma istawa ila alssama-i wahiya dukhanun faqala laha walil-ardi i/tiya tawAAan aw karhan qalata atayna ta-iAAeena
Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience." (Qur’an 41:11; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Another verse clearly mentions that the Universe will come to an end.
Yawma natwee alssamaa katayyi alssijlli lilkutubi kama bada/na awwala khalqin nuAAeeduhu waAAdan AAalayna inna kunna faAAileena
The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed),- even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it. (Qur’an 21:104; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Each of these verses pointed to things that were unknown till the last couple of hundred years to humans!
Theory 2: The earth is static and the centre of the universe
Around 150 AD, Ptolemy theorised that the earth was static, and that the Sun and all other planets revolved around it.
Around 1543 AD or so, Tycho Brahe proposed a geo-centric universe, with a static Earth at the centre of the Universe with the Moon and the Sun orbiting it, with the rest of the planets going around the Sun.
Two key proponents of the theory that the earth is not static and not the centre of the universe - Copernicus (around 1543 AD) and Galileo (17th century) – were both accused of heresy. While Copernicus’s book was banned, Galileo was given life imprisonment and was under house arrest till his death. Remember, both these events happened during the Renaissance!
To be fair, the idea of a heliocentric system had actually already been proposed around 200 B.C. However, Aristotle had asked some very simple - and very logical – questions; way earlier, around 350 B.C. This father of formal logic had asked, (1) If the Earth spun on an axis, why didn't objects fly off?; (2) If the Earth was moving (around the Sun), why didn't it leave behind the birds flying in the air?; (3) If the Earth was orbiting the sun, why didn't the stars appear to change their position since they were being viewed from a different perspective? And these seemingly logical questions held sway for a geo-centric system till the Renaissance.
And then this theory turned around on its head, to another theory.
Theory 3: The Sun is static and the centre of the Universe
First Copernicus and then Galileo propounded the heliocentric theory of planetary motion. This theory was supported by Yohann Keppler, who, around 1609, showed that planets revolve around the sun and also rotate upon their axes.
However, post these discoveries, it was thought that the Sun was stationary and did not rotate about its axis like the Earth.
On both these theories, the Qur’an says
Wahuwa allathee khalaqa allayla waalnnahara waalshshamsa waalqamara kullun fee falakin yasbahoona
It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course. (Qur’an 21:33; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Simple line, yet very profound!
This is re-stated in the Sura Ya-Seen.
La alshshamsu yanbaghee laha an tudrika alqamara wala allaylu sabiqu alnnahari wakullun fee falakin yasbahoona
It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each just swims along in its own orbit according to Law. (Qur’an 36:40; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Theory 4: The earth is flat
I allude to this theory also because of one of my readers – swap – who has mentioned this in his/her comments. (Just an aside for swap - it would be great if you could identify yourself. You could e-mail me at khanmubin@gmail.com).
While Zaffer has replied to this, giving references in his reply, let me refer to two verses from the Qur’an which prove this theory wrong.
Alam tara anna Allaha yooliju allayla fee alnnahari wayooliju alnnahara fee allayli wasakhkhara alshshamsa waalqamara kullun yajree ila ajalin musamman waanna Allaha bima taAAmaloona khabeerun
Seest thou not that Allah merges Night into Day and he merges Day into Night; that He has subjected the sun, and the moon (to his Law), each running its course for a term appointed; and that Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do? (Qur’an 31:29; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Khalaqa alssamawati waal-arda bialhaqqi yukawwiru allayla AAala alnnahari wayukawwiru alnnahara AAala allayli wasakhkhara alshshamsa waalqamara kullun yajree li-ajalin musamman ala huwa alAAazeezu alghaffaru
He created the heavens and the earth in true (proportions): He makes the Night overlap the Day, and the Day overlap the Night: He has subjected the sun and the moon (to His law): Each one follows a course for a time appointed. Is not He the Exalted in Power - He Who forgives again and again? (Qur’an 39:5; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
The English translations of both these verses really fall short of explaining the true meaning of the Arabic words.
In the former verse, the Arabic word 'yooliju' refers to the night slowly and gradually changing to day and vice versa. Such gradual changes can happen only if the earth is round. It stands to reason that if the earth was flat, this change would be sudden and not gradual.
In the latter verse, the Arabic word ‘yukawwiru’ literally means ‘to overlap’ or ‘to coil’. As eloquently explained by Dr. Zakir Naik many times, this overlapping or coiling is in the way a turban is wound around the head. The overlapping or coiling of the day and night can only take place if the earth is spherical.
But wait, I’m keeping on proving that the earth is round, but it really is not. We have found in the last century that the earth is flat at the poles – egg-shaped, as it were!
So what does the Qur’an say?
Waal-arda baAAda thalika dahaha
And the earth, moreover, hath He extended to a wide expanse (Qur’an 79:30; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
The key word in this verse is ‘dahaha’, which means an ostrich-egg. Anyone who has seen an ostrich-egg will see the resemblance with the spherical shape of the earth.
Do we need any more proof?
I realise that the post has become quite long, and I’ve not even touched the tip of the iceberg which is the minefield of scientific information in the Qur’an. So let me quickly move to verses pointing to three phenomena which really have been discovered only in the past 3-4 decades.
Phenomenon 1 – The Universe is expanding
Waalssamaa banaynaha bi-aydin wa-inna lamoosiAAoona
With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space (Qur’an 51:47; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
When translated word for word, the literal meaning of the verse is ‘And the sky/space We built/constructed it with power/support, and We are extending/spreading (it)’. The key Arabic word here is ‘moosioona’ which means ‘expanding’.
Phenomenon 2 - Presence of interstellar matter
I remember studying in my physics class in school that space between two celestial bodies is a vacuum. And I went to school in the 80s! Only recently, astrophysicists discovered the presence of plasma - consisting of completely ionized gas containing equal number of free electrons and positive ions - in this interstellar space.
In the 6th century AD, the Qur’an said,
Allathee khalaqa alssamawati waal-arda wama baynahuma fee sittati ayyamin thumma istawa AAala alAAarshi alrrahmanu fais-al bihi khabeeran
He Who created the heavens and the earth and all that is between, in six days, and is firmly established on the Throne (of Authority): Allah Most Gracious: ask thou, then, about Him of any acquainted (with such things). (Qur’an 25:59; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
‘All that is in between’? Why does the verse not stop at heavens and the earth? Interesting, isn’t it?
Phenomenon 3 - Pulsars
First discovered in 1967, pulsars are highly magnetised neutron stars that emit beams of radiation. These radiations from the pulsars make sounds like a knock or of a hammer. Scientists have also discovered that these radiations have the ability to penetrate or pierce anything, including the earth.
Nearly 1,400 years before this discovery, the Qur’an said,
Waalssama-i waalttariqi. Wama adraka ma alttariqu. Alnnajmu alththaqibu.
By the Sky and the Night-Visitant (therein); And what will explain to thee what the Night-Visitant is? (It is) the Star of piercing brightness. (Qur’an 86:1-3; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Two key Arabic words in these three verses accurately describe pulsars. ‘Taariq’ means ‘knocking sounds’, reflecting the sounds emitted by pulsars; and ‘Thaaqib’ means ‘penetrating waves’, accurately describing the beams of radiation of a pulsar.
Is it any surprise then that the chapter itself is called ‘At-Taariq’?
And for someone who wants to debate on the ‘six day’ comment, it would be worth remembering that the Arabic word for day is ‘youm’, and it could stand for different measures of time, from a day to an eon.
There are a few verses in the Qur’an which point to this fact. Consider these-
TaAAruju almala-ikatu waalrroohu ilayhi fee yawmin kana miqdaruhu khamseena alfa sanatin
The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years. (Qur’an 70:4; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
WayastaAAjiloonaka bialAAathabi walan yukhlifa Allahu waAAdahu wa-inna yawman AAinda rabbika kaalfi sanatin mimma taAAuddoona
Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! But Allah will not fail in His Promise. Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning. (Qur’an 22:47; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
For educated people like us, who now know that a day on Earth is not the same as a day on Mars, which is different from a day on Saturn, this concept should not be difficult to grasp.
Even after editing, I realise this post has run too long. I trust it would hold the attention of readers of my blog.
And let me end with a reference to the one verse that all Muslims – and most non-Muslims – know. It is in the first chapter of the Qur’an, and it says,
Alhamdu lillahi rabbi alAAalameen
Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds (Qur’an 1:2; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
I have always found this to be a very interesting verse. Why did Allah not choose the word ‘Al Kawn’ (The Universe). Why did He choose to use the word Aalameen (the worlds). After all, He has mentioned that He created the universe, and the description is similar to the Big Bang theory (we’ve read that earlier in this post).
Is this a signal to mankind that there is extra-terrestial life elsewhere in this Universe?
(References and Acknowledgements: Al Qur’an; The Qur’aan and Modern Science-Compatible or Incompatible by Dr. Zakir Naik; The Bible, The Qur’an and Science by Dr. Maurice Bucaille; www.islam.about.com; Wikipedia; www.windows.ucar.edu; yaqb.org and many other websites, books, notes and presentations. Thanks to Zaffer, Mudassar, Naeem, Waseem, Khalid, Irfan and my other brothers and sisters who have been feeding me with information over time and enriching my knowledge of our religion )
Added to that, when I sat down to make my notes related to this post, it ran into more than 20 pages!
It has taken a lot of editing to bring this post down to manageable size, although I’ve had to leave a lot of references out.
What I’ll try and do in this post is to mention a few theories, relating to the earth and the universe, prevailing in the 6th century AD or later, give one or two references (if needed) on each, and mention what the Qur’an has to say about them. Later in the post, I shall specifically mention a couple of celestial phenomena that were completely unknown when the Qur’an was revealed – phenomena discovered only in the past 40-odd years – and see if the Qur’an has any references to these.
Theory 1: The Universe is without beginning or end
As late as the first three decades of the 20th century, scientists believed that the universe was static - without beginning or end. Even Albert Einstein, in his general theory of relativity, added a cosmological constant to his theory to try to force it to allow for a static universe with matter in it.
The idea of the universe expanding was proposed by Hubble only in 1929. And it was only in the 60s, with the works of Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose that the majority of cosmologists accepted the Big Bang theory, where the universe began a finite time ago.
On this point, the Qur’an says,
Awa lam yara allatheena kafaroo anna alssamawati waal-arda kanata ratqan fafataqnahuma wajaAAalna mina alma-i kulla shay-in hayyin afala yu/minoona
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (Qur’an 21:30; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Revelation – 6th century. Acceptance by scientists – 20th century. And an interesting use of words – ‘clove them asunder’. Striking resemblance to the Big Bang, isn’t it?
There’s another verse which has a clear reference to the Big Bang.
Thumma istawa ila alssama-i wahiya dukhanun faqala laha walil-ardi i/tiya tawAAan aw karhan qalata atayna ta-iAAeena
Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience." (Qur’an 41:11; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Another verse clearly mentions that the Universe will come to an end.
Yawma natwee alssamaa katayyi alssijlli lilkutubi kama bada/na awwala khalqin nuAAeeduhu waAAdan AAalayna inna kunna faAAileena
The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed),- even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it. (Qur’an 21:104; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Each of these verses pointed to things that were unknown till the last couple of hundred years to humans!
Theory 2: The earth is static and the centre of the universe
Around 150 AD, Ptolemy theorised that the earth was static, and that the Sun and all other planets revolved around it.
Around 1543 AD or so, Tycho Brahe proposed a geo-centric universe, with a static Earth at the centre of the Universe with the Moon and the Sun orbiting it, with the rest of the planets going around the Sun.
Two key proponents of the theory that the earth is not static and not the centre of the universe - Copernicus (around 1543 AD) and Galileo (17th century) – were both accused of heresy. While Copernicus’s book was banned, Galileo was given life imprisonment and was under house arrest till his death. Remember, both these events happened during the Renaissance!
To be fair, the idea of a heliocentric system had actually already been proposed around 200 B.C. However, Aristotle had asked some very simple - and very logical – questions; way earlier, around 350 B.C. This father of formal logic had asked, (1) If the Earth spun on an axis, why didn't objects fly off?; (2) If the Earth was moving (around the Sun), why didn't it leave behind the birds flying in the air?; (3) If the Earth was orbiting the sun, why didn't the stars appear to change their position since they were being viewed from a different perspective? And these seemingly logical questions held sway for a geo-centric system till the Renaissance.
And then this theory turned around on its head, to another theory.
Theory 3: The Sun is static and the centre of the Universe
First Copernicus and then Galileo propounded the heliocentric theory of planetary motion. This theory was supported by Yohann Keppler, who, around 1609, showed that planets revolve around the sun and also rotate upon their axes.
However, post these discoveries, it was thought that the Sun was stationary and did not rotate about its axis like the Earth.
On both these theories, the Qur’an says
Wahuwa allathee khalaqa allayla waalnnahara waalshshamsa waalqamara kullun fee falakin yasbahoona
It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course. (Qur’an 21:33; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Simple line, yet very profound!
This is re-stated in the Sura Ya-Seen.
La alshshamsu yanbaghee laha an tudrika alqamara wala allaylu sabiqu alnnahari wakullun fee falakin yasbahoona
It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each just swims along in its own orbit according to Law. (Qur’an 36:40; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Theory 4: The earth is flat
I allude to this theory also because of one of my readers – swap – who has mentioned this in his/her comments. (Just an aside for swap - it would be great if you could identify yourself. You could e-mail me at khanmubin@gmail.com).
While Zaffer has replied to this, giving references in his reply, let me refer to two verses from the Qur’an which prove this theory wrong.
Alam tara anna Allaha yooliju allayla fee alnnahari wayooliju alnnahara fee allayli wasakhkhara alshshamsa waalqamara kullun yajree ila ajalin musamman waanna Allaha bima taAAmaloona khabeerun
Seest thou not that Allah merges Night into Day and he merges Day into Night; that He has subjected the sun, and the moon (to his Law), each running its course for a term appointed; and that Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do? (Qur’an 31:29; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Khalaqa alssamawati waal-arda bialhaqqi yukawwiru allayla AAala alnnahari wayukawwiru alnnahara AAala allayli wasakhkhara alshshamsa waalqamara kullun yajree li-ajalin musamman ala huwa alAAazeezu alghaffaru
He created the heavens and the earth in true (proportions): He makes the Night overlap the Day, and the Day overlap the Night: He has subjected the sun and the moon (to His law): Each one follows a course for a time appointed. Is not He the Exalted in Power - He Who forgives again and again? (Qur’an 39:5; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
The English translations of both these verses really fall short of explaining the true meaning of the Arabic words.
In the former verse, the Arabic word 'yooliju' refers to the night slowly and gradually changing to day and vice versa. Such gradual changes can happen only if the earth is round. It stands to reason that if the earth was flat, this change would be sudden and not gradual.
In the latter verse, the Arabic word ‘yukawwiru’ literally means ‘to overlap’ or ‘to coil’. As eloquently explained by Dr. Zakir Naik many times, this overlapping or coiling is in the way a turban is wound around the head. The overlapping or coiling of the day and night can only take place if the earth is spherical.
But wait, I’m keeping on proving that the earth is round, but it really is not. We have found in the last century that the earth is flat at the poles – egg-shaped, as it were!
So what does the Qur’an say?
Waal-arda baAAda thalika dahaha
And the earth, moreover, hath He extended to a wide expanse (Qur’an 79:30; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
The key word in this verse is ‘dahaha’, which means an ostrich-egg. Anyone who has seen an ostrich-egg will see the resemblance with the spherical shape of the earth.
Do we need any more proof?
I realise that the post has become quite long, and I’ve not even touched the tip of the iceberg which is the minefield of scientific information in the Qur’an. So let me quickly move to verses pointing to three phenomena which really have been discovered only in the past 3-4 decades.
Phenomenon 1 – The Universe is expanding
Waalssamaa banaynaha bi-aydin wa-inna lamoosiAAoona
With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space (Qur’an 51:47; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
When translated word for word, the literal meaning of the verse is ‘And the sky/space We built/constructed it with power/support, and We are extending/spreading (it)’. The key Arabic word here is ‘moosioona’ which means ‘expanding’.
Phenomenon 2 - Presence of interstellar matter
I remember studying in my physics class in school that space between two celestial bodies is a vacuum. And I went to school in the 80s! Only recently, astrophysicists discovered the presence of plasma - consisting of completely ionized gas containing equal number of free electrons and positive ions - in this interstellar space.
In the 6th century AD, the Qur’an said,
Allathee khalaqa alssamawati waal-arda wama baynahuma fee sittati ayyamin thumma istawa AAala alAAarshi alrrahmanu fais-al bihi khabeeran
He Who created the heavens and the earth and all that is between, in six days, and is firmly established on the Throne (of Authority): Allah Most Gracious: ask thou, then, about Him of any acquainted (with such things). (Qur’an 25:59; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
‘All that is in between’? Why does the verse not stop at heavens and the earth? Interesting, isn’t it?
Phenomenon 3 - Pulsars
First discovered in 1967, pulsars are highly magnetised neutron stars that emit beams of radiation. These radiations from the pulsars make sounds like a knock or of a hammer. Scientists have also discovered that these radiations have the ability to penetrate or pierce anything, including the earth.
Nearly 1,400 years before this discovery, the Qur’an said,
Waalssama-i waalttariqi. Wama adraka ma alttariqu. Alnnajmu alththaqibu.
By the Sky and the Night-Visitant (therein); And what will explain to thee what the Night-Visitant is? (It is) the Star of piercing brightness. (Qur’an 86:1-3; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Two key Arabic words in these three verses accurately describe pulsars. ‘Taariq’ means ‘knocking sounds’, reflecting the sounds emitted by pulsars; and ‘Thaaqib’ means ‘penetrating waves’, accurately describing the beams of radiation of a pulsar.
Is it any surprise then that the chapter itself is called ‘At-Taariq’?
And for someone who wants to debate on the ‘six day’ comment, it would be worth remembering that the Arabic word for day is ‘youm’, and it could stand for different measures of time, from a day to an eon.
There are a few verses in the Qur’an which point to this fact. Consider these-
TaAAruju almala-ikatu waalrroohu ilayhi fee yawmin kana miqdaruhu khamseena alfa sanatin
The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years. (Qur’an 70:4; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
WayastaAAjiloonaka bialAAathabi walan yukhlifa Allahu waAAdahu wa-inna yawman AAinda rabbika kaalfi sanatin mimma taAAuddoona
Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! But Allah will not fail in His Promise. Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning. (Qur’an 22:47; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
For educated people like us, who now know that a day on Earth is not the same as a day on Mars, which is different from a day on Saturn, this concept should not be difficult to grasp.
Even after editing, I realise this post has run too long. I trust it would hold the attention of readers of my blog.
And let me end with a reference to the one verse that all Muslims – and most non-Muslims – know. It is in the first chapter of the Qur’an, and it says,
Alhamdu lillahi rabbi alAAalameen
Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds (Qur’an 1:2; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
I have always found this to be a very interesting verse. Why did Allah not choose the word ‘Al Kawn’ (The Universe). Why did He choose to use the word Aalameen (the worlds). After all, He has mentioned that He created the universe, and the description is similar to the Big Bang theory (we’ve read that earlier in this post).
Is this a signal to mankind that there is extra-terrestial life elsewhere in this Universe?
(References and Acknowledgements: Al Qur’an; The Qur’aan and Modern Science-Compatible or Incompatible by Dr. Zakir Naik; The Bible, The Qur’an and Science by Dr. Maurice Bucaille; www.islam.about.com; Wikipedia; www.windows.ucar.edu; yaqb.org and many other websites, books, notes and presentations. Thanks to Zaffer, Mudassar, Naeem, Waseem, Khalid, Irfan and my other brothers and sisters who have been feeding me with information over time and enriching my knowledge of our religion )
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Sachin Tendulkar's Performance Appraisal
A howlarious e-mail sent by my friend, Luke de Noronha, immediately after Sachin scored his double ton had me in splits, and I just had to share it with all of you!
Thanks Luke, for letting me do so!
How would Management appraise Sachin Tendulkar's performance?
Sachin Tendulkar: 200 Runs, 147 Balls, 25x4, 3x6
Agree you have done well……BUT
25 x 4s = 100
3 x 6s = 18
It implies that you have done 118 runs in 28 balls
And
12 x 2s = 24
58 x 1s = 58
It means you have done all 200 runs in only 98 balls
So you have wasted 147-98 = 49 balls
Considering only 1 run scored on each of these balls you could have earned 49 valuable runs for our team
Manager’s Comment: You Met Expectations and NOT EXCEEDED (though anyone else of our team could not do it) and your Grade is C
Training Recommendations: Learn how to STEAL singles
Thanks Luke, for letting me do so!
How would Management appraise Sachin Tendulkar's performance?
Sachin Tendulkar: 200 Runs, 147 Balls, 25x4, 3x6
Agree you have done well……BUT
25 x 4s = 100
3 x 6s = 18
It implies that you have done 118 runs in 28 balls
And
12 x 2s = 24
58 x 1s = 58
It means you have done all 200 runs in only 98 balls
So you have wasted 147-98 = 49 balls
Considering only 1 run scored on each of these balls you could have earned 49 valuable runs for our team
Manager’s Comment: You Met Expectations and NOT EXCEEDED (though anyone else of our team could not do it) and your Grade is C
Training Recommendations: Learn how to STEAL singles
Friday, February 26, 2010
Congrats Sachin, but I wanted more!
Words fail me when I want to congratulate possibly the best overall batsman (and a good but under-utilised bowler) in world cricket today!
On the way to a meeting, listening to the commentary on AIR, I was rooting for Sachin to complete his double century and create a new world record. And when he eventually did, I stopped the car to clap, whistle and do a little jig right there, at the junction of Hiranandani and Kailas Complex, Powai.
But I must confess that I was a tad disappointed! Not much, just a miniscule - I think the disappointment was somewhere in the range of 2.96 parts per trillion.
Because when he had reached 186 in the 43rd over, and runs were coming in torrents, my expectations had increased.
I wanted him to then take more of the strike and score 230.
Because, that would have then been the world record for the highest score in any recognised form of one day international cricket.
Beating Belinda Clark's 229*, for Australia v/s Denmark in the Women's World Cup in Dec 1997; which was incidentally scored at Sachin's home ground - MIG, Mumbai!
That's the problem about this genius. The more he does, the more we fans expect. But really, he does not disappoint us, does he!
Congrats once again, Little Master!
On the way to a meeting, listening to the commentary on AIR, I was rooting for Sachin to complete his double century and create a new world record. And when he eventually did, I stopped the car to clap, whistle and do a little jig right there, at the junction of Hiranandani and Kailas Complex, Powai.
But I must confess that I was a tad disappointed! Not much, just a miniscule - I think the disappointment was somewhere in the range of 2.96 parts per trillion.
Because when he had reached 186 in the 43rd over, and runs were coming in torrents, my expectations had increased.
I wanted him to then take more of the strike and score 230.
Because, that would have then been the world record for the highest score in any recognised form of one day international cricket.
Beating Belinda Clark's 229*, for Australia v/s Denmark in the Women's World Cup in Dec 1997; which was incidentally scored at Sachin's home ground - MIG, Mumbai!
That's the problem about this genius. The more he does, the more we fans expect. But really, he does not disappoint us, does he!
Congrats once again, Little Master!
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
The Qur'an on Embryology
During the course of an online discussion last week, a non-Muslim acquaintance made a sweeping statement about the Qur’an needing to be updated. While I immediately corrected him about making a statement without having read it or knowing about it, it set me thinking.
So, from this post onwards, I’ll try for every alternate post on the Qur’an for a while. And at the end of a few posts, I’ll let him decide.
So, RD, this is for you!
In one of my earlier posts (July 09), I had written about the water cycle. In that, I had mentioned that I would write about human embryology later. So, let’s start with that.
In approximately 610 A.D., the first verse of the Qur’an was revealed. And it says-
Iqra/ bi-ismi rabbika allathee khalaqa. Khalaqa al-insana min AAalaqin
Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created. Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood. (Qur’an 96:1-2; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
The word ‘alaq’ in Arabic has multiple meanings. One of them is a drop of congealed blood. Another meaning is something that clings – a leech-like substance.
Describes the state of the foetus in the first two weeks very succintly, doesn't it?
There is another verse, which says-
Inna khalaqna al-insana min nutfatin amshajin nabtaleehi fajaAAalnahu sameeAAan baseeran.
Verily We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm, in order to try him: So We gave him (the gifts), of Hearing and Sight. (Qur’an 76:2; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Mingled? Now what’s that?
Possibility one – we know that the zygote is formed from the mingling of the sperm with the egg. And most people even in the ancient times knew this. So what’s new?
But consider the word – mingled sperm. Sperm. Not mingled liquids, but mingled sperm.
Only in the past half a century or so, with advances in medical research and the invention of powerful microscopes, do we know that the semen doesn't just contain sperm, but fluids secreted by several glands during ejaculation.
During the sexual act, semen travels from the epididymis through the vas deferens, where it picks up a fluid rich in fructose - a sugary substance that acts a bit like rocket fuel. Other fluids kick in along the way to the urethra, from the prostate gland, the Cowper's glands and the seminal vesicles - each one having a role to play.
The finished product contains approximately just 10% sperm. The rest consists of enzymes, vitamin C, calcium, protein, sodium, zinc, citric acid and fructose sugar.
It gets more interesting.
Khalaqakum min nafsin wahidatin thumma jaAAala minha zawjaha waanzala lakum mina al-anAAami thamaniyata azwajin yakhluqukum fee butooni ommahatikum khalqan min baAAdi khalqin fee thulumatin thalathin thalikumu Allahu rabbukum lahu almulku la ilaha illa huwa faanna tusrafoona.
He created you (all) from a single person: then created, of like nature, his mate; and he sent down for you eight head of cattle in pairs: He makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. Such is Allah, your Lord and Cherisher: to Him belongs (all) dominion. There is no god but He: then how are ye turned away (from your true Centre)? (Qur’an 39:6; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Three veils of darkness.
Modern studies in embryology have proved that the foetus in the womb is covered first by the anterior abdominal wall of the mother, the uterine wall and then the amnio-chorionic membrane.
Let’s look at a couple more verses before I end.
Walaqad khalaqna al-insana min sulalatin min teenin. Thumma jaAAalnahu nutfatan fee qararin makeenin. Thumma khalaqna alnnutfata AAalaqatan fakhalaqna alAAalaqata mudghatan fakhalaqna almudghata AAithaman fakasawna alAAithama lahman thumma ansha/nahu khalqan akhara fatabaraka Allahu ahsanu alkhaliqeena.
Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay). Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed. Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create! (Qur’an 23:12-14; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
4 stages clearly mentioned: Alaqah (leech-like) - which is how the foetus implants itself in the uterus; then a mudghah (lump) – which is really how it looks after a couple of weeks of absorbing nutrients; then flesh and bones – which starts from about week four onwards; and then finally the birth.
Falyanthuri al-insanu mimma khuliqa. Khuliqa min ma-in dafiqin. Yakhruju min bayni alssulbi waalttara-ibi.
Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted. Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs (Qur’an 86:5-7; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Let me copy from Dr. Zakir Naik on this - In embryonic stages, the reproductive organs of the male and female, i.e. the testicles and the ovaries, begin their development near the kidney between the spinal column and the eleventh and twelfth ribs. Later they descend; the ovaries stop in the pelvis while the testicles continue their descent before birth to reach the scrotum through the inguinal canal. Even in the adult after the descent of the reproductive organ, these organs receive their nerve supply and blood supply from the Abdominal Aorta, which is in the area between the backbone (spinal column) and the ribs. Even the lymphatic drainage and the venous return goes to the same area.
There are many more verses, but not many people read long posts (or even long news articles) nowadays. Hence, in reader interest, let me stop here with two thoughts that I leave behind.
How could an unlettered – illiterate – person living in the desert of Arabia could have known all this?
More importantly, if this book, revealed between approx. 610-633 A.D., contains such verses that are in perfect harmony with modern medical science, does it need to be updated, or does our knowledge of it needs to be improved?
More on Cosmology in the next post, Insha Allah. Till then, just think about this!
(References: The Qur’an; ‘The Bible, The Qur’an and Science by Dr. Maurice Bucaille; The Qur’an and Modern Science by Dr. Zakir Naik; The Qur’an, Knowledge and Science by A. Abdallah; www.thesite.org)
So, from this post onwards, I’ll try for every alternate post on the Qur’an for a while. And at the end of a few posts, I’ll let him decide.
So, RD, this is for you!
In one of my earlier posts (July 09), I had written about the water cycle. In that, I had mentioned that I would write about human embryology later. So, let’s start with that.
In approximately 610 A.D., the first verse of the Qur’an was revealed. And it says-
Iqra/ bi-ismi rabbika allathee khalaqa. Khalaqa al-insana min AAalaqin
Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created. Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood. (Qur’an 96:1-2; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
The word ‘alaq’ in Arabic has multiple meanings. One of them is a drop of congealed blood. Another meaning is something that clings – a leech-like substance.
Describes the state of the foetus in the first two weeks very succintly, doesn't it?
There is another verse, which says-
Inna khalaqna al-insana min nutfatin amshajin nabtaleehi fajaAAalnahu sameeAAan baseeran.
Verily We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm, in order to try him: So We gave him (the gifts), of Hearing and Sight. (Qur’an 76:2; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Mingled? Now what’s that?
Possibility one – we know that the zygote is formed from the mingling of the sperm with the egg. And most people even in the ancient times knew this. So what’s new?
But consider the word – mingled sperm. Sperm. Not mingled liquids, but mingled sperm.
Only in the past half a century or so, with advances in medical research and the invention of powerful microscopes, do we know that the semen doesn't just contain sperm, but fluids secreted by several glands during ejaculation.
During the sexual act, semen travels from the epididymis through the vas deferens, where it picks up a fluid rich in fructose - a sugary substance that acts a bit like rocket fuel. Other fluids kick in along the way to the urethra, from the prostate gland, the Cowper's glands and the seminal vesicles - each one having a role to play.
The finished product contains approximately just 10% sperm. The rest consists of enzymes, vitamin C, calcium, protein, sodium, zinc, citric acid and fructose sugar.
It gets more interesting.
Khalaqakum min nafsin wahidatin thumma jaAAala minha zawjaha waanzala lakum mina al-anAAami thamaniyata azwajin yakhluqukum fee butooni ommahatikum khalqan min baAAdi khalqin fee thulumatin thalathin thalikumu Allahu rabbukum lahu almulku la ilaha illa huwa faanna tusrafoona.
He created you (all) from a single person: then created, of like nature, his mate; and he sent down for you eight head of cattle in pairs: He makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. Such is Allah, your Lord and Cherisher: to Him belongs (all) dominion. There is no god but He: then how are ye turned away (from your true Centre)? (Qur’an 39:6; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Three veils of darkness.
Modern studies in embryology have proved that the foetus in the womb is covered first by the anterior abdominal wall of the mother, the uterine wall and then the amnio-chorionic membrane.
Let’s look at a couple more verses before I end.
Walaqad khalaqna al-insana min sulalatin min teenin. Thumma jaAAalnahu nutfatan fee qararin makeenin. Thumma khalaqna alnnutfata AAalaqatan fakhalaqna alAAalaqata mudghatan fakhalaqna almudghata AAithaman fakasawna alAAithama lahman thumma ansha/nahu khalqan akhara fatabaraka Allahu ahsanu alkhaliqeena.
Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay). Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed. Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create! (Qur’an 23:12-14; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
4 stages clearly mentioned: Alaqah (leech-like) - which is how the foetus implants itself in the uterus; then a mudghah (lump) – which is really how it looks after a couple of weeks of absorbing nutrients; then flesh and bones – which starts from about week four onwards; and then finally the birth.
Falyanthuri al-insanu mimma khuliqa. Khuliqa min ma-in dafiqin. Yakhruju min bayni alssulbi waalttara-ibi.
Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted. Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs (Qur’an 86:5-7; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Let me copy from Dr. Zakir Naik on this - In embryonic stages, the reproductive organs of the male and female, i.e. the testicles and the ovaries, begin their development near the kidney between the spinal column and the eleventh and twelfth ribs. Later they descend; the ovaries stop in the pelvis while the testicles continue their descent before birth to reach the scrotum through the inguinal canal. Even in the adult after the descent of the reproductive organ, these organs receive their nerve supply and blood supply from the Abdominal Aorta, which is in the area between the backbone (spinal column) and the ribs. Even the lymphatic drainage and the venous return goes to the same area.
There are many more verses, but not many people read long posts (or even long news articles) nowadays. Hence, in reader interest, let me stop here with two thoughts that I leave behind.
How could an unlettered – illiterate – person living in the desert of Arabia could have known all this?
More importantly, if this book, revealed between approx. 610-633 A.D., contains such verses that are in perfect harmony with modern medical science, does it need to be updated, or does our knowledge of it needs to be improved?
More on Cosmology in the next post, Insha Allah. Till then, just think about this!
(References: The Qur’an; ‘The Bible, The Qur’an and Science by Dr. Maurice Bucaille; The Qur’an and Modern Science by Dr. Zakir Naik; The Qur’an, Knowledge and Science by A. Abdallah; www.thesite.org)
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Justice
Two thoughts about our judicial system have been swirling in my mind for a few years now. The incidents that happened in the past one week - the Haveliwala drunken driving, and the Rathore stabbing - make me pen my thoughts down.
Before putting down my thoughts, let me categorically state that there is no intent or attempt at contempt of court, just my personal thoughts on our judicial system.
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied:
This oft’ used phrase never rung truer to me than when I had lodged a case regarding payment made for purchasing a house which I did not get possession of. I lodged the case in court in 2000, and had nothing but ‘taareekh’ (dates) till 2007. Except for once when I went to court and the Honourable Judge just saw my face; neither the builders nor I even had to go to court once till we went together to withdraw the case. The builders were honest fellows who had gone bankrupt, and when they recovered sufficiently, they themselves called and returned my money.
But just consider - if there was not a single hearing in a clear open-and-shut case for seven long years; had the builders not been honest, would I have ever got my money back?
The 1992/93 riot cases, the 1993 blast case are all still somewhere in some ‘fast-track’ court, while the main accused are all roaming scot-free! Someone who was caught red-handed by the army – no less - has won elections and become a minister, getting protection from the same policemen who were supposed to arrest him. And I don’t think anyone even remembers about the status on the 1984 police strike cases!
I’m not sure whether the student who stabbed Rathore was mentally unsound or not, but see the circumstances – 19 years!!!!
Certain cases like the Jessica Lal case, or the Ruchika case, catch our attention due to the media coverage they have got, but just consider this – as many as 3.14 CRORE cases are pending in Indian courts (as on June 2009), possibly in many of which the defendents or the complainants have passed away waiting for justice!
In our Quest to be Just, are we being Unfair:
To my mind, the Qasab case, the Haveliwala drunken driving case, the Salman Khan accident case are all open-and-shut cases. More than enough proof, enough witnesses, and yet, the police has to sew up every thread.
Why do the police have to check out Nooria’s driving record in the US? And how does it make a difference whether there was 457 mg of alcohol in her blood or 45.7 mg. Isn’t it enough that she was drunk and driving? And even assuming for a moment that the alcohol content was within limits, the fact is that she ran over two people. Enough witnesses, clear proofs to support it. Why does the case have to involve sub-cases of in-camera proceedings, media involvement et al? (There’s something else that I’d like to ask her father. Alcohol is haraam in Islam; have you done your duty as a good Muslim father? But that’s another story altogether!)
Why is the Qasab case going through so many twists and turns? The man has massacred innocents on camera – and we’re getting more twists in his case than in an Ekta Kapoor soap!
Why does the onus of proving and re-proving guilt ‘beyond doubt’ even in clear cases like the two above, have to fall on the prosecution? Why do the accused get the benefit of the rarest of doubts, even in cases – and some have been mentioned on court records by some honourable judges – when the honourable judge believes that the person is guilty?
Is it our endeavour to not let a single innocent be proved guilty, even if some guilty people go off scot free? Or is it our endeavour to show to ourselves and the world that we deliver absolute justice?
In both these cases, is it not that we are being over-benevolent to the accused at the cost of traumatising the complainant or the victim? In this case, are we not being unjust really to the victims?
Is it therefore, any surprise that criminals cock a snoop at the legal system?
Are these the reasons for ‘encounters’?
Methinks sometimes that the old days of the rajas that we read about were better – one hearing, clear discussions, quick decisions.
Maybe in a rare case, some innocents may be pronounced guilty (although I would trust our judiciary that such a thing would not happen). But isn’t that a chance worth taking to ensure that justice is not only served, but delivered on time?
Because, at the present moment, for sure, in our quest to be just, we are just being unfair!
(P.S. In case you have liked my post and would like to share it with your friends, I’ve made it easy for you by adding some links at the bottom of each post. Please feel free to just click and share it with others.)
Before putting down my thoughts, let me categorically state that there is no intent or attempt at contempt of court, just my personal thoughts on our judicial system.
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied:
This oft’ used phrase never rung truer to me than when I had lodged a case regarding payment made for purchasing a house which I did not get possession of. I lodged the case in court in 2000, and had nothing but ‘taareekh’ (dates) till 2007. Except for once when I went to court and the Honourable Judge just saw my face; neither the builders nor I even had to go to court once till we went together to withdraw the case. The builders were honest fellows who had gone bankrupt, and when they recovered sufficiently, they themselves called and returned my money.
But just consider - if there was not a single hearing in a clear open-and-shut case for seven long years; had the builders not been honest, would I have ever got my money back?
The 1992/93 riot cases, the 1993 blast case are all still somewhere in some ‘fast-track’ court, while the main accused are all roaming scot-free! Someone who was caught red-handed by the army – no less - has won elections and become a minister, getting protection from the same policemen who were supposed to arrest him. And I don’t think anyone even remembers about the status on the 1984 police strike cases!
I’m not sure whether the student who stabbed Rathore was mentally unsound or not, but see the circumstances – 19 years!!!!
Certain cases like the Jessica Lal case, or the Ruchika case, catch our attention due to the media coverage they have got, but just consider this – as many as 3.14 CRORE cases are pending in Indian courts (as on June 2009), possibly in many of which the defendents or the complainants have passed away waiting for justice!
In our Quest to be Just, are we being Unfair:
To my mind, the Qasab case, the Haveliwala drunken driving case, the Salman Khan accident case are all open-and-shut cases. More than enough proof, enough witnesses, and yet, the police has to sew up every thread.
Why do the police have to check out Nooria’s driving record in the US? And how does it make a difference whether there was 457 mg of alcohol in her blood or 45.7 mg. Isn’t it enough that she was drunk and driving? And even assuming for a moment that the alcohol content was within limits, the fact is that she ran over two people. Enough witnesses, clear proofs to support it. Why does the case have to involve sub-cases of in-camera proceedings, media involvement et al? (There’s something else that I’d like to ask her father. Alcohol is haraam in Islam; have you done your duty as a good Muslim father? But that’s another story altogether!)
Why is the Qasab case going through so many twists and turns? The man has massacred innocents on camera – and we’re getting more twists in his case than in an Ekta Kapoor soap!
Why does the onus of proving and re-proving guilt ‘beyond doubt’ even in clear cases like the two above, have to fall on the prosecution? Why do the accused get the benefit of the rarest of doubts, even in cases – and some have been mentioned on court records by some honourable judges – when the honourable judge believes that the person is guilty?
Is it our endeavour to not let a single innocent be proved guilty, even if some guilty people go off scot free? Or is it our endeavour to show to ourselves and the world that we deliver absolute justice?
In both these cases, is it not that we are being over-benevolent to the accused at the cost of traumatising the complainant or the victim? In this case, are we not being unjust really to the victims?
Is it therefore, any surprise that criminals cock a snoop at the legal system?
Are these the reasons for ‘encounters’?
Methinks sometimes that the old days of the rajas that we read about were better – one hearing, clear discussions, quick decisions.
Maybe in a rare case, some innocents may be pronounced guilty (although I would trust our judiciary that such a thing would not happen). But isn’t that a chance worth taking to ensure that justice is not only served, but delivered on time?
Because, at the present moment, for sure, in our quest to be just, we are just being unfair!
(P.S. In case you have liked my post and would like to share it with your friends, I’ve made it easy for you by adding some links at the bottom of each post. Please feel free to just click and share it with others.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
