Was Ghalib an atheist?

Former Chief Justice Katju has suggested that Ghalib was opposed to feudalism and progressive in his views. Does the following verse support the notion that, like Marx, he considered Religion a mere opiate for the Masses?

{174,10}*

ham ko maʿlūm hai jannat kī ḥaqīqat lekin
dil ke ḳhvush rakhne ko ġhālib yih ḳhayāl achchhā hai

1) we know the reality/truth of Paradise, but

2) to keep the heart happy, Ghalib, this idea is good

Islamic scholars make a distinction between metaphorical (majazi) understanding- where there is a contextual indicator of some shared fact of experience- and literal (haqiqi) truth. Since human beings have no shared or objective experience of the Unseen realm- which includes Paradise- Scriptural declarations on such topics can only be taken literally not metaphorically.

Thus the meaning here is- 'We know that Paradise exists and has certain properties as a matter of literal truth, rather than figuring in Scripture as a metaphor or symbol for something else, but, nevertheless, to keep the heart happy this dream or imagining (khayal) is good.' 

What precisely is the dream or imagining which keeps the heart happy? It is the dream or imagining of Heaven- as opposed to the Revelation of its literal truth. Why is it the heart- as opposed to the brain or liver- which is being made happy? Well, the heart has a special importance as being the place where something higher, purer and more Spiritual intermingles with something lower, material, and impure- e.g. 'Ruh' and 'nafs'.

A meta-metaphor- i.e. a figurative way of speaking about figurative language- operates by making some sort of higher/lower or pure/impure or imaginary/real or noumenon/phenomenon type distinction between its own field of reference and that which is literally true.  

Ghalib is showing that the khayal of Jannat- i.e. human beings', necessarily empirically unsupported, conception of Paradise, as opposed to literal Revelation regarding it- is a meta-metaphor- it is majazi majaz- i.e. it isn't a new ontological category but a sublation away from an erroneous or mischievous one. Furthermore, the happiness of the heart, that it gives rise to, is contextually pinned down to the self abnegation of the lover, his amor fati and will-to-annihilation. In other words, Ghalib's meta-metaphoricity here  affirms orthodoxy and reconciles to it the apparently transgressive element in taghazzul such that a special excellence in Revelation- viz. its suitability to human beings- is brought out because, Ghalib says, the literal nature of Revelation has

1) the property of being understood

2) the further property that any imaginal departure from perfect coincidence with that literal understanding- i.e. any semiotic slippage arising from figurative speech or imaginal conception or the admixture of personal hopes and dreams- has the power to self-correct by producing the longing for its own annihilation such that it only truly tastes happiness in the sure prospect of that annihilation- i.e. though entry into Paradise is not certain, death is and that is good enough. In other words, the Scriptural Revelation of a Paradise which literally exists (but which, as sinners, we may not be certain of entry to) instead of troubling the Ghazal-lover's hearts with anxiety has the opposite effect such that even those who feel themselves certain to be excluded from it gain happiness for their heart merely from the metaphoricity, as opposed to the literal truth, of this Revelation.

Of the Heavenly City, tho' only the literal Truth endures

Its metaphoricity, on Hearts, yet Thy Ruth secures

In commenting on this verse, Prof Pritchett has listed others which contain 'snide remarks about Paradise' e.g.

kyā hī riẓvāñ se laṛāʾī hogī

ghar tirā ḳhuld meñ gar yād āyā

1) what a fight there'll be with Rizvan!
2) if your house, in Paradise, would come to mind/recollection

which paints a hilarious cartoon of Heaven's bouncer acting instead as a jailer.

Of course, the objective reality which this figurative speech alludes to is that of another figure of speech- in other words Ghalib is using a meta-metaphor- a very common one, whereby the visible delights of the beloved's house are enhanced by a metaphorical comparison to Paradise- of which we have only literal knowledge, not metaphorical understanding, through the unstinting Grace of Revelation.
Another verse Prof. Pritchett highlights is
satāyish-gar hai zāhid is qadar jis bāġh-e riẓvāñ kā
wo ik guldastah hai ham be-ḳhvudoñ ke t̤āq-e nisyāñ kā
That Garden of Rizvan of which the Ascetic is a praiser to such an extent/ it is a single/particular/unique bouquet in the niche of forgetfulness of us self-less ones. 
Here, the Ghalibian meta-metaphoricity arises from a deliberate semiotic slippage between collocations- e.g. sabz bagh and bagh e rizvan- such that Prof. Faruqi comments 'In this verse the beauty of style and rarity themselves are of no common order. To demean paradise with such a suitable word as 'bouquet', and then to do it in such a way that it is lower than the low and to make that very thing a cause of adornment (they arrange bouquets in niches) is no laughing matter. This is a high order of innate wit.... Then look at the use of 'self-lessness' with 'niche of forgetfulness'-- it creates a novel form of wordplay upon wordplay. When we've forgotten ourselves, why wouldn't we forget a commonplace bouquet like Paradise?....
It should also be kept in mind that 'niche of forgetfulness' is a metaphor; by using it in its dictionary meaning Ghalib has created a reversed metaphor. This too is a special trait of Mir and Ghalib's. (1989: 32-33) [2006: 42-43]'
A Meta-metaphor is, I think, a reversed metaphor; it is majazi majaz, it points to the phenomenal nature of phenomenal understanding- it is a Feurbachian thesis which prevents the semiotic slippage and degenerative moral indignation-as-Gadarening-availability-cascade Marxian brand of imbecility.
So Ghalib wasn't an atheist- either that or he was an atheist but not stupid. Since Indology can't admit that an Indian poet wasn't stupid, it follows that Ghalib was a true Muslim- if only by God's Grace.

Paul Brass on the Partition Genocide

This is a heart-rending essay by Paul Brass- including material from interviews with Sikh leaders he conducted in the 1960's- on the Ethnic Cleansing of the Punjab at the time of Partition.

On the one hand, it highlights the curious blindness of the both the British and the National leaders to the predicament of the Sikh and their likely response. On the other, it has some harsh things to say about the Sikh leadership itself. 

In particular, one might well wonder whether Mazhabi Sikhs were in fact regarded as little better than slaves by the Sikh leadership who only counted them as part of their own community to boost their numbers and claim to territorial compensation.

 Brass writes- 'For a parallel to this shameless argument, one needs to go back to the Constitution of the United States in 1789 where the Southern states were allowed to count their slaves as part of their total population for purposes of representation in the Congress, but these Negro slaves were, of course, not to be allowed to vote. In the Sikh claim, such non-persons of the other community were not to be counted at all or were to be traded for others from the other side to perform the same menial tasks on their behalf. Since the Muslims would not accede to this reasonable demand of the Sikhs for their own homeland, the only alternative became what Sardar Harnam Singh had declaimed as “unthinkable,” namely the movement of the Sikh sons of the soil themselves to the eastern Punjab districts and the forced expulsion of not just the Muslim menials from those districts, but

every last man, woman, and child.'

I find this argument difficult to stomach. Surely the Mazhabis were differentiated by Religion from other Scheduled Castes? The Hindu S.C. leader, J.N. Mandal, initially supported Pakistan and served as a Cabinet Member before fleeing for his life. The Pakistanis also passed a law forbidding the migration of Hindu Scheduled Castes whose services were needed. Clearly there was a distinction between Mazhabi Sikhs and Hindus performing similar functions. Why does Brass allege that the Sikh leadership considered Mazhabis in the same light as Slave-owners in the antebellum South considered 'Negros'? Was there really no feeling of religious solidarity cutting across class and caste within the Sikh Religion? If that is really so, then some explanation is required. Were the Sikhs too stupid to read their Holy Books? Or did they no longer properly understand the language in which it was written? Or had the Sikhs fallen prey to Casteist Mahants who brain-washed them?

No such explanation holds water.

It may be that the rise of Communist thinking in academic and bureaucratic circles colored perceptions when Brass was doing his field work. In other words, the changed climate of the times led Brass to discount the Spiritual value of Sikhism and to emphasize the socio-economic interests of the dominant caste within its fold.

Paul Brass is a senior figure in Academia- if he gets things wrong about India, especially Spiritual matters, one can blame the narrowness of the Social Sciences as well as the fact that he does not belong to India or espouse one of its Religions or Spiritual traditions.

 What is shocking- nay, unforgivable- is that Indian people, sitting in air conditioned Conference rooms in New Delhi, adopted a blinkered Caste based Political Arithmetic which was founded upon the notion that Religion was just the opium of the people. The Mazhabi was being oppressed and his Sikh faith was the means by which that oppression was effected. Thus, to help the Mazhabi or Ramgarhia or whatever, New Delhi must try to split dominant castes like the Jats by propping up alternative leaders who take a more militant line against other sects.

New Delhi betrayed Secularism- though acting in its name- when it meddled in a Spiritual Religion which it did not understand simply for some evanescent political advantage or specious egalitarian goal.  

New Delhi's crazy policy towards Punjab- denying the State Industrial growth to keep pace with Agricultural progress on the flimsy excuse that Industries should not be located near the Pakistan border- and it refusal to recognize the Spiritual rather than Socio-Economic nature of the Sikh Religion precipitated a disaster not just for Punjab but the whole of India. 

The Saqi as a Professor of Feminism

I saw Indian Feminism play false with Mum

Now who will marry her ugly son?

'Amma! please to meet the Grape's daughter

'At J.N.U, Prof. Saqi taught her'

Amaresh Mishra - 'Gujarat is not part of India'

Amaresh Mishra is an Historian not a Geographer (is that a word?). Still, he's written a lot of books so he must know something. Apparently, Gujarat is not part of India anymore. It has split off and is drifting towards Mauritius.
Mishra writes in the Times of India-
 'Be it Gujarat or whatever take, Maruti Suzuki anywhere—Gujarat is not India.' 
The context of Mishra's article is the Manesar arson and murder.
Okay, the syntax in the sentence I quoted may seem a bit strange. But Mishra is not concerned with conforming to the usages of 'foreign trained Indians'. Still the meaning is clear- Gujarat is not India. Not anymore.
Why?

Judging by the rest of his post, It's because Gujarat, under Narendra Modi, has been forced to abandon Hinduism. 

Mishra writes- In a famous case that took place last year in the Honda factory of Haryana’s industrial belt, foreign-trained Indian managers refused to allow workers to celebrate Vishvakarma Pooja. In the Hindu pantheon, Vishvakarma is the lord of tools and workers—his birthday is normally a holiday, no less relevant than Ram Navami, Buddha Jayanti or the birthday of Prophet Muhammad.

Workers worship their tools on Vishvakarma Diwas. At Honda, a worker was assaulted by the supervisor when the latter tried applying a "teeka" on the former’s head. Indian workers have their own definition of what constitutes "hard work". It includes whiling away time, bonding with fellow workers, and then putting in extra work at the right time. 

In Gujarat such a thing could not happen because Modi has banned Hinduism and is ruthlessly suppressing indigenous festivals like Visvakarma divas. Consequently, Indian workers there no longer have their own definition of 'hard work' which includes 'whiling away time' and 'bonding with fellow workers'. 

At Manesar, a worker tried to apply teeka to his supervisor because the supervisor had made a Casteist remark. This is an ancient Hindu practice intended to bring the Grace of God into the stony heart of superiors. However, Management alleged that the worker had slapped the supervisor- whom they sent home. The worker was suspended. A few hours went by. The workers became very angry when Management failed to reinstate the worker immediately. This was a terrible insult which could only be avenged by blood. What great wrong had the worker committed- to be suspended? He had only been applying teeka to his boss- that is all. What is wrong with that? It is a traditional Hindu practice. Management, however, remained obdurate. So the workers used iron bars to apply teeka to the legs and heads of about 100 managers. They also started a havan- or fire sacrifice. One senior manager, entering into the spirit of the occasion, spontaneously committed suttee- probably to protest against injustice to women. This sort of thing is quite routine and part and parcel of ancient Hindu culture. Yet, Management is making the outlandish claim that workers broke the H.R. manager's legs and burnt him to death!

Sadly, local villagers were very angry with the workers- probably because they did not distribute sweets to mark this holy occasion as custom demanded. Consequently, the workers ran away or, in the case of the innocent ones, were handed over to the police by irate villagers. Police, no doubt, also want to apply some teeka of their own. They too are very religious people.
However, they have an impersonal hierarchy in the Police force, so maybe they won't be permitted to apply teeka.

As, Dr. Mirshra points out-
'Also, the sense of impersonal hierarchy is alien to Indian workers. They can respect an angrez who mingles with them, but they will boycott Indian managers trying to put on foreign airs and indulging in unfamiliar hierarchical behaviour.

Foreign—especially American, German and Japanese personnel—were often left dumbfounded by these cultural practices. Because of historic factors—the traditional resistance of the Hindi-Urdu belt to British Imperialism, the rugged-peasant masculinity and sense of honour—dubbed mistakenly, "pre-modern" by social analysts—the management versus worker clash was more severe in post-liberalization, north Indian factories.

The sense of impersonal hierarchy- as exemplified by the Govt. of India- is alien to Indian workers. That is why, when the British left, Govt. of India collapsed completely. The Indian clerks and peons and chaprasees and so on could respect an Englishman who mingled with them- Viceroy Ripon was always to be seen sharing their paan and bidi and putting Visvakarma divas teeka on all and sundry- but they boycotted any Indian manager trying to put on foreign airs and indulging in unfamiliar hierarchical behaviour. A case in point is Mrs. Gandhi. She was indulging in unfamiliar hierarchical behaviour and putting on foreign airs to impress Sir Peter Ustinov who had come to interview her. Two of her guards immediately boycotted her with their guns. Management ruthlessly assaulted the guards who were only trying to put some teeka on her head and other parts of her body. This traditional resistance of the Hindi-Urdu belt to British Imperialism- which consisted of enlisting in large numbers in their armies and then mutinying- arises from a rugged-peasant masculinity and sense of honour. Gujaratis don't have rugged-peasant masculinity and sense of honour. Why? Gujarati is not very different from Hindi. The very name Gujarat derives from the Gujjar tribe. The leader of last year's strike at Manesar was a young man called Sonu Gujjar. Yet Gujaratis, including Gujjar Gujaratis, don't have rugged-peasant mentality. They don't object to impersonal hierarchy. What makes them different? Well, we all know that Modi massacres Muslims. Turns out that was just a blind to divert attention from the really diabolical aspect of his tyranny- viz. his systematic emasculation of Hindus and ruthless suppression of their Religion and Caste practices. Indeed, Gujarat is no longer part of India. 

The problem is that post-liberalization India has no idea of 1857, India’s first war of Independence.
They do. The Brits were stupid enough to introduce land reforms which weakened the landlords and helped the sepoys' families. Yet the sepoys backed the landlords against the Brits. The Brits didn't  make the same mistake twice. Henceforth, they backed existing hierarchies. The Bengal Army of the East India Company, which remained at the forefront of the war’s long and torturous course, comprised of soldiers from the Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar belt. Yet, these soldiers weren't able to stop their own supply lines being looted by Meo tribesmen who were their co-religionists and caste fellows. They rebelled against what was seen as the insensitivity of a multinational company—the world’s largest that managed a huge country like India plus other colonial stations—towards the sense of dignity, pride and religion of both Hindus and Muslims. That, at any rate, is true. Mangal Pandey said 'Company Bahadur, you are a big MNC. Please don't be seen as being insensitive to dignity, pride and religion of Hindus and Muslims. It is really hurting our feelings.  Tell you what, we'll Mutiny and shoot you and slaughter your wives and kids. That will make you nice and sensitive.' Oddly, it didn't have the desired effect. The Brits, with Sikh help, slaughtered the Sepoys who, though more sensitive than a blushing maiden of seventeen summers, don't seem to have been any good at fighting. Still they had 'rugged-peasant masculinity'. Much good it did them. 

It is imperative to note that the Manesar incident arose following an anti-Dalit, caste slur issued by a supervisor to Jiya Lal, a worker. Then Jat-Gujar-Tyagi-Dalit workers—belonging to the Haryana region—and UP-Bihar Poorabias—united to give a fitting reply to the miscreants belonging to the management. The management brought in hundreds of bouncers to beat workers to submission. In fact, the official statement of the Maruti Suzuki Workers’ Union, states that the bouncers started the fire that killed a senior manager.

So class solidarity overcame caste divisions—a similar phenomenon occurred during 1857.

Both 1857 and Manesar incidents arose out of cultural slights inflicted by an insensitive foreign/part-foreign management. At the other end of the spectrum, it can be seen that like the Manesar incident, the cultural aspect of 1857 carried a slew of wage related issues, and other socio-economic grievances, nursed by soldiers against the British East India Company.

Interestingly, the supervisor who uttered the alleged anti-Dalit slur was Dalit himself. Jats and Gujars, of course, are well known for their solidarity with Dalits. They get terribly outraged if anyone utters anti-Dalit slurs. 

Sangram Singh, the Dalit supervisor who sparked off this new Mutiny, as of 1857, is clearly an insensitive foreign or part foreign person. Unlike Jats or Gujars, such foreign, or foreign trained, managers do not have the sensitivity to refrain from uttering anti-Dalit slurs. In Japan, if Mr. Suzuki accidentally bumps into Mr. Takeshita, the latter retaliates by calling the former a clumsy bhangi dolt. This is absolutely routine in advanced countries. In India however, ordinary working people from peasant backgrounds never use Casteist slurs. Only because of Corporate, greed-driven, Globalization is this evil practice of uttering Casteist slurs spreading in places like Haryana. It does not happen in Gujarat because Modi has totally suppressed Hinduism and Indian Culture and so when the foreign or foreign trained manager utters Casteist slurs the workers don't react because they simply don't understand the concept of caste. Thus when Mr. Takeshita says 'pull your finger out you damn bhangi' , the worker thus addressed shrugs his shoulders and inquires of his colleague- 'I say, old boy, that slitty eyed Oriental just called me a bangee or bungee or something like that. Any idea what the little Nip was getting at?' 'None at all, old boy. Are you sure you heard correctly? Bukkake was what he probably said. Probably wants you to come on his face. Don't you do it though. Remember what happened with Mountbatten. Once these foreigners get what they want they just pull out of the country and take their f.d.i with them.'

Mishra concludes- It can be seen clearly that though India runs on the workforce of UP, Bihar, Delhi and Haryana- the Manesar workforce having run away after committing murder and arson- the people of these regions have historically resisted the homogeneity, uniformity and conformity demanded by global corporate culture. As opposed to the homogeneity, uniformity and conformity demanded by the khap panchayat.

 These workers demand their own indigenous-capitalist ethic, different from the west. (WTF? What indigenous-capitalist ethic is this? Does the author mean Sonu Gujjar's successful extortion of a few crores for himself and his cronies as his price for quitting the Union business? They are in no mood to comply. As opposed to commit murder & mayhem and then run away. Be it Gujarat or whatever take, Maruti Suzuki anywhere—Gujarat is not India. But UP, Bihar, Delhi and Haryana do constitute India. More's the pity. The country is finished without these states. No, these States will finish off the country. As the author signs off this article, news about certain Jat sections of the Haryana establishment dividing Jats and Gujars and undermining workers’ solidarity is pouring in—massive police repression has been unleashed on workers. Without a proper enquiry, workers are being blamed for the Manesar violence. Such tactics however are not going to work—after twenty years of enormous liberalization, India is on the threshold of a gigantic working class unrest. Indian people regard economic reform and the English speaking managerial elite with disdain. They have tasted wealth—but they also know that, foreigners and their lackeys have amassed riches a thousand times over. With people of north Indian origin—their culture of constructive violence and non-submission to power intact—leading this battle, the stage is set for new class struggles of the 21st century. Like the Anna Hazare movement of August 2011, the Manesar incident has taken all political parties by surprise. Their political response system is simply, not attuned to the new, 21st century Indian reality.

Constructive violence? But, Mishra Sahib, you quote the Union as saying that it was the Management's goons who started the fire- the workers didn't do anything violent at all. What happened to their 'rugged peasant masculinity and sense of honor'? Clearly, they were all weeping and crying and trembling and suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder because a supervisor had used a Casteist slur. Will they ever be able to overcome this terrible shock to their sensibilities? 

Still, we should look on the bright side. At least, Gujarat is not part of India anymore. 

Guha's Law- Criminals better Lawmakers than Lawyers

  Has Ramachandra Guha discovered a new law of Historiography? Or does everybody already know that the lawyer to criminal ratio in Parliament is inversely correlated with the rate of Economic growth?
'India’s first Lok Sabha, or Parliament, had a very high number of lawyers. A large proportion of its members were from the upper castes and were English speakers. Over the decades, however, Parliament has become more socially inclusive, its members drawn from a much broader range of castes and classes. Other changes have been less salutary—as in the greater number of criminals who enter its portals, and the increasing disruptions to its proceedings. In the 1950s, the Indian Parliament was a theater of intelligent and spirited debate. Now speakers are shouted down by their rivals, microphones and chairs are sometimes flung around, and walk-outs are frequent. “In the noise and disorder generated in Parliament over [allegations of] scandalous misconduct by someone somewhere,” observes Béteille, “it becomes difficult to decide on the merits of the individual case. But the long-term effect of continuous discord and disorder within Parliament is an erosion of public trust in the institution itself.”
(Ramachandra Guha in the New Republic)

   The Hindu rate of growth was legislated into existence by high minded lawyers who respected each other's intelligence and integrity so much that they were able to set aside their petty differences in order to gang rape the Economy. 
  Since the Police and the Civil Service and the financiers of the Political Parties were highly effective in preventing Laws being applied, voters ditched the lawyers- they cut out the middle-man- in favor of Criminals with effective countervailing power - i.e. the ability to kill policemen and Civil Servants and to bribe Judges and Jail Superintendents and so on.
  This destabilized Indian Democracy which in turn meant that the Indian Economy could pick up its bra and panties and start sprinting away in the hope of becoming a second China. 
  Unfortunately some high minded lawyers and other 'Civil Society' hooligans have caught the Indian Economy and are dragging her back to Indian Democracy which is now claiming that its izzat was looted by this callous Pinki Pramanik and only marriage with the rapist can restore its honor.
  Personally, I blame Mamta Bannerjee. That boy aint right.

Perry Anderson's 'After Nehru'.

Perry Anderson's essay, 'After Nehru'- is written after the style of that vacuous nitwit and improves on its original in idiocy, irrelevance and fake moral outrage.

Essentially, Anderson thinks the fact that the Indian State operated like a State is a very bad thing. Why? Perhaps, he believes India should have embraced Communism. But which brand and under whom? Every single Indian politician or ideologue would have been prepared to describe himself as Communist if that helped his career. Indeed most Indian Communism is simply careerism of this sort.
The problem with the Communists was that the 3 planks of their program were catastrophes waiting to happen.
1) Collectivization of land would have resulted in a massive famine, a million Mutinies, and the complete collapse of the State. The brief career of the Khalq faction in Afghanistan proves this. A corrupt sort of Land reform was the only viable option.
2) Nationalize everything. We all know how that turned out.
3) Self determination for Minorities- i.e. Bantustans as Gulags

Anderson writes ' The role of caste in the political system would change, from the years after independence to the present. What would not change was its structural significance as the ultimate secret of Indian democracy. Gandhi declared that caste alone had preserved Hinduism from disintegration. His judgment can be given a more contemporary application. Caste is what preserved Hindu democracy from disintegration. Fixing in hierarchical position and dividing from one another every disadvantaged group, legitimating every misery in this life as a penalty for moral transgression in a previous incarnation, as it became the habitual framework of the nation it struck away any possibility of broad collective action to redress earthly injustice that might otherwise have threatened the stability of the parliamentary order over which Congress serenely presided for two decades after independence. '
Is there any possible Universe in which Anderson's claim is not either vacuous or obviously false? Let us suppose a bunch of people from different parts of India come to a certain place. They belong to different castes. This strikes away any possibility of broad collective action, on their part, to redress earthly injustice. I bet there are Indian students at the University where Perry Anderson teaches. I bet those Indian students belong to different castes. Do those students join together to form an India Soc? If the University decides to impose higher fees on Indians or if Indian students are being racially abused, will that India Soc. sit idly by?  Will the Indians say to each other- alas! we belong to different castes. Prof. Anderson has said that we can't come together to take collective action. Instead, we must weep over our bad karma and resign ourselves to injustice.'

Indian Students were already showing their ability to rise above caste to come together when Aurobindo was at University. The Indian National Congress itself was composed of men of different castes. Before Democracy, people of different castes had shown themselves capable of working together. Why else did India become a Democracy? It wasn't something imposed from outside. Yet, Prof. Anderson says, that after Indians of different castes, by means of a broad collective action, decided to give themselves a Democratic form of Government, they- at that very moment- became incapable of broad collective action by reason of belonging to different castes. Further- this was and is 'the ultimate secret of Indian Democracy.'

Reading this got me real mad at Indian Democracy. I immediately phoned her and said 'You damn slut! Your ultimate secret has been revealed to all and sundry by Perry Anderson in the London Review of Books! Why you are going and making us Indians incapable of broad collective action to redress earthly injustice? Have you no manners? Don't you know this is completely unacceptable behavior? Kindly stop it. I don't want to have to tell you this again.'

I urge all my readers to do the same- unless you are of different caste to me, in which case don't bother.

Meta-metaphoricity in Islam- if the Dutch cap fits.

    Metaphor (majaz) in Islam can be a controversial topic. Whether Semantically or Ontologically, the distinction between majazi (phenomenal/ figurative/ illusory) and haqiqi (noumenal/literal/real) permits the appropriation by Islamic Savants and Mystics, of the Bacchic, Erotic and Thymotic genre poetry of the pre-Islamic Arabs for a pious, albeit ecstatic, purpose and it is this appropriation which endows the ghazal with philosophical interest. On the other hand, theologians rule out a metaphoric rather than literal understanding of Scriptural teaching relating to the Unseen- for example the notion that God is like maybe how u feel when u dun bin real nice to people and like maybe Hell is how it feels when you don't got a date for the Prom coz u shot everybody at Columbine
   I am not a Muslim- nor, to be frank, even a virtuous man- and anything I say about Islam is bound to be either foolish or offensive or both. In particular, a man like me completely cuts himself off from God, utterly negates the possibility of ever overcoming his own swinishness, by saying cherry-picking things like- 'such and such is the real Islam whereas such and such is hypocritical Priestcraft, or fanatical Ignorance and Superstition, or part of some sinister conspiracy orchestrated by the I.S.I and/or the C.I.A, not to mention the P.T.A- the Parents Teachers Association at a meeting of which my saintly Mum and Dad were confronted by the ugly rumor that I couldn't read, write or (worst of all, for a Tam Bram male) do 'rithmetic. Thankfully I was able to argue that the 'Black Propaganda' they had heard was simply a product of 'Institutionalized Racism'- my melanin challenged West Indian class teacher clearly having it in for us yet darker skinned South Indians.
   Still, Dad smelt a rat and demanded to inspect my homework notebooks which were all full of line drawings of cats. Mum got very angry with him- 'What's wrong if he is drawing picture of cat? He is an artistic genius. I myself enabled him to master drawing picture of cat by the time he was just 14 years old. You just see, my boy will be acclaimed as a Picasso while all your so-brilliant nephews will be stuck behind desks earning the pittance which is your Government Officer salary!'
 I said nothing. Mum was so ignorant, she didn't understand that my almost geometrically idealized cats could well be diagrams in Economics or Graph theory or Quantum Physics or something similarly intense. Anyway, what was I saying? Urm... I've lost the thread- so just read through the following while I go refresh my drink-

Existence of metaphor (majâz) in the Qur’ân

I have heard people expressing the idea that there is no metaphor in the Qur’ân, or indeed in the Arabic language. They are adamant in their denial of this aspect of language. What is the truth about this? 

Answered by

Sheikh Nâsir al-Mâjid, professor at al-Imâm University in Riyadh

The issue of distinguishing between literal and metaphorical expressions in Arabic has been a topic of much disagreement since early times. The vast majority of scholars, including commentators of the Qur’ân, language specialists, and legal theorists, acknowledge the existence of metaphor. They do not distinguish between the language of the Qur’ân in this matter. Among them are some of the most eminent and erudite scholars who adhere to the creed of the Pious Predecessors and defend it.

Those who denied the existence of metaphor were motivated in doing so because of how certain innovators abused the concept to give misinterpretations that negate the meanings of the texts of the Qur’ân and Sunnah relating to the Unseen and to the attributes of Allah.

In actual fact, the recognition of metaphor in the Arabic language presents no danger. This is because the default assumption for any instance of language is that it must be understood literally unless there is a contextual indicator to show otherwise. This is a matter of unanimous scholarly agreement.

When it comes to texts relating to maters of the Unseen, there cannot conceivably be any contextual indicator to show the need for a metaphorical meaning. Therefore, a person cannot correctly resort to a metaphorical interpretation in order to negate the text’s literal meaning.

Those who make such interpretations and negate the attributes actually do so on the basis of their pre-suppositions as to what those texts imply. They come up with these interpretations to dispel the negative implications that they mistakenly discern from the tests.

The texts relating to Allah’s attributes do not lend themselves to being understood metaphorically – neither linguistically nor from their context.

This is, in brief, the general position of Ahl al-Sunnah on the matter.

There is no problem with acknowledging metaphor as being a part of the language. The Qur’ân was revealed in the language of the Arabs. It employed their idioms and modes of speech.

It remains to say that metaphor is a necessity of language – any language – indispensable for its vitality and continued survival. No matter how vast a language might be, its words and expressions are limited in number and can never encompass all the meanings and nuances of meaning that people need to have in order to express the thoughts circumstances of their lives.

If we consider these points, they should dispel our reservations about this topic.

And Allah knows best.

Source: Islam Today

  In this blog post, I'm going to look at a special sort of metaphor- a meta-metaphor- a figure of speech for figures of speech which, by its very existence paints language as something which is imperative
and strategic rather than alethic and substantive- and the special sort of speculative virtual Ontology- majazi majaz- which it gives rise to. My purpose is to show that in so far as the Created (Khalq) participates in the Uncreated (Quran) it does so under the rubric of Predestination (Qadr) in a very specific and paradoxical manner such that haqiqi, that is literal, Revelation about the Unseen is the the Providential terminus of a trajectory of metaphorical (majazi) reasoning such that metaphors are treated as literal truths and further metaphors are derived from them which themselves are treated as having even more literal truth. In other words, meta-metaphoricity is both the isthmus, or barzakh, between the two seas, one salt, one sweet, and the means of its own erosion, or vanishing, enfolded in the immeasurable Graciousness of God.

  I'm just kidding. What I'm actually going to do is gas on in my usual vein about how everybody dun bin Racist to me and like my fucking Doctor is now saying to me I've got to lose twenty pounds- which is more than I currently spend at McDonald's for lunch- and I've just fucking looked this up on the internet and basically, so long as I redefine my ethnicity as Dutch (Hollanders, the tallest people in the world, are about four or five inches taller than us Indians) then I'm only 10% overweight according to the height-weight chart. Anyway, I just phoned the Dutch Consulate- well, it wasn't the Dutch Consulate exactly, just some random dude- and he responded to my umpteenth call demanding immediate action by calling me a Paki cunt! Which is not just Racist but Sexist. Still, if the Dutch cap fits...