The time is right to move beyond the old paradigm of India-Pakistan rivalry
Minhaz Merchant
TOI
To turn a metaphor around,what can't be endured must be cured.Trust is the key curative ingredient in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's nuanced strategy of structured re-engagement with Pakistan.And yet the meetings between home minister P Chidambaram and external affairs minister S M Krishna with their Pakistani counterparts on June 26 and July 15 respectively mark a fundamental shift in the balance of diplomatic power between India and Pakistan.
Pakistan's decades-long attempt to acquire parity with India is over.Despite the Pakistani army's braggadocio,its deployment of over 1,00,000 troops in the recently renamed Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa region (formerly known as the North West Frontier Province) has significantly weakened both its fighting capabilities on the LoC and its morale.The economic disparity between the two countries is growing.India's GDP is now nearly 10 times Pakistan's.Power shortages are crippling industry and everyday life in Pakistan.The entire country generates a mere 11,800 MW of electricity per day on average (Maharashtra alone generates more) and faces a daily shortfall of nearly 4,000 MW.
While the inevitably long drawn out appeal process against the death sentence given to Mohammed Ajmal Kasab will continue to cause public disquiet in India,the arrest of failed New York bomber Faisal Shahzad has seriously weakened Pakistan's ability to run with the Taliban hares and hunt with the American hounds.Washington has woken up.
The prime minister's strategy of re-engaging Pakistan couldn't be better timed for three other reasons.One,the eighteenth constitutional amendment has given Pakistan's National Assembly greater parliamentary power than it has had since the time of Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in the early 1970s.General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani may still be the power behind the throne but on the throne sits a significantly empowered prime minister.
Two,ISI-created terror groups in north Waziristan led by Sirajuddin Haqqani are being relentlessly pursued by the US following the interrogation of Shahzad.Washington is forcing Islamabad to dismember Pakistan's strategic terror assets designed by Rawalpindi GHQ to remote control a Talibanised Afghanistan after the Americans leave.That strategy now lies in tatters.
Three,India's conventional military strength is being quietly burnished.The Indian navy has already commissioned an advanced stealth ship (INS Shivalik) and two more stealths (INS Satpura and INS Sahyadri) are expected to enter service next year.The navy has begun a two-year sea trial of INS Arihant,its first indigenously built ATV nuclear submarine,and will have a fleet of six by 2020.A nuclear-tipped supersonic cruise missile,BrahMos,is under classified development and will join the Agni-III whose range is 5,000 km.The navy's aircraft carrier (INS Vikramaditya ) and nuclear submarines,supplemented by land-based and air-fired missiles,form a deadly triad of offensive military capability.
The prime minister is a pacifist but knows that to win the peace you must first possess the means to win a war.He now has those means and they immeasurably strengthen his negotiating position.But while talks with Pakistan are necessary,they must serve one clear purpose: a permanent end to state-sponsored terrorism by Pakistan.From this will emerge a modus vivendi on Kashmir and water,closer economic cooperation,stronger trade ties,easier travel and more people-to-people contact.
The Indian home minister's mandate at the SAARC home ministers' summit beginning in Islamabad on June 26 is to carry the prime minister's dual strategy forward.The first part of that strategy is to narrow the trust deficit with Pakistan's civilian government through purposeful re-engagement between the two countries' home and foreign ministers.The second part of the strategy is to assess whether the Pakistani army's adversarial mindset has changed significantly.
The influence of General Kayani,whose tenure ends on November 29 and may not be extended,is waning as Pakistani civil society,a reinvigorated judiciary and the democratically elected government reassert themselves.Washington no longer trusts him,especially after Shahzad's handlers were traced back to the ISI.New economic and geopolitical realities have shrunk the ambitions of even the hawks within the ISI who have long made a profitable living out of Pakistan's adversarial relationship with India.
Chidambaram's iron fist may be clothed in velvet as he meets Pakistan's leaders in Islamabad this weekend but he will leave them in no doubt about India's intent: peace is a prize to be won for the entire subcontinent.It is a prize necessary for India to pursue its expanding global agenda without being distracted by a renegade neighbour.And it is necessary for Pakistan so that it can extricate itself from decades of misguided military adventurism and statesponsored terrorism that have cost so many innocent lives.
Talking to,and trusting,Pakistan is vital for long-term peace in the subcontinent.But peace,like any other prize worth winning,carries collateral obligations.It is,for instance,the constitutional obligation of a government to protect its citizens and,in the event of a terrorist attack against them,bring the perpetrators to book.The prime minister,as his government re-engages Pakistan across a raft of issues,must honour that principal obligation by ensuring that terrorists like Hafiz Saeed and Dawood Ibrahim are brought swiftly to justice.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Aarzoo
Khud kuch khud se khud ki baten
Anginat yaar karte hain…
Dil kuch dil se dil ki batein
Besabab Beqarar karti hain…
Sapne mere duniya meri
Soch bhi khwahish bhi
Har pal…pal pal …
Sapnon se apne sawal karte hain…
Beqarari besabab nahin intezar yaar
Pyaase pyaas ke paani ki chahat karte hain….
Aarzoo ki tamanna wa tamanna ki aarzooo
Deedar-e-yaar chaah chahat ki hai …
-shuja
Anginat yaar karte hain…
Dil kuch dil se dil ki batein
Besabab Beqarar karti hain…
Sapne mere duniya meri
Soch bhi khwahish bhi
Har pal…pal pal …
Sapnon se apne sawal karte hain…
Beqarari besabab nahin intezar yaar
Pyaase pyaas ke paani ki chahat karte hain….
Aarzoo ki tamanna wa tamanna ki aarzooo
Deedar-e-yaar chaah chahat ki hai …
-shuja
The Pakistan Solution : an answer to Jinnah!
India Wins Freedom
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad
Maulana Azad's statement on Muslim issues in India
April 15, 1946
... on 15 April 1946, I issued a statement dealing with the demands of Muslims and other minorities. Now that the division of India is a fact and ten years have passed, I again look at the statement and find that everything I had then said has come to happen. As this statement contains my considered views on the solution of the Indian problem, I feel I should quote it in full. This is what I then said, and would still say:
I have considered from every possible point of view the scheme of Pakistan as formulated by the Muslim League. As an Indian I have examined its implications for the future of India as a whole. As a Muslim I have examined its likely effects upon the fortunes of Muslims of India.
Considering the scheme in all its aspects I have come to the conclusion that it is harmful not only for India as a whole but for Muslims in particular. And in fact it creates more problems than it solves.
I must confess that the very term Pakistan goes against my grain. It suggests that some portions of the world are pure while others are impure. Such a division of territories into pure and impure is un-Islamic and is more in keeping with orthodox Brahmanism which divides men and countries into holy and unholy - a division which is a repudiation of the very spirit of Islam. Islam recognises no such division and the prophet says, 'God has made the whole world a mosque for me.'
Further, it seems that the scheme of Pakistan is a symbol of defeatism and has been built up on the analogy of the Jewish demand for a national home. It is a confession that Indian Muslims cannot hold their own in India as a whole and would be content to withdraw to a corner specially reserved for them.
One can sympathise with the aspiration of the Jews for such a national home, as they are scattered all over the world and cannot in any region have any effective voice in the administration. The conditions of Indian Muslims is quite otherwise. Over 90 million in number, they are in quantity and quality a sufficiently important element in Indian life to Influence decisively all questions of administration and policy. Nature has further helped them by concentrating them in certain areas.
In such a context, the demand for Pakistan loses all force. As a Muslim, I for one am not prepared for a moment to give up my right to treat the whole of India as my domain and to share in the shaping of its political and economic life. To me it seems a sure sign of cowardice to give up what is my patrimony and content myself with a mere fragment of it.
As is well known, Mr Jinnah's Pakistan scheme is based on his two nation theory. His thesis is that India contains many nationalities based on religious differences. Of them the two major nations, the Hindus and Muslims, must as separate nations have separate states. When Dr Edward Thompson once pointed out to Mr Jinnah that Hindus and Muslims live side by side in thousands of Indian towns, villages and hamlets, Mr Jinnah replied that this in no way affected their separate nationality. Two nations according to Mr Jinnah confront one another in every hamlet, village and town, and he, therefore, desires that they should be separated into two states.
I am prepared to overlook all other aspects of the problem and judge it from the point of view of Muslim interests alone. I shall go still further and say that if it can be shown that the scheme of Pakistan can in any way benefit Muslims I would be prepared to accept it myself and also to work for its acceptance by others. But the truth is that even If I examine the scheme from the point of view of the communal interests of the Muslims themselves, I am forced to the conclusion that it can in no way benefit them or allay their legitimate fears.
Let us consider dispassionately the consequences which will follow if we give effect to the Pakistan scheme. India will be divided into two States, one with a majority of Muslims and the other of Hindus. In the Hindustan State there will remain three and a half crores of Muslims scattered in small minorities all over the land. With 17 per cent in U.P, 12 per cent in Bihar and 9 per cent in Madras, they will be weaker than they are today in the Hindu majority provinces. They have had their homelands in these regions for almost a thousand years and built up well known centres of Muslim culture and civilisation there.
They will awaken overnight and discover that they have become alien and foreigners. Backward industrially, educationally and economically, they will be left to the mercies to what would become an unadulterated Hindu raj.
On the other hand, their position within the Pakistan State will be vulnerable and weak. Nowhere in Pakistan will their majority be comparable to the Hindu majority in the Hindustan States.
In fact, their majority will be so slight that it will be offset by the economical, educational and political lead enjoyed by non-Muslims in these areas. Even if this were not so and Pakistan were overwhelmingly Muslim in population, it still could hardly solve the problem of Muslims in Hindustan.
Two states confronting one another, offer no solution of the problem of one another's minorities, but only lead to retribution and reprisals by introducing a system of mutual hostages. The scheme of Pakistan therefore solves no problem for the Muslims. It cannot safeguard their rights where they are in a minority nor as citizens of Pakistan secure them a position in Indian or world affairs which they would enjoy as citizens of a major State like the Indian Union.
It may be argued that if Pakistan is so much against the interests of the Muslims themselves, why should such a large section of Muslims be swept away by its lure? The answer is to be found in the attitude of certain communal extremists among the Hindus. When the Muslim League began to speak of Pakistan, they read into the scheme a sinister pan-Islamic conspiracy and began to oppose it out of fear that it foreshadowed a combination of Indian Muslim with trans-Indian Muslims States.
The opposition acted as an incentive to the adherents of the League. With simple though untenable logic they argued that if Hindus were so opposed to Pakistan, surely it must be of benefit to Muslims. An atmosphere of emotional frenzy was created which made reasonable appraisement impossible and swept away, especially the younger and more impressionable among the Muslims. I have, however, no doubt that when the present frenzy has died down and the question can be considered dispassionately, those who now support Pakistan will themselves repudiate it as harmful for Muslim Interests.
The formula which I have succeeded in making the Congress accept secures whatever merit the Pakistan scheme contains while all its defects and drawbacks are avoided. The basis of Pakistan is the fear of interference by the Centre in Muslim majority areas as the Hindus will be in a majority in the Centre. The Congress meets this fear by granting full autonomy to the provincial units and vesting all residuary power in the provinces. It also has provided for two lists of Central subjects, one compulsory and one optional, so that if any provincial unit so wants, it can administer all subjects itself except a minimum delegated to the Centre. The Congress scheme therefore ensures that Muslim majority provinces are internally free to develop as they will, but can at the same time influence the Centre on all issues which affect India as a whole.
The situation in India is such that all attempts to establish a centralised and unitary government are bound to fail. Equally doomed to failure is the attempt to divide India into two States. After considering all aspects of the question, I have come to the conclusion that the only solution can be on the lines embodied in the Congress formula which allows room for development both to the provinces and to India as a whole. The Congress formula meets the fear of the Muslim majority areas to allay which the scheme of Pakistan was formed. On the other hand, it avoids the defects of the Pakistan scheme which would bring the Muslims where they are in a minority under a purely Hindu government.
I am one of those who considers the present chapter of communal bitterness and differences as a transient phase in Indian life. I firmly hold that they will disappear when India assumes the responsibility of her own destiny. I am reminded of a saying of Mr Gladstone that the best cure for a man's fear of the water was to throw him into it. Similarly India must assume responsibilities and administer her own affairs before fears and suspicions can be fully allayed.
When India attains her destiny, she will forget the chapter of communal suspicion and conflict and face the problems of modern life from a modern point of view. Differences will no doubt persist, but they will be economic, not communal. Opposition among political parties will continue, but it will be based, not on religion but on economic and political issues. Class and not community will be the basis of future alignments, and policies will be shaped accordingly.
If It be argued that this is only a faith which events may not justify would say that in any case the nine crores of Muslims constitute a factor which nobody can ignore and whatever the circumstances they are strong enough to safeguard their own destiny.
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad
Maulana Azad's statement on Muslim issues in India
April 15, 1946
... on 15 April 1946, I issued a statement dealing with the demands of Muslims and other minorities. Now that the division of India is a fact and ten years have passed, I again look at the statement and find that everything I had then said has come to happen. As this statement contains my considered views on the solution of the Indian problem, I feel I should quote it in full. This is what I then said, and would still say:
I have considered from every possible point of view the scheme of Pakistan as formulated by the Muslim League. As an Indian I have examined its implications for the future of India as a whole. As a Muslim I have examined its likely effects upon the fortunes of Muslims of India.
Considering the scheme in all its aspects I have come to the conclusion that it is harmful not only for India as a whole but for Muslims in particular. And in fact it creates more problems than it solves.
I must confess that the very term Pakistan goes against my grain. It suggests that some portions of the world are pure while others are impure. Such a division of territories into pure and impure is un-Islamic and is more in keeping with orthodox Brahmanism which divides men and countries into holy and unholy - a division which is a repudiation of the very spirit of Islam. Islam recognises no such division and the prophet says, 'God has made the whole world a mosque for me.'
Further, it seems that the scheme of Pakistan is a symbol of defeatism and has been built up on the analogy of the Jewish demand for a national home. It is a confession that Indian Muslims cannot hold their own in India as a whole and would be content to withdraw to a corner specially reserved for them.
One can sympathise with the aspiration of the Jews for such a national home, as they are scattered all over the world and cannot in any region have any effective voice in the administration. The conditions of Indian Muslims is quite otherwise. Over 90 million in number, they are in quantity and quality a sufficiently important element in Indian life to Influence decisively all questions of administration and policy. Nature has further helped them by concentrating them in certain areas.
In such a context, the demand for Pakistan loses all force. As a Muslim, I for one am not prepared for a moment to give up my right to treat the whole of India as my domain and to share in the shaping of its political and economic life. To me it seems a sure sign of cowardice to give up what is my patrimony and content myself with a mere fragment of it.
As is well known, Mr Jinnah's Pakistan scheme is based on his two nation theory. His thesis is that India contains many nationalities based on religious differences. Of them the two major nations, the Hindus and Muslims, must as separate nations have separate states. When Dr Edward Thompson once pointed out to Mr Jinnah that Hindus and Muslims live side by side in thousands of Indian towns, villages and hamlets, Mr Jinnah replied that this in no way affected their separate nationality. Two nations according to Mr Jinnah confront one another in every hamlet, village and town, and he, therefore, desires that they should be separated into two states.
I am prepared to overlook all other aspects of the problem and judge it from the point of view of Muslim interests alone. I shall go still further and say that if it can be shown that the scheme of Pakistan can in any way benefit Muslims I would be prepared to accept it myself and also to work for its acceptance by others. But the truth is that even If I examine the scheme from the point of view of the communal interests of the Muslims themselves, I am forced to the conclusion that it can in no way benefit them or allay their legitimate fears.
Let us consider dispassionately the consequences which will follow if we give effect to the Pakistan scheme. India will be divided into two States, one with a majority of Muslims and the other of Hindus. In the Hindustan State there will remain three and a half crores of Muslims scattered in small minorities all over the land. With 17 per cent in U.P, 12 per cent in Bihar and 9 per cent in Madras, they will be weaker than they are today in the Hindu majority provinces. They have had their homelands in these regions for almost a thousand years and built up well known centres of Muslim culture and civilisation there.
They will awaken overnight and discover that they have become alien and foreigners. Backward industrially, educationally and economically, they will be left to the mercies to what would become an unadulterated Hindu raj.
On the other hand, their position within the Pakistan State will be vulnerable and weak. Nowhere in Pakistan will their majority be comparable to the Hindu majority in the Hindustan States.
In fact, their majority will be so slight that it will be offset by the economical, educational and political lead enjoyed by non-Muslims in these areas. Even if this were not so and Pakistan were overwhelmingly Muslim in population, it still could hardly solve the problem of Muslims in Hindustan.
Two states confronting one another, offer no solution of the problem of one another's minorities, but only lead to retribution and reprisals by introducing a system of mutual hostages. The scheme of Pakistan therefore solves no problem for the Muslims. It cannot safeguard their rights where they are in a minority nor as citizens of Pakistan secure them a position in Indian or world affairs which they would enjoy as citizens of a major State like the Indian Union.
It may be argued that if Pakistan is so much against the interests of the Muslims themselves, why should such a large section of Muslims be swept away by its lure? The answer is to be found in the attitude of certain communal extremists among the Hindus. When the Muslim League began to speak of Pakistan, they read into the scheme a sinister pan-Islamic conspiracy and began to oppose it out of fear that it foreshadowed a combination of Indian Muslim with trans-Indian Muslims States.
The opposition acted as an incentive to the adherents of the League. With simple though untenable logic they argued that if Hindus were so opposed to Pakistan, surely it must be of benefit to Muslims. An atmosphere of emotional frenzy was created which made reasonable appraisement impossible and swept away, especially the younger and more impressionable among the Muslims. I have, however, no doubt that when the present frenzy has died down and the question can be considered dispassionately, those who now support Pakistan will themselves repudiate it as harmful for Muslim Interests.
The formula which I have succeeded in making the Congress accept secures whatever merit the Pakistan scheme contains while all its defects and drawbacks are avoided. The basis of Pakistan is the fear of interference by the Centre in Muslim majority areas as the Hindus will be in a majority in the Centre. The Congress meets this fear by granting full autonomy to the provincial units and vesting all residuary power in the provinces. It also has provided for two lists of Central subjects, one compulsory and one optional, so that if any provincial unit so wants, it can administer all subjects itself except a minimum delegated to the Centre. The Congress scheme therefore ensures that Muslim majority provinces are internally free to develop as they will, but can at the same time influence the Centre on all issues which affect India as a whole.
The situation in India is such that all attempts to establish a centralised and unitary government are bound to fail. Equally doomed to failure is the attempt to divide India into two States. After considering all aspects of the question, I have come to the conclusion that the only solution can be on the lines embodied in the Congress formula which allows room for development both to the provinces and to India as a whole. The Congress formula meets the fear of the Muslim majority areas to allay which the scheme of Pakistan was formed. On the other hand, it avoids the defects of the Pakistan scheme which would bring the Muslims where they are in a minority under a purely Hindu government.
I am one of those who considers the present chapter of communal bitterness and differences as a transient phase in Indian life. I firmly hold that they will disappear when India assumes the responsibility of her own destiny. I am reminded of a saying of Mr Gladstone that the best cure for a man's fear of the water was to throw him into it. Similarly India must assume responsibilities and administer her own affairs before fears and suspicions can be fully allayed.
When India attains her destiny, she will forget the chapter of communal suspicion and conflict and face the problems of modern life from a modern point of view. Differences will no doubt persist, but they will be economic, not communal. Opposition among political parties will continue, but it will be based, not on religion but on economic and political issues. Class and not community will be the basis of future alignments, and policies will be shaped accordingly.
If It be argued that this is only a faith which events may not justify would say that in any case the nine crores of Muslims constitute a factor which nobody can ignore and whatever the circumstances they are strong enough to safeguard their own destiny.
Monday, April 12, 2010
hadeeth of the day for 12April10
Bukhari :: Book 1 :: Volume 4 :: Hadith 246
Narrated Hudhaifa:
Whenever the Prophet got up at night, he used to clean his mouth with Siwak.
Narrated Hudhaifa:
Whenever the Prophet got up at night, he used to clean his mouth with Siwak.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
the circle
The Circle of Justice
Fakhr-i Mudabbir wrote in the thirteenth century:
A king cannot survive without soldiers. And soldiers cannot
live without salaries. Salaries come from the revenue collected
from peasants. But peasants can pay revenue only when they
are prosperous and happy. This happens when the king
promotes justice and honest governance.
Fakhr-i Mudabbir wrote in the thirteenth century:
A king cannot survive without soldiers. And soldiers cannot
live without salaries. Salaries come from the revenue collected
from peasants. But peasants can pay revenue only when they
are prosperous and happy. This happens when the king
promotes justice and honest governance.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
WOMEN EMPOWERMENT defined!
POLITICALLY INCORRECT
The cry goes up — Sonia, tussi God hai!
SHOBHAA DE
I was away in not-so-distant Dubai when Sonia’s Bill was pushed through with a voice vote. I say ‘Sonia’s Bill’ because it will eventually be known as that. Had Madam not bulldozed the Women’s Reservation Bill during thisdramatic session, chances are another twelve years may have passed and our daughters would have been agitating for it somewhere down the line. Mind you, i have never been pro-reservations, believing, perhaps a little too idealistically, that focusing on educating our women en masse was a smarter route to take than reserving seats for a few in Parliament. Slower, for sure. But infinitely more worthwhile, if we are talking about a level playing field. Subsidies and quotas lead to a mindset that seeks concessions and favours. I loathe the idea of handouts. Women don’t need patronage. They need opportunities. And those can only come if we empower them via education. Sorry to make this a boring, single-point mantra. But one has only to travel just a little outside our teeming cities to understand how desperately disenfranchised and ‘other’ women are… and how hopeless it all appears … yes, despite the historic Bill and the magic it promises to unleash, abracadabra ishstyle.
I don’t want to ruin the party and behave like a wet blanket while the euphoria continues. But the truth is, we still have a majority of women who don’t have the foggiest idea that their lives are about to be transformed, thanks to India’s fairy godmother, Sonia. The intentions of Team Sonia are great. But hello! Someone obviously forgot to tell the men about this startling development.
The same day as the Bill made its uneasy passage through the Rajya Sabha, i read a story about a man in Orissa who refused to take his wife (a mother of five) back after her three-day trip to Delhi, where she’d gone to receive a very special award. She is a highly successful mushroom farmer whose name was recommended by government officials. She shared the honour with a hundred other farmers from across India. According to reports, her labourer-husband doubted her character after the trip and remains adamant about his decision not to take her back. As for the award-winner, she is bewildered and apologetic, insisting she had sought her husband’s permission to go to Delhi for the ceremony. Her mushroom cultivation will have to be on hold, till the poor woman sorts out this nonsense with her obstinate husband. What sort of message does that send out to their children?
I was on a panel discussion at the Dubai Literature Festival last week, during which this tricky issue (the Women’s Reservation Bill) was raised by the men on the panel. When i spoke up about the grim, ground realities and the sorry plight of our women, author and co-panelist William Dalrymple chortled and said he was surprised to note my comment since he’d only met ‘extraordinarily ballsy’ women in India! Wow! Lucky him. But which women was he talking about? Those divinely groomed ladies dotting Delhi’s salons? Mumbai’s soignee memsaabs? Kolkata’s coiffed mashimas? Chennai’s Kanjeevaramclad maamis? Or Bangalore’s foxy babes? Sure. If one restricts progress to urban women professionals, the story looks pretty awesome. Mr Dalrymple is spot-on to label this tribe and describe us (of course, i include myself) as ‘ballsy’. So we are. But this isn’t about just us, is it, Willy? And Soniaji? And it certainly isn’t about the path-breaking MPs who will make up those numbers and hit that percentage in Parliament as and when. We are the well-heeled, well-groomed, supremely privileged few. We’ve always had it good. When was the last time we sought our husbands’ ‘permission’ for anything? Or went without a meal? But yes, there are those even amongst us who put up with beatings, verbal and physical abuse and a lot else. But those are the choices we make. And eventually live with. This Bill has little or no relevance to our pampered lives. Ironically, this makes it all the more important. No more tokenism, ladies.
Soniaji was uncharacteristically candid when she asked Lalu about his wife and pointed out to the Neanderthal man that he himself was the father of seven daughters (an entire mithai box). Why would he, of all people, oppose the Bill?? Because he is Lalu. A politician first, a husband and father next. This is what we are going to be up against, no matter if that person is a desi politico or a celebrated British author.
I wonder about the award-winning farmer from Orissa. What will happen to her from this point on, will she say “to hell with you” to the man who is questioning her character and go back to her mushrooms? Will her children be taken away from her? Will she be ostracized by her community… other villagers? Will she lapse into depression, stop farming and beg her husband’s forgiveness? Will a modern-day version of ‘vanvaas’ and an agni pareeksha be forced on her?
Will someone please tell this woman she is supposed to be ‘ballsy’?
Has anything changed since Valmiki wrote the Ramayana?
You tell me…
insaankhan:
Every development succeeds when each angle of the issue is taken care. Hence political empowerment must happen as it will ignite the other empowerment raised by Shobhaji!
The cry goes up — Sonia, tussi God hai!
SHOBHAA DE
I was away in not-so-distant Dubai when Sonia’s Bill was pushed through with a voice vote. I say ‘Sonia’s Bill’ because it will eventually be known as that. Had Madam not bulldozed the Women’s Reservation Bill during thisdramatic session, chances are another twelve years may have passed and our daughters would have been agitating for it somewhere down the line. Mind you, i have never been pro-reservations, believing, perhaps a little too idealistically, that focusing on educating our women en masse was a smarter route to take than reserving seats for a few in Parliament. Slower, for sure. But infinitely more worthwhile, if we are talking about a level playing field. Subsidies and quotas lead to a mindset that seeks concessions and favours. I loathe the idea of handouts. Women don’t need patronage. They need opportunities. And those can only come if we empower them via education. Sorry to make this a boring, single-point mantra. But one has only to travel just a little outside our teeming cities to understand how desperately disenfranchised and ‘other’ women are… and how hopeless it all appears … yes, despite the historic Bill and the magic it promises to unleash, abracadabra ishstyle.
I don’t want to ruin the party and behave like a wet blanket while the euphoria continues. But the truth is, we still have a majority of women who don’t have the foggiest idea that their lives are about to be transformed, thanks to India’s fairy godmother, Sonia. The intentions of Team Sonia are great. But hello! Someone obviously forgot to tell the men about this startling development.
The same day as the Bill made its uneasy passage through the Rajya Sabha, i read a story about a man in Orissa who refused to take his wife (a mother of five) back after her three-day trip to Delhi, where she’d gone to receive a very special award. She is a highly successful mushroom farmer whose name was recommended by government officials. She shared the honour with a hundred other farmers from across India. According to reports, her labourer-husband doubted her character after the trip and remains adamant about his decision not to take her back. As for the award-winner, she is bewildered and apologetic, insisting she had sought her husband’s permission to go to Delhi for the ceremony. Her mushroom cultivation will have to be on hold, till the poor woman sorts out this nonsense with her obstinate husband. What sort of message does that send out to their children?
I was on a panel discussion at the Dubai Literature Festival last week, during which this tricky issue (the Women’s Reservation Bill) was raised by the men on the panel. When i spoke up about the grim, ground realities and the sorry plight of our women, author and co-panelist William Dalrymple chortled and said he was surprised to note my comment since he’d only met ‘extraordinarily ballsy’ women in India! Wow! Lucky him. But which women was he talking about? Those divinely groomed ladies dotting Delhi’s salons? Mumbai’s soignee memsaabs? Kolkata’s coiffed mashimas? Chennai’s Kanjeevaramclad maamis? Or Bangalore’s foxy babes? Sure. If one restricts progress to urban women professionals, the story looks pretty awesome. Mr Dalrymple is spot-on to label this tribe and describe us (of course, i include myself) as ‘ballsy’. So we are. But this isn’t about just us, is it, Willy? And Soniaji? And it certainly isn’t about the path-breaking MPs who will make up those numbers and hit that percentage in Parliament as and when. We are the well-heeled, well-groomed, supremely privileged few. We’ve always had it good. When was the last time we sought our husbands’ ‘permission’ for anything? Or went without a meal? But yes, there are those even amongst us who put up with beatings, verbal and physical abuse and a lot else. But those are the choices we make. And eventually live with. This Bill has little or no relevance to our pampered lives. Ironically, this makes it all the more important. No more tokenism, ladies.
Soniaji was uncharacteristically candid when she asked Lalu about his wife and pointed out to the Neanderthal man that he himself was the father of seven daughters (an entire mithai box). Why would he, of all people, oppose the Bill?? Because he is Lalu. A politician first, a husband and father next. This is what we are going to be up against, no matter if that person is a desi politico or a celebrated British author.
I wonder about the award-winning farmer from Orissa. What will happen to her from this point on, will she say “to hell with you” to the man who is questioning her character and go back to her mushrooms? Will her children be taken away from her? Will she be ostracized by her community… other villagers? Will she lapse into depression, stop farming and beg her husband’s forgiveness? Will a modern-day version of ‘vanvaas’ and an agni pareeksha be forced on her?
Will someone please tell this woman she is supposed to be ‘ballsy’?
Has anything changed since Valmiki wrote the Ramayana?
You tell me…
insaankhan:
Every development succeeds when each angle of the issue is taken care. Hence political empowerment must happen as it will ignite the other empowerment raised by Shobhaji!
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
TERRORISM- MONEY is what MATTERS!
Terrorism
by Shakil Abdullah
Terrorism is generally defined as killing of civilians for political reasons. Dr Azzam Tamimi, Senior Lecturer, Markfield Institute of Higher Education, writes: “A straightforward definition of terrorism has been: ‘the use of force [or violence] to advocate a political cause’.”
It is to be emphasized that terrorism against the innocent civilians, whether through aggression or suicidal means, is under no circumstances permissible in Islam. Islam encourages the oppressed people to struggle for their liberation and it commands other Muslims to help those who are oppressed and suffering, but Islam does not allow, under any circumstance, terrorism against non-combatants and innocent people.
Islam has not only forbidden terror and violence, but also abhors even the slightest imposition of any idea on another human being. Allah Almighty says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.” (Al-Baqarah 2: 256) He Almighty also says: “So remind, you need only to remind. You cannot compel them to believe.” (Al-Ghashiyah 88: 22)
Some people who say they are acting in the name of religion may misunderstand their religion or practice it wrongly. For this reason, it is a mistake to form any idea of that religion from the activities of these people. The best way to understand Islam is through its holy source, the Qur'an; and the model of morality in the Qur’an is completely different from the image of it formed in the minds of some Westerners or some bigot Muslims. The Qur'an is based on the concepts of morality, love, compassion, mercy, modesty, self-sacrifice, tolerance and peace, and a Muslim who truly lives according to these moral precepts is highly refined, thoughtful, tolerant, trustworthy and accommodating. To those around him he gives love, respect, peace of mind and a sense of the joy of life.
Islam is a Religion of Peace & Well-Being:
The word Islam has the same meaning as "peace" in Arabic. Islam is a religion that came down to offer humanity a life filled with the peace and well-being in which Allah's eternal mercy and compassion is manifested in the world. Allah invites all people to accept the moral teachings of the Qur'an as a model whereby mercy, compassion, tolerance and peace may be experienced in the world. In verse 208 of Surat Al-Baqarah, this command is given: “You who believe! Enter absolutely into peace (Islam). Do not follow in the footsteps of Satan. He is an outright enemy to you.” As we see in this verse, people will experience well-being and happiness by living according to the moral teaching of the Qur'an.
Allah Condemns Mischief:
Allah has commanded humanity to avoid evil; He has forbidden immorality, rebellion, cruelty, aggressiveness, murder and bloodshed. Those who do not obey this command of Allah are walking in the steps of Satan, as the Qur’an says in the verse above, and have adopted an attitude that Allah has clearly declared unlawful. Of the many verses that bear on this subject, here are only two: “But as for those who break Allah's contract after it has been agreed and sever what Allah has commanded to be joined, and cause corruption in the earth, the curse will be upon them. They will have the Evil Abode.” (Ar-Ra'd 13: 25)
He Almighty also says: “Seek the abode of the hereafter with what Allah has given you, without forgetting your portion of the world. And do good as Allah has been good to you. And do not seek to cause mischief on earth. Allah does not love mischief makers.” (Al-Qasas 28: 77)
As we can see, Allah has forbidden every kind of mischievous acts in Islam including terrorism and violence, and condemned those who commit such deeds. A Muslim lends beauty to the world and improves it.
Islam Defends Tolerance and Freedom of Speech:
Islam is a religion, which fosters freedom of life, ideas and thought. It has forbidden tension and conflict among people, calumny, suspicion and even having negative thoughts about another individual. To force anyone to believe in a religion or to practice it is against the spirit and essence of Islam. Because it is necessary that faith be accepted with free will and conscience. Of course, Muslims may urge one another to keep the moral precepts taught in the Qur'an, but they never use compulsion. In any case, an individual cannot be induced to the practice of religion by either threat or offering him a worldly privilege.
Allah has Commanded Tolerance and Forgiveness:
In Surat Al-A'raf, verse 199, the phrase “practice forgiveness”, expresses the concept of forgiveness and tolerance which is one of the basic principles of Islam.
When we look at Islamic history, we can see clearly how Muslims established this important precept of the moral teaching of the Qur'an in their social life. At every point in their advance, Muslims destroyed unlawful practices and created a free and tolerant environment. In the areas of religion, language and culture, they made it possible for people totally opposite to each other to live under the same roof in freedom and peace, thereby giving to those subject to them the advantages of knowledge, wealth and position.
Likewise, one of the most important reasons that the large and widespread Ottoman Empire was able to sustain its existence for so many centuries was that its way of life was directed by the tolerance and understanding brought by Islam. For centuries, their tolerance and compassion have characterized Muslims. In every period of time they have been the most just and merciful of people. All ethnic groups within this multi-national community freely practiced the religions they have followed for years and enjoyed every opportunity to live in their own cultures and worship in their own way. Indeed, the particular tolerance of Muslims, when practiced as commanded in the Qur'an, can alone bring peace and well-being to the whole world. The Qur'an refers to this particular kind of tolerance: “The good deed and the evil deed are not alike. Repel the evil deed with one which is better, then lo! he, between whom and thee there was enmity (will become) as though he was a bosom friend.” (Fussilat 41: 34)
All this shows that the moral teaching offered to humanity by Islam is one that will bring peace, happiness and justice to the world. The barbarism that is happening in the world today under the name of "Islamic Terrorism" is completely removed from the moral teachings of the Qur'an; it is the work of ignorant, bigoted people, criminals who have nothing to do with religion. The solution which will be applied against these individuals and groups who are trying to commit their deeds of savagery under the guise of Islam, will be the instruction of people in the true moral teaching of Islam.
Three Basic Principles of Islam that Goes Counter to Terrorism:
Eminent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi states:
“No doubt, aggression against innocent people is a grave sin and a heinous crime, irrespective of the victim's religion, country, or race. No one is permitted to commit such crime, for Allah, Most High, abhors aggression. Unlike Judaism, Islam does not hold a double-standard policy in safeguarding human rights.”
Following, I would like to highlight some relevant Islamic principles based on the Glorious Qur'an and Sunnah:
1. Islam Forbids Aggression against Innocent People
Islam does not permit aggression against innocent people, whether the aggression is against life, property, or honor, and this ruling applies to everyone, regardless of post, status and prestige. In Islam, as the state’s subject is addressed with Islamic teachings, so is the ruler or caliph; he is not allowed to violate people's rights, lives, honor, property, etc.
In the Farewell Pilgrimage, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) declared the principle that people's lives, property, and honor are inviolable until the Day of Judgment. This ruling is not restricted to Muslims; rather, it includes non-Muslims who are not fighting Muslims. Even in case of war, Islam does not permit killing those who are not involved in fighting, such as women, children, the aged, and the monks who confine themselves to worship only.
This shouldn’t raise any wonder, for Islam is a religion that prohibits aggression even against animals. Ibn `Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, quote the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, as saying: "A woman (was made to) enter (Hell) Fire because of a cat which she tied, neither giving it food nor setting it free to eat from the vermin of the earth." (Reported by Al-Bukhari)
If such is Islamic ruling concerning aggressive acts against animals, then, with greater reason, the punishment is bond to be severe when human being happens to be the victim of aggression, torture and terrorism.
2. Individual Responsibility
In Islam, every one is held accountable for his own acts, not others'. No one bears the consequences of others' faults, even his close relatives. This is the ultimate form of justice, clarified in the Glorious Qur'an, as Allah, Most High, says, “Or hath he not had news of what is in the books of Moses and Abraham who fulfilled (the commandments): That no laden one shall bear another's load.” (An-Najm 53: 36-38)
Therefore, it’s very painful to see some people ¨who are Muslims by name¨ launching aggression against innocent people and taking them as scapegoats for any disagreement they have with the state’s authority!! What is the crime of the common people then?! Murder is one of heinous crimes completely abhorred in Islam, to the extent that some Muslim scholars hold the opinion that the repentance of the murderer will not be accepted by Allah, Most High. In this context, we recall the Glorious Qur'anic verse that reads, “ if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people.” (Al-Ma'idah 5: 32)
3. Ends do not Justify Means
In Islam, the notion “End justifies the means” has no place at all. It is not allowed to attain good aims through evil means, and, therefore, alms collected from unlawful avenues are not halal (lawful). In this context, the Messenger of Allah, (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Surely, Allah is Good and never accepts but what is good."
Thus, in Shari`ah, with all its sources, “the Glorious Qur'an, the Sunnah, consensus of Muslim jurists”, aggression and violation of human rights are completely forbidden. On this issue, Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, President of the Fiqh Council of North America, adds:
“The Islamic position as regards non-Muslims is that they should recognize Allah’s Oneness and Prophet Muhammad as Allah’s Final Prophet. They should accept Islam to live happily and successfully in this world and to be saved in the Hereafter. It is Muslims’ duty to give them this message clearly, but without any coercion or intolerance. If others accept this message it is good for them, but if they do not accept, Muslims should still treat them with kindness and gentleness and leave the final judgment to Allah.”
In our enthusiasm for da`wah, we should not be intolerant and aggressive towards others. However, in our politeness and civility we should also not give up our mission and message. We should not be intimidated to become quiet and we should not feel shy to tell the truth.
Jihad: Its difference from terrorism:
Terrorism is not Jihad, it is Fasad (mischief). It is against the teachings of Islam. There are some people who use their twisted arguments to justify terrorism for their causes, but it has no justification: Allah says: “When it is said to them: 'Make not mischief on the earth,' they say: 'Why, we only want to correct things.' Indeed they are the mischief doers, but they realize (it) not.” (Al-Baqarah 2: 11-12)
The word Jihad does not mean “Holy War”. It means “struggle” or “striving”. The word for war in the Qur’an is “Harb” or “Qital”. Jihad means serious and sincere struggle on the personal as well as on the social level. It is a struggle to do good and to remove injustice, oppression and evil from the society. This struggle should be spiritual as well as social, economic and political. Jihad is to work hard to do right things. In the Qur’an this word is used in its different forms 33 times. It often comes with other Qur’anic concepts such as faith, repentance, righteous deeds and migration.
Jihad is to protect one’s faith and one’s human rights. Jihad is not a war always although it can take the form of war. Islam is the religion of peace, but it does not mean that Islam accepts oppression. Islam teaches that one should do one’s utmost to eliminate tension and conflict. Islam promotes non-violent means to bring change and reform. Actually, Islam urges that one should eliminate evil through peaceful means without the use of force as much as possible. In Islamic history from the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) until now, Muslims most of the time resisted oppression and struggled for liberation in non-violent and peaceful manners.
Islam teaches proper ethics in the situation of war also. The war is permissible in Islam, but only when other peaceful means such as dialogue, negotiations and treaties fail. It is a last resort and should be avoided as much as possible. Its purpose is not to convert people by force, or to colonize people or to acquire land or wealth or for self-glory. Its purpose is basically: defense of life, property, land, honor and freedom for oneself as well as defense of others from injustice and oppression.
Basic rules of war in Islam are:
Be strong so that your enemy fear you and should not attack you.
Do not begin the hostilities. Work for peace as much as possible.
Fight only those who fight, no collective punishment; non-combatants should not be harmed. Weapons of mass destruction should not be used.
Stop hostilities as soon as the other party is inclined to peace.
Observe the treaties and agreements as long as the enemy observes them.
Allah says very clearly: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not do aggression, for Allah loves not the aggressors.” (Al-Baqarah 2: 190)
“The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.” (Al-Baqarah 2: 194)
Islam wants to establish a world order where all human beings - Muslims and non-Muslims - can live with justice in peace, harmony and good will. It gives its followers full guidelines to find peace in their personal and social lives, but it also tells them how to extend the good will on the basis of human relations towards others. Muslims worked under these principles for centuries. People of many faiths lived with them and among them. Islamic societies were known for their tolerance, generosity and humanity.
In our modern society where we are living in a global village, where non-Muslims are living with Muslims in the Muslim countries and Muslims are living with non-Muslims in countries where non-Muslims constitute a majority, it is our duty to bring better understanding among ourselves, work for peace and justice for all people and cooperate with each other in matters of goodness and virtue in order to stop all terrorism, aggression and violence against the innocent people. This is our Jihad today.
Source:
Question-answer from Islam Online:
1. “What does Islam say about terrorism and the fight for religion?”, http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544604
2. “Aggression Against Innocent People”, http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544414
3. “Jihad: Its True Meaning and Purpose”, http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503544490&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FPrintFatwaE
4. http://www.islamonline.net/English/views/2001/10/article14.shtml
Supplementary Reading:
1. “What does the term "Jihad" mean to you as Muslims?”, source: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543554
2. “What is Terrorism and What is Not?”, Azzam Tamimi, source: http://www.islamonline.net/English/views/2001/10/article14.shtml
3. “Condemned By Terrorism”, Ramzy Baroud, source: http://www.islamonline.net/English/Views/2002/11/article12.shtml
4. “Terrorism is not a Muslim monopoly”, Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar, source:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1794203.cms
Contributor: Shakil Abdullah, in cooperation with Shah Abdul Hannan, Advisor of Witness-Pioneer International. He is a Shura Member of Witness-Pioneer and can be reached at shakil_abdullah@yahoo.com
by Shakil Abdullah
Terrorism is generally defined as killing of civilians for political reasons. Dr Azzam Tamimi, Senior Lecturer, Markfield Institute of Higher Education, writes: “A straightforward definition of terrorism has been: ‘the use of force [or violence] to advocate a political cause’.”
It is to be emphasized that terrorism against the innocent civilians, whether through aggression or suicidal means, is under no circumstances permissible in Islam. Islam encourages the oppressed people to struggle for their liberation and it commands other Muslims to help those who are oppressed and suffering, but Islam does not allow, under any circumstance, terrorism against non-combatants and innocent people.
Islam has not only forbidden terror and violence, but also abhors even the slightest imposition of any idea on another human being. Allah Almighty says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.” (Al-Baqarah 2: 256) He Almighty also says: “So remind, you need only to remind. You cannot compel them to believe.” (Al-Ghashiyah 88: 22)
Some people who say they are acting in the name of religion may misunderstand their religion or practice it wrongly. For this reason, it is a mistake to form any idea of that religion from the activities of these people. The best way to understand Islam is through its holy source, the Qur'an; and the model of morality in the Qur’an is completely different from the image of it formed in the minds of some Westerners or some bigot Muslims. The Qur'an is based on the concepts of morality, love, compassion, mercy, modesty, self-sacrifice, tolerance and peace, and a Muslim who truly lives according to these moral precepts is highly refined, thoughtful, tolerant, trustworthy and accommodating. To those around him he gives love, respect, peace of mind and a sense of the joy of life.
Islam is a Religion of Peace & Well-Being:
The word Islam has the same meaning as "peace" in Arabic. Islam is a religion that came down to offer humanity a life filled with the peace and well-being in which Allah's eternal mercy and compassion is manifested in the world. Allah invites all people to accept the moral teachings of the Qur'an as a model whereby mercy, compassion, tolerance and peace may be experienced in the world. In verse 208 of Surat Al-Baqarah, this command is given: “You who believe! Enter absolutely into peace (Islam). Do not follow in the footsteps of Satan. He is an outright enemy to you.” As we see in this verse, people will experience well-being and happiness by living according to the moral teaching of the Qur'an.
Allah Condemns Mischief:
Allah has commanded humanity to avoid evil; He has forbidden immorality, rebellion, cruelty, aggressiveness, murder and bloodshed. Those who do not obey this command of Allah are walking in the steps of Satan, as the Qur’an says in the verse above, and have adopted an attitude that Allah has clearly declared unlawful. Of the many verses that bear on this subject, here are only two: “But as for those who break Allah's contract after it has been agreed and sever what Allah has commanded to be joined, and cause corruption in the earth, the curse will be upon them. They will have the Evil Abode.” (Ar-Ra'd 13: 25)
He Almighty also says: “Seek the abode of the hereafter with what Allah has given you, without forgetting your portion of the world. And do good as Allah has been good to you. And do not seek to cause mischief on earth. Allah does not love mischief makers.” (Al-Qasas 28: 77)
As we can see, Allah has forbidden every kind of mischievous acts in Islam including terrorism and violence, and condemned those who commit such deeds. A Muslim lends beauty to the world and improves it.
Islam Defends Tolerance and Freedom of Speech:
Islam is a religion, which fosters freedom of life, ideas and thought. It has forbidden tension and conflict among people, calumny, suspicion and even having negative thoughts about another individual. To force anyone to believe in a religion or to practice it is against the spirit and essence of Islam. Because it is necessary that faith be accepted with free will and conscience. Of course, Muslims may urge one another to keep the moral precepts taught in the Qur'an, but they never use compulsion. In any case, an individual cannot be induced to the practice of religion by either threat or offering him a worldly privilege.
Allah has Commanded Tolerance and Forgiveness:
In Surat Al-A'raf, verse 199, the phrase “practice forgiveness”, expresses the concept of forgiveness and tolerance which is one of the basic principles of Islam.
When we look at Islamic history, we can see clearly how Muslims established this important precept of the moral teaching of the Qur'an in their social life. At every point in their advance, Muslims destroyed unlawful practices and created a free and tolerant environment. In the areas of religion, language and culture, they made it possible for people totally opposite to each other to live under the same roof in freedom and peace, thereby giving to those subject to them the advantages of knowledge, wealth and position.
Likewise, one of the most important reasons that the large and widespread Ottoman Empire was able to sustain its existence for so many centuries was that its way of life was directed by the tolerance and understanding brought by Islam. For centuries, their tolerance and compassion have characterized Muslims. In every period of time they have been the most just and merciful of people. All ethnic groups within this multi-national community freely practiced the religions they have followed for years and enjoyed every opportunity to live in their own cultures and worship in their own way. Indeed, the particular tolerance of Muslims, when practiced as commanded in the Qur'an, can alone bring peace and well-being to the whole world. The Qur'an refers to this particular kind of tolerance: “The good deed and the evil deed are not alike. Repel the evil deed with one which is better, then lo! he, between whom and thee there was enmity (will become) as though he was a bosom friend.” (Fussilat 41: 34)
All this shows that the moral teaching offered to humanity by Islam is one that will bring peace, happiness and justice to the world. The barbarism that is happening in the world today under the name of "Islamic Terrorism" is completely removed from the moral teachings of the Qur'an; it is the work of ignorant, bigoted people, criminals who have nothing to do with religion. The solution which will be applied against these individuals and groups who are trying to commit their deeds of savagery under the guise of Islam, will be the instruction of people in the true moral teaching of Islam.
Three Basic Principles of Islam that Goes Counter to Terrorism:
Eminent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi states:
“No doubt, aggression against innocent people is a grave sin and a heinous crime, irrespective of the victim's religion, country, or race. No one is permitted to commit such crime, for Allah, Most High, abhors aggression. Unlike Judaism, Islam does not hold a double-standard policy in safeguarding human rights.”
Following, I would like to highlight some relevant Islamic principles based on the Glorious Qur'an and Sunnah:
1. Islam Forbids Aggression against Innocent People
Islam does not permit aggression against innocent people, whether the aggression is against life, property, or honor, and this ruling applies to everyone, regardless of post, status and prestige. In Islam, as the state’s subject is addressed with Islamic teachings, so is the ruler or caliph; he is not allowed to violate people's rights, lives, honor, property, etc.
In the Farewell Pilgrimage, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) declared the principle that people's lives, property, and honor are inviolable until the Day of Judgment. This ruling is not restricted to Muslims; rather, it includes non-Muslims who are not fighting Muslims. Even in case of war, Islam does not permit killing those who are not involved in fighting, such as women, children, the aged, and the monks who confine themselves to worship only.
This shouldn’t raise any wonder, for Islam is a religion that prohibits aggression even against animals. Ibn `Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, quote the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, as saying: "A woman (was made to) enter (Hell) Fire because of a cat which she tied, neither giving it food nor setting it free to eat from the vermin of the earth." (Reported by Al-Bukhari)
If such is Islamic ruling concerning aggressive acts against animals, then, with greater reason, the punishment is bond to be severe when human being happens to be the victim of aggression, torture and terrorism.
2. Individual Responsibility
In Islam, every one is held accountable for his own acts, not others'. No one bears the consequences of others' faults, even his close relatives. This is the ultimate form of justice, clarified in the Glorious Qur'an, as Allah, Most High, says, “Or hath he not had news of what is in the books of Moses and Abraham who fulfilled (the commandments): That no laden one shall bear another's load.” (An-Najm 53: 36-38)
Therefore, it’s very painful to see some people ¨who are Muslims by name¨ launching aggression against innocent people and taking them as scapegoats for any disagreement they have with the state’s authority!! What is the crime of the common people then?! Murder is one of heinous crimes completely abhorred in Islam, to the extent that some Muslim scholars hold the opinion that the repentance of the murderer will not be accepted by Allah, Most High. In this context, we recall the Glorious Qur'anic verse that reads, “ if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people.” (Al-Ma'idah 5: 32)
3. Ends do not Justify Means
In Islam, the notion “End justifies the means” has no place at all. It is not allowed to attain good aims through evil means, and, therefore, alms collected from unlawful avenues are not halal (lawful). In this context, the Messenger of Allah, (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Surely, Allah is Good and never accepts but what is good."
Thus, in Shari`ah, with all its sources, “the Glorious Qur'an, the Sunnah, consensus of Muslim jurists”, aggression and violation of human rights are completely forbidden. On this issue, Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, President of the Fiqh Council of North America, adds:
“The Islamic position as regards non-Muslims is that they should recognize Allah’s Oneness and Prophet Muhammad as Allah’s Final Prophet. They should accept Islam to live happily and successfully in this world and to be saved in the Hereafter. It is Muslims’ duty to give them this message clearly, but without any coercion or intolerance. If others accept this message it is good for them, but if they do not accept, Muslims should still treat them with kindness and gentleness and leave the final judgment to Allah.”
In our enthusiasm for da`wah, we should not be intolerant and aggressive towards others. However, in our politeness and civility we should also not give up our mission and message. We should not be intimidated to become quiet and we should not feel shy to tell the truth.
Jihad: Its difference from terrorism:
Terrorism is not Jihad, it is Fasad (mischief). It is against the teachings of Islam. There are some people who use their twisted arguments to justify terrorism for their causes, but it has no justification: Allah says: “When it is said to them: 'Make not mischief on the earth,' they say: 'Why, we only want to correct things.' Indeed they are the mischief doers, but they realize (it) not.” (Al-Baqarah 2: 11-12)
The word Jihad does not mean “Holy War”. It means “struggle” or “striving”. The word for war in the Qur’an is “Harb” or “Qital”. Jihad means serious and sincere struggle on the personal as well as on the social level. It is a struggle to do good and to remove injustice, oppression and evil from the society. This struggle should be spiritual as well as social, economic and political. Jihad is to work hard to do right things. In the Qur’an this word is used in its different forms 33 times. It often comes with other Qur’anic concepts such as faith, repentance, righteous deeds and migration.
Jihad is to protect one’s faith and one’s human rights. Jihad is not a war always although it can take the form of war. Islam is the religion of peace, but it does not mean that Islam accepts oppression. Islam teaches that one should do one’s utmost to eliminate tension and conflict. Islam promotes non-violent means to bring change and reform. Actually, Islam urges that one should eliminate evil through peaceful means without the use of force as much as possible. In Islamic history from the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) until now, Muslims most of the time resisted oppression and struggled for liberation in non-violent and peaceful manners.
Islam teaches proper ethics in the situation of war also. The war is permissible in Islam, but only when other peaceful means such as dialogue, negotiations and treaties fail. It is a last resort and should be avoided as much as possible. Its purpose is not to convert people by force, or to colonize people or to acquire land or wealth or for self-glory. Its purpose is basically: defense of life, property, land, honor and freedom for oneself as well as defense of others from injustice and oppression.
Basic rules of war in Islam are:
Be strong so that your enemy fear you and should not attack you.
Do not begin the hostilities. Work for peace as much as possible.
Fight only those who fight, no collective punishment; non-combatants should not be harmed. Weapons of mass destruction should not be used.
Stop hostilities as soon as the other party is inclined to peace.
Observe the treaties and agreements as long as the enemy observes them.
Allah says very clearly: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not do aggression, for Allah loves not the aggressors.” (Al-Baqarah 2: 190)
“The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.” (Al-Baqarah 2: 194)
Islam wants to establish a world order where all human beings - Muslims and non-Muslims - can live with justice in peace, harmony and good will. It gives its followers full guidelines to find peace in their personal and social lives, but it also tells them how to extend the good will on the basis of human relations towards others. Muslims worked under these principles for centuries. People of many faiths lived with them and among them. Islamic societies were known for their tolerance, generosity and humanity.
In our modern society where we are living in a global village, where non-Muslims are living with Muslims in the Muslim countries and Muslims are living with non-Muslims in countries where non-Muslims constitute a majority, it is our duty to bring better understanding among ourselves, work for peace and justice for all people and cooperate with each other in matters of goodness and virtue in order to stop all terrorism, aggression and violence against the innocent people. This is our Jihad today.
Source:
Question-answer from Islam Online:
1. “What does Islam say about terrorism and the fight for religion?”, http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544604
2. “Aggression Against Innocent People”, http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544414
3. “Jihad: Its True Meaning and Purpose”, http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503544490&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FPrintFatwaE
4. http://www.islamonline.net/English/views/2001/10/article14.shtml
Supplementary Reading:
1. “What does the term "Jihad" mean to you as Muslims?”, source: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543554
2. “What is Terrorism and What is Not?”, Azzam Tamimi, source: http://www.islamonline.net/English/views/2001/10/article14.shtml
3. “Condemned By Terrorism”, Ramzy Baroud, source: http://www.islamonline.net/English/Views/2002/11/article12.shtml
4. “Terrorism is not a Muslim monopoly”, Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar, source:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1794203.cms
Contributor: Shakil Abdullah, in cooperation with Shah Abdul Hannan, Advisor of Witness-Pioneer International. He is a Shura Member of Witness-Pioneer and can be reached at shakil_abdullah@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
