"With Allah On Their Side" [Cricinfo]

Found an interesting article on cricinfo.
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/wisd...ory/252265.html

Cricket is like religion, it is said of the subcontinent, and of India in particular. For India's neighbour, though, the analogy assumes a deeper, more convoluted significance. In Pakistan, cricket is not really like religion. If the latter is truly opium for its masses, cricket remains purely its marijuana: teasingly recreational and definitely not as all-consuming.

And while cricket's popularity has receded (at least to judge by Test match attendances) over the past two decades, Islam has burrowed itself further into the national psyche. So much so that cricket, hitherto the one bastion free from it, also now feels its pull.

Rare today in Pakistani cricket is the public soundbite, or even private utterance, not bracketed by bismillah (in the name of Allah) or inshallah (God willing). The team prays together fastidiously, recites ayats (Koranic verses) in its huddles, and celebrates personal and collective milestones with the sajda (the act of kneeling in Muslim prayer); they all fast during Ramadan, some even during games.

His name has become so integral to strategy that an English journalist remarked during the winter tour that Allah should be man of the series. Even Danish Kaneria, a Hindu and now the solitary non-Muslim, peppers his own talk with inshallah.

Kaneria used to be one of two, of course; in 2005, Yousuf Youhana converted from Christianity and became Mohammad Yousuf. If the subject of religion was mostly skirted round beforehand, his conversion yanked it into the public realm. Arguably, Shoaib Akhtar's revamp as cricketer as well as a diligent Muslim during the England series was an even more significant transformation. Until then, as a connoisseur of nocturnal living, he was a more brazen nod to Pakistan's secularism than either Yousuf or Kaneria. As in the country itself, collective piety has come belatedly in cricket. Pakistan was founded as a homeland to safeguard Muslim rights, not as an Islamic state per se. It is a subtle distinction but an important one, blurred only by time. The country's cricket parallels this evolution.

In Abdul Hafeez Kardar, Pakistan had an ideal first captain. Having played for the Muslims in the inter-communal Bombay Pentangular before Partition, Kardar was acutely aware of all the implications. His contemporary Fazal Mahmood rejected the opportunity to test his leg-cutter against Bradman by refusing to play for India, instead waiting for the new nation. He did so out of nationalistic rather than religious belief. In those early days, Islam didn't knit the team together, the captain did.

Until this team, in fact, faith remained a private and individual realm. Once in a blue moon, according to one player, did the team offer Friday prayers together in the 1980s. Before then, said another, some players prayed often after personal achievements, but never collectively and publicly as they do now.

Sporadically, religion surfaced. Abdul Kadir, who played four Tests in the 1960s, was the first with open spiritual leanings. Although his father was a mosque cleric, Kadir pursued an active interest in mystical Sufism - not Islamic orthodoxy - through his career and after.

Among others, the awakening was public but belated, as with the legspinner Sheikh Fazalur Rehman, who fooled only Conrad Hunte in his solitary Test. Long after he retired, he completed a Master's in Islamic Studies; a devout Muslim, he gives weekly sermons and is a highly regarded Islamic scholar. According to the Encyclopaedia of Pakistan Cricket, he is now "a far cry from the ballroom dancer of yesteryear, often seen dancing the night away at the Lahore Gymkhana".

Saeed Ahmed, constantly in trouble as a player, joined the Tableeghi Jamaat (strict Islamic missionaries) in 1982, ten years after his last Test. Qasim Omar, who played 26 Tests in the 1980s, was another controversial No. 3, nicknamed "Disco" for his love of a party. Eventually banned from the game for making allegations of drug abuse against Imran Khan, he recanted much later in the name of Allah. But it was Saeed Anwar, in the 1990s, who provided the main stimulus. The tragic death of his daughter pushed him towards the Tableegh, and his influence spread quickly.

There was another factor, for Pakistani players in the 1990s were the match-fixing generation. Some sought religion for absolution and safeguard. Sharda Ugra of India Today argued: "The post-match-fixing generation is grappling with a `double burden'... not only are they under scrutiny for their professional conduct, they have also become characters in a public morality play, always vulnerable to being accused of match-fixing should they fail." When Salim Malik was first accused of corruption, the manager Intikhab Alam immediately asked him to swear his innocence on the Koran.

More complex, but perhaps equally significant, is the altered demographic of the team. Traditionally, Pakistan has relied on the urban nurseries of Lahore and Karachi to feed its cricket. And its cricketers were suitably urbane. Now more players emerge from smaller satellite towns, which are often more Islamic environments. Poorer literacy and awareness mean religious beliefs assume greater significance. Abdul Razzaq, from Shahedra on the outskirts of Lahore, suffered badly from dizzy spells in Australia last year: the cause remained a mystery until it was found he was on a spinachheavy diet prescribed by a local spiritual leader.

Others point to the increased incidence of sectarian violence in the big cities, and argue that piety is an urban rather than rural phenomenon. So perhaps the geography is less important than a broader change in society. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan's cussed founding father, laid out an unequivocally secular vision for the country: religion would have no say, he insisted, in the running of the state. But along the way, this vision was lost. Since 1973, Pakistan has been prefixed with the "Islamic Republic of ", and it was not just a bureaucratic modification.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto initiated the process in the mid-1970s; he prohibited alcohol, closed nightclubs and shifted the weekly holiday from Sunday to Friday. His successor and nemesis, General Zia-ul-Haq, zealously stepped up this process, implementing Shariah law (the Islamic legal code open to draconian interpretation) and Islamising the education curriculum.

More recently, the September 11 attacks sharpened the sense of Islamic identity in a country which stands on the front line of the American-led war on terror. Religion is now pervasive; in school, in state, on TV, in literature, at the heart of most political debates. Younger players such as Salman Butt and Kamran Akmal are children of this era and so, like most of their generation, are more openly devout than their predecessors.

Faith does seem to have strengthened a traditionally fractious side. Bob Woolmer, the current coach, is of course no Muslim but he is supportive of the religion's adhesive power: he should know, having overseen the rise, in the 1990s, of a South African team with a devoutly Christian core.

Even the maverick Shoaib has spoken openly of the togetherness, the culture of forgiving, that Islam has bred within the dressing-room. Some cynics maintain that Yousuf's conversion was implicitly forced, a roundabout result of his desire to become captain. This ignores the fact that he was vice-captain, and sometimes captain, while still a Christian, and the publicrelations potential for the country in having a Christian captain.

But if Islam is looking for a public-relations coup to offset the constant criticism it receives in the West, it need look no further surely than the joyous, bounding progress of the Pakistan team over the last year, with the genial but earnestly Muslim Inzamam-ul-Haq at its helm. Refreshingly, Islam has united them. The only fear, as Pakistanis know painfully well, is that religion has often also been at the very heart of the country's troubles.

Osman Samiuddin is Pakistan editor of Cricinfo

© John Wisden & Co Ltd.

The only cricket team where praying before a match isn't a worrying sign.

"cricket remains purely its marijuana: teasingly recreational and definitely not as all-consuming."


That line is classic, I cant believe that one.

It is indeed a positive sign. As Muslims, we should neither forget nor deviate from our fundamentals. Cricketers being in the lime light, would definitely leave positive image by practicing some of the core fundamentals. I still remember Saeed Ahmed (Pakistan ex-cricketer in 60's and a stylish batsman) when I met him in late 80's and early 90's. He seemed very focused and content. While we were playing in the college ground, he met us and talked 10-15 minutes about the relegion and then we got him to pad and bat a bit and boy! he was indeed stylish.

He would play everything along the ground class player and human being.

does anyone know what he means?

I think he means now these guys have common ground. Before there was part which was the elites like waqar wasim who would do the so called drugs and drinking and clubbing or western things they didnt mesh with kamran akmals and inzis.

Yeah! Whatever I saw when he batted briefly I could easily say it was pure class and excellent ground shots (I could imagine what he'd have been during his days) and yes indeed he was a very nice man......

I used to analyse this when my dad was coaching me because alot of my drives would go between point and thirdman region. My father would tell me saeed ahmed, he played everthing elegantly along the ground there.

a point that needs mentioning here. once again Osman Samiuddin has shown his depth, or lack thereof, when it comes to being a journalist.

the title is not only unrelated to the subject matter, it is blatantly misleading. im confused whether Osman just doesnt understand the role of religion in Pak team or simply wanted a scintillating topic? It reads "With Allah on their side". really Osman? would you like to make that point in the article? or maybe provide some evidence that this is the claim by the team? i'm not nitpicking here. this is perhaps the greatest misconception atheists (or detractors of religion) generally have about the role of religion in sports(be it christianity or Islam), and Osman is fanning the flames which is irresponsible at best.

also, there has to be a point where opinion journalism gives way to unbiased reporting. im not against being opinionated, but when covering something so close to the hearts of many of our players, at the very least he could have included the points of view of a couple?

overall it seems like a woefully incomplete evaluation of a complicated subject. seems like someone needed to please their boss.

I was thinking the same thing.

Have to agree. Utterly useless article; He should stick to cricket and not make snide comments about what Pakistan was meant to be. Hvae really lost a lot of respect for him after this
.

Asalaam alikum Wr Wb Brothers;

Most articles written by osman samiuddin are cut above the rest or should i say excellent indeed. But this article dissappoints me as well as other brothers here on pakpassion.

I really can't see the point of the title in his article. For the first time i felt that it was not osman who had scripted this article but his white snobbish and biased boss. Osman normally writes very impartial and top quality articles but this one was the total opposite. I don't see why he needs to make comments on what pakistan should have been. For the record anyways, pakistan was created on the basis of islam not secularlism. If there has been bad interpretations and implementations of complete islamic law (shariah) by general zia and other leaders then that is'nt the fault of islam nor the people of pakistan .

There are a number of sentences i did'nt like in osman's article like this one ""His name has become so integral to strategy that an English journalist remarked during the winter tour that Allah should be man of the series. Even Danish Kaneria, a Hindu and now the solitary non-Muslim, peppers his own talk with inshallah. Now that is a typical sarcastic statement you would expect from a white snobbish commentator and journalist. It show's their shallow or narrow mindeness which is so synonymous with their mentality towards islam.

This paragraph was also unneccessary to post "There was another factor, for Pakistani players in the 1990s were the match-fixing generation. Some sought religion for absolution and safeguard. Sharda Ugra of India Today argued: "The post-match-fixing generation is grappling with a `double burden'... not only are they under scrutiny for their professional conduct, they have also become characters in a public morality play, always vulnerable to being accused of match-fixing should they fail." When Salim Malik was first accused of corruption, the manager Intikhab Alam immediately asked him to swear his innocence on the Koran
".

But i have to say these sentences infuriated me the most "Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan's cussed founding father, laid out an unequivocally secular vision for the country: religion would have no say, he insisted, in the running of the state. But along the way, this vision was lost. Since 1973, Pakistan has been prefixed with the "Islamic Republic of ", and it was not just a bureaucratic modification". Really osman ??? I can't believe being a muslim he does'nt realise that islam is not merely a religion it is a way of life and the islamic law derived from holy Quran and hadith makes it clear that islamic state is governed by the divine islamic (shariah ) law and certainly not any unislamic or kufr ( democratic or secularism) way of governing.

I have to say that this was indeed poor form of journalism from osman. Probably his first major blemish in journalism. He need to either educate himself regards islam or stop trying to please his editor as one brother said. He should have posted a article which would have shown more postiveness about the effects of islam and it's culture and how adhering to the faith has been very fruitful in bring great cricketing results. No need for any negative vibes.

maybe someone smarter than me can answer if Osman is really a muslim name. does anyone other than Samiuddin pronounce it that way? Is it me or is this guy looking more and more like a wannabe character? perhaps thats why he got his job on cricinfo?

What do you mean pronounce? Do you mean spell? Yes, Osman can be spelled either as O-S-M-A-N or U-S-M-A-N. He supposedly lives in Defence, Karachi.

obviously you would pronounce Osman and Usman differently. I've only seen its pronounced one way, and I know Usmans from all over Pak. I could be wrong.

This I got from another forum:



The guy he posted it says he heard Shahid Afridi saying the Azaan.

Theer is no need for any personal attacks against Osman Samiuddin. BTW it looks like a good article to me, a little different and certainly insightful. He goes on and on about how religion has brought about unity within the team. Him getting a little "political" was something that could have been avoided, but overall a great article imo. I dunno why we are getting so touchy...

Surprising article.

Surprising that such a scattered analysis was used on what is clearly not a straight forward topic for discussion. Also surprised that it was authored by Osman Samiuddin.

well actually he is right. Pakistan was envisioned by Muhammad Ali Jinnah as a secular state seperating religion and state (like in UK, USA and Canada) but its a religious state now. Pakistan has lost its way culturally, morally and politically since they changed the constitution in 1970's. Ironic that we wanted a state where Muslims could live with freedom because of hindu clerics being cruel to us in India, yet Pakistan treats 99% of hindu's , christians and other minorities as second clas citizens

Walaikum Asalaam WR WB.

I can't believe being a muslim he does'nt realise that islam is not merely a religion it is a way of life and the islamic law derived from holy Quran and hadith makes it clear that islamic state is governed by the divine islamic (shariah ) law and certainly not any unislamic or kufr ( democratic or secularism) way of governing.

My favourite part, well said, LALA!

I didn't think it was that poor an article.

You've got to remember that its aimed at the majority of people who aren't muslim or pakistani.

Don't forget the author is para-phrasing other journalists in parts to show how the situation looks from the outside. He has effectively shelved his own reliious beliefs (whatever they are) in writing this piece.

I don't have a problem with what he's written on teh whole unless there is some inherent factual inaccuracy

What makes you think Democracy is unislamic or Kufr. Islam is a way of life, not a way of authority. It is upto the individual to practice his religion, not the government.

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion

It is not upto ME to say Democracy is unislamic or kufr. Islam is our Deen (way of life), so how can you take another way of life, which is Democracy?

And here is the full ayah:

"There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower."

right direction=Islam
error=all other ways of life
false deities=false gods who legislate law and make Haram=Halal

(by the way, i know this is a cricket thread!)

Do you know the "Ideology" and "Emergence" of Pakistan???????

***, how can u be so narrow minded. if you dislike democracy then why r you even living in london, go back to where your "loyalty" lies, it sure doesnt stand in line with Islam. The right direction is to believe in God, his Prophet and ALL the prophets before him, respect other religions and cultures and respect the authority in the nation you live in. Democracy is a concept of giving the people the right to vote and chose a leader among those who have stood up to lead the economic, social and political arena of the nation. A leader can have an Islamic rule of law if it doesnt disenginuate other minorities. You name me a ANY muslim country where the Shariah is applied and all the people are prospering.

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.


So you actually think if this verse is saying that whoever rehects the forces of evil that is aimed at democracy? you have got to be kidding me


You cannot have shariah if there is no Caliphate or universally chosen current leader leading under the shadow of the laws given by the Quran and the Holy Prophet. Pakistan is corrupt because of its corrupt religious state, Bangladesh is corrupt because of its corrupt religious state, Saudi Arabia is corrupt because of its corrupt religious state.

Find me one positive aspect on the condition of muslims in the world today, unfortunately there is very few. There is just "hate" for someone else. that is not Islam of Muhammad pbuh, that is the Islam of the Infidel, the Maulvi who thinks he knows Islam but he doesnt, he only knows his own greed

thats what I was referring too. Does Pakistan allow minorities the same rights they wanted for themselves in a Muslim state or are they doing the same thing that hindu's were doing before Independence

Brilliant Article, and good points sharuk!!

Someone do me a favour and name me all the 'islamic' republics in the world ??

00

00

^gilly, come to Pak A tour thread and have your say about Aus A side now.

Ok, here we go. First of all, I don't dislike democracy, I hate it as I should. And why do I live in London, because Allah chose for me to be born here and live here, that doesn't mean I have to move anywhere or become a hypocrite and start loving other Deens and Religions. And show me in which Ayah or Hadith it says to respect other Deens or Religions.

Secondly, there is no Islamic Caliphate in the world at the moment and there are no countries that are Islamic. All countries rule and judge by a law other than Allah's (Shariah), so their rulers are the Kafiroon. Democracy is not allowed in Islam, you have a caliphate, an Amir, he uses the Shariah to rule.

And lastly, the only positive aspect on the condition of Muslims worldwide is that we have few brave individuals who fight back against the oppressors and are upholding and defending Islam as we speak. They are Ahl Us Sunnah and may Allah protect them. Ameen.

what a great advertisement for democracy ;)

"And show me in which Ayah or Hadith it says to respect other Deens or Religions" <---- I cant believe you said that...but here goes















MOST IMPORTANT

[







dont take the following verse as saying not be friends with all christians and jews, only those who are acting against Islam and that you have knowledge of that. Other than that what is hidden is only known to Allah













which century are you living in bachay

you sound like one of those brainwashed guys in UK.

Asalaam alikum Wr Wb Brothers;

Brother sharuk let me correct you and you can further confirm by visiting a few islamic web sites that democracy is unislamic or kufr way of governing. I don't think you understand the meaning of democracy. The western ideology of rule or governance known as democracy is a system where sovereignty belongs to the people, where man made laws are changed according to wishes of the elite ( bureacrats and other big fat cat executives ). In democracy there is freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom to ownership to goods.

As we all know the governance system of democracy is full of corruption and designed purely for capitalists, who exploit resources to the maximum without making a equal widespread contribution to the masses. In islam the governance system is khilafah which is more complete and fairer system, designed to give equal share of profits and justice too everybody. In islam the khilafah system has a system which runs from divine laws from the holy Quran and hadiths ( sayings of blessed Prophet Mohammed (S.A.A.W ) ). The sovereignty belongs to Almighty Allah only in islamic governance system and not the people. The laws are not subject to change unlike in democracy. When we had the islamic state (Khilafah) for 1200 years the dhimmis ( Minorities like jews, christians, hindus e.t.c) lived harmoniously and benefitted immensely from the khilafah system. The dhimmis were never classed as second class citizens and nor was their racial discrimination when applying for top positions or for claiming their rights unlike the western world of today . Unfortunatley today we don't have a islamic state in any muslim country but that is because it was abolished in 1924 at it's last headquarters in istanbul, turkey. The process of decline for muslims had started much earlier perhaps a 100 years before 1924. This decline is attributed to those muslims rulers, who starting deviating slowly away from islam and with the continuing efforts of enemies of islam, agents were planted into every muslim country who gradually progressed position of power to run the affairs unislamically.


Sharuk my brother you and a number of fellow muslim brothers and sisters in pakistan or around the world from different muslim countries are under the false illusion that secular system is fair . You said it is upto the individual to practice his/her religion and not the government. You are wrong. Islam is a way of life which includes a way of authority too. I am surprised how so many brothers are not a aware of this . You see it's young muslims who lack knowledge with regards to islam who the western media targets so that they can promote or continue their maligning propanganda against islam. Brother i use to work for BBC Asian Network as a phone answer, every other day their use to be a topic on live radio with regards to targeting islam with negative vibes. Their guests us to be muslims who lacked sufficient knowledge to talk about islam.

I know this thread was really meant to talk about osman samiuddin's article but it was somewhat gone into religious category. Please read up on islamic state and what islam 's says regards to way of governance.

another brainwashed guy and from UK again...read the Quran verses posted above. cant believe this. please dont tell me a majority of Muslims have this line of thinking in UK. The Authority in Islam is always God except when there is a Caliph the Supreme authority is God but God's representative on earth is the Khalifa or Imam of the time can give social and religious decisions through praying to God. The authority does NOT rest in the hands on men it rests in the mind of individual. God has told you that there is no compulsion in religion, you are free to practice any faith, any belief as long as you know that the final judgement will not be done by God but man himself, that is why if the laws have to be followed in a current authority, the laws of the land you are living in have to be followed. If it was in arab culture to cut off the hands off thief in terms of justice , it should be followed in other countries too? if you think that then I am sorry I will pray for the true light of Islam to show you the way and make you disbelieve the Mullah version of Islam.


Hadhrat Omar, 2nd Khalifa:

Sharuk brother it's people like you who are brainwashed, the islamic system of governance is NOT Democracy (democracy is Shamocracy actually ! ). Please go to a islamic web site and also speak to an alim, i suggest a web site for you www.ask-imam.com . I hope you find it resourceful, you can ask a direct question to the mufti sahib. I think you read my earlier article with a closed mind. How can you say i am brainwashed ? .

You don't understand democracy my brother, please educate yourself regards to this. There are some principles that the westeners have copied or adapted from the islamic system of governance into their secular system of democracy.The word democracy is derived from a greek work of democratos. No where in the holy Quran and in the blessed hadith is democracy is mentioned. You obviously have'nt read islamic history well enough to understand. The shura is a assembly that choses the khileef/ amir ul momineen based on his background, his piety and his vast knowledge of islam . There are no elections in the islamic political system.

Brother sharuk, i have done a intense study on this subject therefore i know what i am talking about. If you think i am wrong then prove it with any evidence. And i know you will find none. Can you give the surah number and ayat number where democracy is mentioned that you claim ?

So if a system of RULING by a person is different from democracy, you will reject democracy? If there is no Caliph of the time, how can you reject democracy if its the only viable and closest to Islam solution available for the social and political well being of a country.








If you implement Shariah as a form of goverment and politics then all other non muslims will then we considered 2nd class decisions, something which is contradicting the Holy Quran and thus cannot be used in forming governments and legislation.






Shariah should be applied but not in the current state of Muslims. and having the concept of Shariah doesnt mean you reject other forms of government as every society has the RIGHT to thier form of government IF it does not hinder Muslims praying 5 times a day

First of all, I can see that Sharuk has no Adab or manners when it comes to talking to someone, because he thinks I am "Bachay" and he thinks I am "brainwashed".

Secondly, you don't understand the basics of Islam. Read and see what Taghout (false deities) is. And you should also know that we believe only in Allah and his Messenger (SAW) and we reject the Taghout. If we reject the Taghout, how can we start loving other Deens and religions? How can we start accepting other deens that are "close" to Islam? You have a rational way of thinking, which is not Islamic, but resembles a sect called HT or the Mutazilah.

And again, you did not show me any evidence where we accept other deens or respect other deens.

As for the quote you gave for Surah Baqarah2. Read the Tafsir of this...

Mentioned by Ibn Abbas (RA)
22 and 59 were abrogated by verse 3:85.

Verse 3:85 being " And whosoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter, he will be one of the losers."

i.e. after the coming of the of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) on the Earth, no other religion except Islam, will be accepted from anyone.

So, don't even try telling me that

"If you implement Shariah as a form of goverment and politics then all other non muslims will then we considered 2nd class decisions, something which is contradicting the Holy Quran and thus cannot be used in forming governments and legislation.

All non-muslims are 2nd class decisions, they are the worst of creatures, and their religion is not accepted by Allah.

Shariah should be applied but not in the current state of Muslims. and having the concept of Shariah doesnt mean you reject other forms of government as every society has the RIGHT to thier form of government IF it does not hinder Muslims praying 5 times a day

Shariah should be applied, and it does mean you reject all other legislative bodies and governing bodies, because they are Taghout. And to finish, the distinguishing act between a Muslim and a Kafir is the Salah. It doesn't matter if a Jew or Christian or anyone else says they believes in God, the Salah is Obligatory and if not prayed, the person is still a disbeliever. Therefore, you can never make a comparison between a Muslim and Kafir.

Surat Al-Bayyinah,7

98 "Verily, those who disbelieve from among the people of the Scripture and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

98:7 "Verily, those who believe and do righteous good deeds, they are the best of creatures.

which century are you living in bachay

you sound like one of those brainwashed guys in UK.

Alhamdulillah, I am living the Islamic year 1427. I am not sure about you.
And yes, Alhamdulillah my brain has been washed of the filth and dirt of Kufr Society.

OK this thread comes to an end now. People have seen the original article and commented on it. Pls dont get personal with each other on other threads as well. Thanks