baithak

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Monday, October 31, 2005

dr. riffat hasan

My struggle to help Muslim women regain their God-given rights


Dr Riffat Hasan

To understand the strong impetus to "Islamize" Muslim societies, especially with regard to women-related norms and values, it is necessary to know that of all the challenges confronting the Muslim world, perhaps the greatest is that of modernity. In this exclusive two-part essay, renowned Islamic theologian Dr Riffat Hasan presents a critical analysis of three contemporary women in Islam: herself, Dr Farhat Hashmi of Al-Huda and human rights lawyer Asma Jahangir.

While my work and writings are known to many persons in many countries this statement may be read by some who are not aware of my background and what I have focused on as a student, as a researcher, as a teacher, as a philosopher as a writer, or as an activist. I consider it important therefore to begin by mentioning some facts of my personal and professional history that might be helpful to the reader in understanding my ideas and the larger framework within which they have developed. Like many other contemporary women thinkers l see a profound linkage between what is intellectual and what is existential and experiential. Consequently this statement reflects the jihad (struggle) l have engaged in both as a theologian and as a Pakistani Muslim woman.

I come from an old Saiyyad family from Muslim Town, Lahore. Faiz Road, on which my ancestral home is situated, is named after my grandfather Saiyyad Faizul Hassan whose progenitors "founded" Muslim Town. My maternal grandfather Hakim Ahmad Shuja came from Bazaar-e-Hakiman which was named after his family, in the old city of Lahore. The Hakims (and their cousins the Faqirs) were known for their patronage of art and literature and nurtured many gifted artists, thinkers and writers including the young Iqbal when he first came from Sialkot to study at the Government College, Lahore. Hakim Sahib was not only a well-know, poet and playwright but also a Qur'anic scholar who collaborated with Iqbal in some of his early works.

Upholding the "horror" of his Saiyyad heritage and being "nobel" Muslims was very important to my father. Being educated, creative, and independent was what mattered greatly to my mother. My parents differed greatly in their life-perspectives and had strongly conflicting views regarding how girls were to be brought up. Growing up in the midst of so much discord, trying to figure out with the mind of a young child who I was and what was the purpose of my life, was a very difficult thing. What sustained me during the troubled years of my childhood were two things: my faith in God who was to me the source of light, of justice and compassion, and my love of reading and writing which enabled me to create an inner universe in which my mind and spirit could grow.


I left home at 17 to study in England and returned seven years later with a BA Honours degree in English Literature and Philosophy, and a PhD for my thesis on the philosophy of Allama Iqbal. There is no question that the single most important intellectual influence on my mental development has been that of Iqbal. From him I learnt more than I can say - his philosophy of Khudi (selfhood) became the foundation of my evolving philosophical vision, and his insistence on going back to the Qur'an and going forward with ijtihad (independent reasoning which he called "the principle of movement in Islam") was something that became pivotal in my own study of Islam.

I have been involved in the teaching of Islam since 1973 and have been engaged in research on issues relating to women in Islam since the fall of 1974. Recalling how I embarked on the most important journey of any life, I wrote in one of my articles, "I do not know exactly at what time my 'academic' study of women in Islam became a passionate quest for truth and justice on behalf of Muslim women - perhaps it was when I realized the impact on my own life of the so-called Islamic ideas and attitudes regarding women. What began as a scholarly exercise became simultaneously an Odyssean venture in self-understanding. But 'enlightenment' does not always lead to 'endless bliss' (as the Buddhists say). The more I saw the justice and compassion of God reflected in the Qur'anic teachings regarding women, the more anguished and angry I became, seeing the injustice and inhumanity to which Muslim women, in general, are subjected to in actual life. I began to feel strongly that it was my duty - as a part of the microscopic minority of educated Muslim women - to do as much consciousness-raising regarding the situation of Muslim women as I could.

Very early in my study I realized that Islam, like the other major religions of the world (namely, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism) had developed in patriarchal culture in which its mayor sources, i.e., the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the Hadith literature, and Fiqh, had been interpreted almost exclusively by men who had assigned to themselves the right to define the ontological, theological, sociological, and eschatological status of Muslim women. I spent the first decade of my research on women in Islam (1974-1984) in reinterpreting the Qur'anic texts relating to women from a non-patriarchal perspective and came to the conclusion that the Qur'an does not discriminate against women in any way. In fact if one can see the Qur'anic text without the lens of patriarchal biases one discovers how strongly it affirms the rights of women - and of other socially disadvantaged groups.

Since the 1970s the process of "Islamization" which was initiated in some Muslim countries including Pakistan, led to the promulgation of laws whose primary objective was to put women "in their place". Women were also a major target of the so-called Islamic punishments that were instituted by General Ziaul Haq in Pakistan who enacted the Hudood Ordinance (1979), the Qanun-e-Shahadat (1984), and the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance (1990). These laws which aimed at reducing the value and status of women systematically and virtually mathematically, to less than that of men, are manifestly unjust and un-Islamic as pointed out repeatedly by advocates of women's rights in Pakistan. No government, however, has had the moral or political will to amend or repeal these laws which have caused great suffering to a large number of girls and women in Pakistan.

To understand the strong impetus to "Islamize" Muslim societies, especially with regard to women-related norms and values, it is necessary to know that of all the challenges confronting the Muslim world, perhaps the greatest is that of modernity. Unable to come to grips with modernity as a whole, many Muslim societies make a sharp distinction between two aspects of it. The first -generally referred to as "modernization" and largely approved - is identified with science, technology and a better standard of life. The second -generally referred to as "Westernization" and largely disapproved - is identified with emblems of "mass" Western culture such, as promiscuity, break-up of family and community, latch-key kids, and drug and alcohol abuse.

What is of importance to note, here, is that an emancipated Muslim woman is seen by many Muslims as a symbol not of "modernization" but of "Westernization". (These days Muslim girls, as well as boys, go to Western institutions for higher education. However, often when a young man returns from the West he is considered "modernized", but when a young woman returns she is considered "Westemized".) This is so because she appears to be in violation of what traditional societies consider to be a necessary barrier between "private space" (i.e. the home) where women belong and "public space" (i.e. the rest of the world) which belongs to men. This invisible barrier between these two unequal spaces is called hijab (literally meaning "curtain"). Traditionally, Muslims have developed the belief that it is best to keep men and women segregated, i.e., in their separate, designated spaces, because the intrusion of women into men's space is seen as leading to the disruption, if not the destruction, of the fundamental order of things. According to a popular hadith, whenever a man and woman are alone, "ash-Shaitan" (the Satan) is bound to be there.

The self-styled caretakers of Muslim traditions are aware of the fact that viability in the modern technological age requires the adoption of the scientific or rational outlook that inevitably brings about major changes in modes of thinking and behaviour. Women, both educated and uneducated, who are participating In the national work force and contributing towards national development, think and behave differently from women who have no sense of their individual identity or autonomy as active agents in a history-making process and regard themselves merely as instruments designed to minister to and reinforce a patriarch system that they believe to be divinely instituted.

Though I emigrated to the US in 1972, I have always maintained strong ties with Pakistan and spent every summer in Lahore. I, therefore, knew from close quarters what was happening in the country. In 1983-84, I was able to spend two years in Pakistan since I had a year's sabbatical leave and a National Endowment for the Humanities fellowship for a one-year research project. This was the time when the victimization of women by the new laws (particularly the Zina ordinance which was part of the Hudood ordinance) had started. Though most of the victims were poor and illiterate, many affluent and educated women in Pakistan began to realize that the discriminatory laws were threatening to erode the fundamental rights not only of disadvantaged females but of all females.

In addition to the increase in violence being perpetrated upon women through legislation, there was a deluge of anti-women literature produced by religious extremists which flooded the popular market. The purpose of the multi-faceted onslaught unleashed against women by the "Islamization" process was to push women out of "public space" into the chadur and chardewari where they would perform the traditional roles of wives and mothers as defined by a patriarchal society that regards the inferiority and subservience of women to men as part of God's eternal system. These roles are promoted as bringing not respect but respectability to the women in the name of Islam.

As I reflected upon the scene I witnessed, and asked myself how it was possible for laws that were archaic if not absurd to be implemented in a society that professed a passionate commitment to modernity, the importance of something that I had always known dawned on me with stunning clarity.

Pakistani society (or any other Muslim society for that matter) could enact or accept laws that specified that women were less than men in fundamental ways because Muslims, in general, consider it a self-evident truth that women are not equal to men.

Anyone who states that in the present day world it is accepted in many religious as well as secular communities that men and women are equal, or that evidence can be found in the Qur'an and the islamic tradition for affirming man-woman equality, is likely to be confronted, immediately and with force, by a mass of what is described as "irrefutable evidence" taken from the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sunnah to "prove" that men are "above" women.

Among the arguments used to overwhelm any proponent of man-woman equality, the following are perhaps the most popular: that according to the Qur'an, men are qawwamun (generally translated as hakim or "rulers") in relation to women; that according to the Qur'an, a man's share in inheritance is twice that of a woman; that according to the Qur'an, the witness of one man is equal to that of two women; that according to the Prophet (p.b.u.h.), women are deficient both in prayer (due to menstruation) and in intellect (due to their witness counting for less than a man's). In my theological work I have presented compelling evidence to show that a correct reading of the Qur'an or the Prophetic tradition does not support such arguments and that the normative teachings of Islam strongly uphold the equality of men and women both in relation to God and to each other.

Since I was (in all probability) the only Muslim woman in the country who was attempting to interpret the Qur'an systematically from a non-patriarchal perspective, I was approached numerous times by women leaders (including the members of the Pakistan Commission on the Status of Women, before whom I gave my testimony in May 1984) to state what my findings were and if they could be used to improve the situation of women in Pakistani society.

I was urged by those spirited women who were mobilizing and leading women's protests in the streets to help them by developing an ideology or strategy that they could use to counter the avalanche of negative laws, literature, and actions with which they were being confronted. Some of them wanted to use the work I had already done and use my interpretations of Qur'anic texts to refute the arguments that were being used to make them less than fully human on a case-by-case or point-by-point basis. I must admit that I was tempted to join the foray in support of my beleaguered sisters (amongst whom was Asma Jahangir) who were being deprived of their human rights in the name of Islam.

But I knew through my long and continuing struggle with the forces of Muslim traditionalism (which were now being gravely threatened by what they described as "the assault of Westernization under the guise of modernization") that the arguments that were being broadcast to "keep women in their place" of subordination and submissiveness were only the front line of attack. Behind these arguments were others, and no sooner would one line of attack be eliminated than another one would be set up in its place. What had to be done, first and foremost, in my opinion, was to examine the theological ground in which all the anti-women arguments were rooted to see if, indeed, a case could be made for asserting that from the point of view of normative Islam, men and women were essentially equal, despite biological and other differences.

As a result of my study and deliberation I came to perceive that not only in the Islamic, but also in the Jewish and Christian traditions, there are three theological assumptions on which the superstructure of men's alleged superiority to women (which implies the inequality of women and man) has been erected. These three assumptions are:

(1) that God's primary creation is man, not woman, since woman is believed to have been created from man's rib, hence is derivative and secondary ontologically.

(2) That woman, not man, was the primary agent of what is customarily described as the "Fall," or man's expulsion from the Garden of Eden, hence all "daughters of Eve" are to be regarded with hatred, suspicion, and contempt.

(3) That woman was created not only from man but also for man, which makes her existence merely instrumental and not of fundamental importance.

The three theological questions to which the above assumptions may appropriately be regarded as answers, are: How was woman created? Was woman responsible for the "Fall" of man? Why was woman created?

I have spent many years working on these questions and have shown in my writings that none of the above mentioned assumptions is warranted by a correct reading of the Qur'an which states categorically (in 30 passages) that God created all humanity at the same time, of the same substance, in the same manner; that both man and woman disobeyed God by going near the forbidden tree but that they acknowledged their wrongdoing and were forgiven by God (hence there is no "Fall" in Islam); that God created both men and women "for a just purpose" and that the relationship between them is one of equality, mutuality and cordiality.

It has been the major mission of my life especially since I became involved in 1984 in helping women activists in Pakistan, to educate Muslim/Pakistani girls and women about the rights given to them by God in the Qur'an. These rights may be denied or dishonoured - as they have been through much of our history - but rights given by God cannot be abrogated by any human being or agency.

In pursuit of my passionate quest for justice on behalf of Muslim women I have travelled from one end of the Muslim world to the other conducting workshops, participating in conferences, meeting leaders and policy makers. I have had the privilege of being one of the main spokespersons for Islam at several United Nations Conferences, including those held at Cairo (1994), Copenhagen (1995), Beijing (1995) and Istanbul (1996). I have also been a featured speaker at several hundred conferences in the US, Canada, Europe, Asia, and Africa. The message I have delivered in each of my presentations is that Islam is a justice-and-compassion-centered religion which values the life of each person and holds before all human beings - women as well as men - the lofty vision embodied in the Qur'anic proclamation, "Towards God is your limit." (Surah 53: An-Najm: 42, translation by Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Lahore, 1971, p. 57).

In February 1999, ABC showed the BBC documentary entitled Murder in Purdah - a very graphic and powerful film about "honour" crimes in Pakistan - in their show Nightline, and I was one of the two commentators (the other one being Asma Jahangir) in this programme.

Following the airing of this programme, I was inundated with letters, faxes and e-mail from women and men around the United States. Most expressed a sense of outrage that vulnerable girls and women were being subjected to so much brutality and violence in Pakistan, and a keen desire to do something about it. Out of these initial contacts grew a loose network of concerned individuals which I formalized into The International Network for the Rights of Female Victims of Violence in Pakistan (INRFVVP) in February, 1999. The membership of the INRFVVP grew rapidly not only in the US and Pakistan, but throughout the world, and it soon became incorporated as a non-profit, non-governmental organization. In the three-and a-half-years since its inception, the INRFVVP has gone beyond being a mere organization. I see it as a movement for change which is committed to identifying those negative factors - whether religious, cultural or any other - which promote or permit violence against girls and women and any other socially marginalized group in Pakistan. Once these factors have been identified through field research, strategies and programmes will be developed to eliminate them and to create a culture in which the rights of all human beings are recognized, safeguarded and implemented.

Saturday, August 27, 2005

islam and secularism - asghar ali engineer

ISLAM AND SECULARISM

Asghar Ali Engineer


Many people feel that Islam is quite incompatible with secularism. Some even maintain that as long as one is Muslim he cannot be a secularist. This is further reinforced by the propaganda by some Muslim countries like the Saudi Arabia that secularism is haram and that all secular nations are enemies of Islam. Maulana Maududi, the founder chief of Jamat-e-Islami also said while leaving for Pakistan in 1948 that secularism is haram and all those who participate in secular politics in India will be rebels against Islam and enemies of the messenger of Allah.

How far is it true? Are Islam and secularism really incompatible? Is Saudi propaganda against secularism justified? Was Maulana Maududi right? These are important questions and we must search for answers. We must bear in mind that in every religion there are different intellectual trends - both liberal as well as conservative. Both quote scriptures in support of their respective positions. Since a scripture or religious tradition for that matter has to deal with complex social situation, one finds differing or even contradictory statements responding to the differing or contradictory situations.

In scriptural hermeneutics one has to take situation in totality and develop certain keys to deal with the evolving situation. The commentators often deal with the situation as if it is static. Social situations can never be static. It continually evolves and changes. The way scriptural statements were understood by early commentators conformed to their own socio-cultural situation. Their hermeneutics should not be binding on the subsequent generations as it will not conform to the changed situation. For every age there are some keys which help us understand the scripture in our own age. Also, a commentator should have a vision of society and this vision evolves from ones own social situation. Allah's creative power cannot be treated as static any way. The Qur'an also refers to His dynamism when it states "....every day He manifests Himself in yet another (wondrous) way. Which, then, of your Sustainer's powers can you disavow?" (29:55). This Allah manifests Himself every day in new state (sha'n). And the word yaum literally means day but figuratively it can also mean a whole epoch, a period. Taking the word yaum in this sense, the verse will mean Allah manifests His Glories in new ways from period to period, from epoch to epoch.

The early commentators of the Qur'an, on which depends the conservative view of the 'ulama, were product of their own socio-religious and socio-cultural situation. In the early days of Islam, particularly in the period of four caliphs succeeding the Holy Prophet, state was very closely identified with religion of Islam. In the Arabia of those days there did not exist even a state before advent of Islam, let alone any laws associated with the state. But a state came into existence when Islam united people of Arabia transcending tribal bonds.

The state needed laws to deal with fast evolving situation. First they took help of the Qur'an and then Sunnah of the Prophet. Even then if they could not solve the problem they held the assembly of the companions of the prophet and tried to solve the problem in consultation with them. Their collective wisdom was often of great help. But it is quite obvious that they heavily drew from their own experiences in the social milieu they lived in. This social milieu also heavily influenced their understanding of the Qur'anic verses. And some Qur'anic verses were integrally related to the situation obtaining there.

The problem really arose when the subsequent generations treated the understanding of the Qur'anic verses by the companions of the Prophet or the early commentators who drew their own understanding heavily from the pronouncements of these companions and their followers (tabi'in). The companions were thought to be - and rightly so - as great authorities as the Qur'an was revealed during their life time and in their presence and who could understand it better than these companions. Most of the subsequent commentators simply referred to these companions and their followers' pronouncements became the only source of understanding the Qur'anic verses. Until today the commentators of the Qur'an are repeating those very ideas and these ideas have become sacred and any deviation is considered heresy by most of the orthodox commentators of the Qur'an.

The Islamic state which came into existence after the death of the Prophet, as pointed out above, also became a model for the subsequent generation though this model was hardly followed even in early period of Islamic history. The Umayyad and the Abbasid empires which came into existence after what is called khilafat-e-rashidah ( i.e. the rightly guided period of khilafat i.e. Islamic state) never followed this religious model. Both the empires were based on personal and authoritarian rule and were Islamic only in name. The Umayyad and the Abbasid Caliphs followed their own personal desires rather than the Qur'anic injunctions or the Shari'ah rules. They just symbolically made their obeisance to religion and followed what was in their personal interest. Thus theirs were what we can call a 'semi-secular' states.

And the states which came into existence after the Abbasid state were even more secularised except the Fatimid state which was more or less based on the Isma'ili theology. Even the Fatimid Imams had to face serious problems as their Isma'ili followers were very few in their domain and the vast majority belonged to the Sunni faith. Thus they often separated affairs of the state from Isma'ili theological considerations. A separate department of Isma'ili theology (Fatimi Da'wah) had to be established.

Though the Khilafat model was never repeated in the history of Islam, in theory, it remained the objective of all the Islamic theologians to establish the state on the model of early Khilafat and any state which did not follow that model came to be condemned as un-Islamic and it was even more strongly condemned if the state claimed to be secular. Maulana Maududi opposed Jinnah vehemently because his vision of Pakistani state was based on secular concept giving all citizens equal rights irrespective of their religious faith. The Maulana refused to support the Pakistan movement as Jinnah would not agree to set up an Islamic state.

Now the question is whether Islam as a religion is compatible with secularism? Does it aim at setting up an Islamic state and nothing less? Can there be a Muslim country with a secular state? These are some of the crucial questions one has to answer in order to deal with the subject of Islam and secularism. Of course, we should remember that there cannot be uncontested answers. Every answer that we attempt would be, and could be, contested by those with differing viewpoint. Ours is a liberal and inclusive approach and we will, of course, attempt answer from this viewpoint.

Before we deal with the question of Islam and secularism, we would like to throw some light on religion and secularism. Here too there are differing views. There are rationalists and atheists who consider religion and secularism quite contrary to each other. For them the two are quite incompatible. Secularism is a non-religious, if not altogether anti-religious philosophy. A secular political philosophy should have nothing to do with any religious tenets or doctrines. A secular state then would not take any religious beliefs or practices into account while legislating on any issue and in some extreme cases even citizens would not be free to have religious faith and declare it and practice it publicly. Religion, in other words, would be almost a taboo in such a political set up. The former Soviet and Chinese states came close to this model.

Then there is western liberal secular model where religion is not a taboo but is not a basic factor as far as state affairs are concerned. State affairs are conducted quite independently of any religious considerations. In the U.K. too, where Anglican Christianity continues to be state religion and the king or queen of England is considered head of the Anglican Church, religion plays hardly any role in the matters of state. All state legislations are quite independent of the tenets of the Anglican Church. The Church cannot oppose any law passed by the House of Commons and approved by the House of Lords.

In other western countries too positions are more or less similar. The state remains quite independent of the church. In fact church and state have totally independent domains and do not interfere in each others sphere. This western model comes closest to the political philosophy of secularism. The Islamic world has its own features and uniqueness. When we deal with the question of Islam and secularism we have to keep this in mind. It should, however, be kept in mind that the Islamic world is also not homogenised one. One comes across fundamental differences in Islamic countries from Algeria to Indonesia though all of them follow religion of Islam. Commonality of religion does not necessarily mean commonality of social or political traditions. These traditions are as different as their societies and social realities.

Algeria, for example, is a modern westernised state and hence it is undergoing a great religious turmoil as a section of citizens want it to be an 'Islamic state' of their vision. Then there are countries like Malaysia and Indonesia with mixed populations though with Muslim majority and they too have secular states. The movements for setting up Islamic states in these countries by the Islamic groups did not succeed. Both these countries have adopted models of polity suited more to a pluralist society. So is the case with Malaysia. Though it is a Muslim majority country it is also pluralist in character and hence has chosen to be secular in character.

Turkey is overwhelmingly a Muslim country and yet it chose to be a secular country since Kamal Pasha's revolution in 1924 and it has stayed secular ever since. Though there have been attempts at religious revival they did not register much success. Turkey has gone to the extent of abolishing Islamic personal laws and have replaced them with secular Swiss Code. Perhaps Turkey is the only country to do so.
Among Arab countries besides Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco also have brought about considerable modern reforms though technically they are not secular states. Their state religion continues to be Islam. Jordan is another moderate country with 10 per cent Christian population. Iraq, on the other hand, is ruled by the Baath Party which is socialistic in character. Iraq, until the Gulf war in 1990, was quite secular in character. However, the compulsions of the Gulf war and earlier war with Iran in eighties brought about some changes in its character and Saddam Husain, in order to win a degree of legitimacy, started mild measures of Islamisation. Some of the gulf countries like Bahrain, the Yemen, are also Islamic in character but with liberal dispensation unlike the Saudi Arab and Kuwait. In fact the fast process of modernisation is also affecting hard Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Thus it will be seen that all Islamic countries are not same in political and even religious character. There are great deal of differences. We find the whole range of political shades - from rigid Islamic character of Saudis to liberal Islamic character of the countries like Iraq to secular country like the Turkey. There is not, and there cannot be, any homogeneity. As far as orthodoxy or liberalism or secularism is concerned, much depends on the proclivities of the ruling classes in a particular country. It also depends on the interests of the ruling classes and their political alliances.

Now the important question is can Islam and secularism go together? We have already said above that religion and secularism can go together or not depends on the interpretation of both religion as well as secularism. If religion is interpreted in keeping with very conservative traditions, it may be difficult for it to go along with secularism which demands more liberal disposition and not only tolerance but also promotion of pluralism. On the other hand, if secularism is interpreted too rigidly i.e. if it is equated with atheism, as many rationalists do, then also the two (i.e. religion and secularism) will find it difficult to go together.

Islam too, as pointed out above, can be interpreted rigidly, or liberally. If both Islam and secularism are interpreted liberally there should not be any problem with Islam in a secular set up. In fact if one studies the Qur'an holistically one can find strong support for 'liberal or non-atheistic secularism'. No religion will support atheistic secularism for that matter. If we talk of liberal secularism what do we mean by it? We must clearly define it. Liberal secularism does not insist on belief in atheism. Secondly, it promotes pluralism and respect for all faiths and thirdly it guarantees full freedom of religion for all citizens. Also, secularism guarantees equal rights for all citizens irrespective of ones caste, creed, race, language or faith.

Islam can hardly clash with this liberal secularism. The Qur'an, in fact, directly encourages pluralism vide its verse 5:48. This verse clearly states that every people have their own law and a way i.e. every nation is unique in its way of life, its rules etc. It also says that if Allah had pleased He would have created all human beings a single people but He did not do so in order to test them (whether they can live in harmony with each other despite their differences in laws and way of life). Thus it is clear assertion of pluralism. One must respect the others faith and live in harmony with him/her.

The Qur'an also asserts that every people have their own way of worshiping God (see 2:148). One should not quarrel about this. Instead one should try to excel each other in good deeds. In the verses 60: 7-8 we find that Allah will bring about friendship between Muslims and those whom you hold as enemies. And Allah does not forbid you from respecting those who fight you not for religion, nor drive you forth from your homes and deal with them justly. Allah loves doers of justice.

The above verse is a good example of secular ethos. If others do not fight you in matters of your faith and allow you to profess, practice and propagate your faith you should respect them and deal with them justly. This is precisely what our own secular constitution says and this what secular constitutions world over emphasise. Also, in 6:109 the Qur'an prohibits Muslims from abusing people of other faiths or their gods as in turn they will abuse Allah. This verse also makes much more significant statement that Allah has made every for every people their deeds fair-seeming i.e. every community thinks its beliefs and deeds are fair and good and social harmony lies in accepting this situation rather than quarreling about each others beliefs and practices.

The Qur'an also states in 22:40 that no religious place should be demolished as in all religious places be it synagogue, or church or monastery, name of Allah is remembered and hence all these places should be protected. This is another tenet of liberal secularism which is upheld by the Qur'an.

The Islamic tenets, it will be seen, do not disapprove of composite or pluralistic way of life. Even the Covenant of Madina (called Mithaq-i-Madina) clearly approves of pluralistic set up. When the Prophet migrated from Mecca to Madina owing to persecution in Mecca at the hands of Meccan tribal leaders, he found Madinese society a pluralistic society. There were Jews, pagans and Muslims and also Jews and pagans were divided into several tribes, each tribe having its own customs and traditions. The Prophet drew up a covenant with these tribes guaranteeing them full freedom of their faith and also creating a common community in the city of Medina with an obligation to defend it, if attacked from outside.

This was in a way a precursor of modern secular nation, every citizen free to follow his/her own faith and tribal customs and their own personal laws but having an obligation towards the city to maintain peace within and defend it from without. The Prophet clearly set an example that people of different faith and traditions can live together in peace and harmony creating a common bond and respecting a common obligation towards the city/country.

It is interesting to note that the Muslim theologians belonging to the Jam'at al-'Ulama-i-Hind (i.e. the Association of the 'Ulama of India) drew the inspiration for creating a composite secular nation in India from the Prophet's Covenant of Madina. These 'Ulama opposed two nation theory and maintained that Islam is not against composite secular nationalism. Different religious communities can exist together in a country. The only condition for this is that all should be guaranteed to freely profess, practice and propagate their religion. Since the Indian Constitution allows this, the 'Ulama happily accepted the liberal secular political disposition in India and did not find any justification for a separate state for Muslims of the sub-continent.

Yet another question which remains to be answered is about equal rights to all citizens in a country with Muslim majority. It is often argued that Muslims are reluctant to accord equal citizenship rights to religious minorities. No doubt there is some truth in this assertion but not the whole truth. Some Muslim majority countries certainly do not allow non-Muslims equal rights but many other countries do. We have already given examples of countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. Both countries, though have Muslim majorities, do allow all their citizens, including the non-Muslims, equal political rights. In Pakistan too, until Zia-ul-Haq's time, enjoyed equal citizenship rights and joint electorate. It was Zia who created separate electorate for non-Muslims.

In Qur'an, as pointed out elsewhere, there is no concept of state, nor of territorial nationalism. In fact religious scriptures are hardly supposed to deal with such questions. It no where states that it is obligatory for Muslims to set up a religious or a theocratic state. Qur'an does not refer, not even indirectly, to any concept of state. Its whole emphasis is on truth, justice, benevolence, compassion, tolerance and wisdom as far as life in this world is concerned. As long as people conform to these values, it does not matter what religious faith they belong to. They can coexist in peace and harmony. Thus the concept of a purely Islamic state is a historical construct attempted by Muslim jurists over a period of time. It is these jurists who laid down detailed rules of Shari'ah and also drew up a configuration of an Islamic state defining the rights of non-Muslims in such state. Moreover it was very different historical situation and the Qur'anic verses were interpreted under the influence of their own social and religious ethos.

The rights of non-Muslims, in other words, will have to be rethought and reformulated. The Qur'an nowhere states that religion can be the basis of political rights of the people. This was the opinion of Muslim jurists of the medieval period when religion of the ruler determined the status of the ruled. Such a formulation cannot be considered a necessary part of the political theory of Islam. The only model for this purpose can be the Mithaq-i-Madina and this Covenant, as pointed out above, did not make any distinction between people of one religion and the other in matters of political rights. This Covenant, at least in spirit, if not in form, provides a valuable guidance for according political rights to citizens of modern state irrespective of ones religion. It is unfortunate that the later political theorists of Islam almost wholly neglected this significant political document drawn up by the Prophet of Islam. In fact he was far ahead of his time in according non-Muslims equal religious and political rights. The theory of political rights in the modern Islamic state should be based on this document.

There is great deal of emphasis on freedom of conscience and human rights in the modern civil society. It is highly regrettable that most of the Muslim countries do not have good record in this field. Freedom of conscience, human rights and democracy are quite integral to each other. In most of the Muslim majority countries today which have declared themselves as "Islamic countries" even the democratic discourse is banished, let alone human rights discourse. It is not right to maintain that an Islamic society cannot admit of human rights. The lack of democracy and human rights is not because of Islam or Islamic teachings but due to authoritarian and corrupt regimes which totally lack transparency in governance. Again, if we go by the sunnah of the Prophet and record of governance of the rightly guided caliphs, we see that the principle of accountability and transparency in governance was quite fundamental. The people who had experienced the conduct of the Prophet were so sensitive to the doctrine of accountability that there was great uprising when the regime of the third Caliph deviated from this doctrine for various reasons not to be discussed here. The Prophet of Islam and his companions had sensitised the Muslims to such an extent in respect of accountability and transparency in governance that any deviation from it was strongly protested. But when authoritarian regimes came into existence and khilafat turned into monarchy beginning with the first Umayyad monarch Yazid, this doctrine vanished into thin air.

Those who respect the doctrine of accountability would never maintain that Islam is against democracy and human rights. In fact almost all Islamic countries - with few exceptions - signed the U.N. Human Rights Declaration of 1948. Some countries who refused to sign had objection only on one clause on freedom of conscience and right to convert to any religion of ones choice. They felt it was against the tenets of Islam and one who renounces Islam should be punished with death. This is of course not the place to discuss this controversial question of the right to convert but suffice it to say that the Muslim jurists had instituted this punishment more for political than religious reasons. In the modern nation states the punishment for irtidad ( i.e. renouncing Islam) cannot be death and the individual must be given right to belie what he/she desires. One cannot be made to follow any religion under the threat of death. A religion is certainly a serious matter and a matter of conscience and commitment.

From all this will be seen that Islamic teachings as embodied in the Qur'an and sunnah of the Prophet (and not opinions of the jurists) are not against the concept of human rights and individual freedom (freedom of conscience). It is authoritarian rulers of some Muslim countries who denounce the concept of human rights as alien to Islam. Islam, in fact, is the first religion which legally recognised other religions and gave them dignified status and also accepted the concept of dignity of all children of Adam (17:70) irrespective of their faith, race, tribe, nationality or language (49:13)

The verse 2:213 is also quite significant on the unity of all human beings which is what is the intention of Allah. All differences are human and not divine and these differences should be resolved in democratic and goodly manner (29:46). These are the norms laid down by the Qur'an but the rulers of Muslim countries deviate from these norms to protect their hold on power and blame it on Islam.

Islam upholds pluralism, freedom of conscience and human and democratic rights and thus does not clash with the concept of secularism. It is also interesting to note that in a secular set up like India the 'ulama accepted secular principles of governance and never objected to it. In fact, the 'Ulama in India stress secularism and urge upon Muslim masses to vote for secular parties. Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani had taken lead in this respect by legitimising composite nationalism (Muttahida Qaumiyyat) and rejecting two nation theory. Of late the Jama'at-e-Islami-i-Hind has also accepted secular democracy and has even set up a secular democratic front of its own, particularly after demolition of Babri Masjid and the riots that followed it. Thus it will be seen that the Indian 'Ulama have shown a way in this respect by accepting secularism. Islam and secularism can and should go together in the modern world.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Finally a Declaration: Terrorism is Unislamic

In About Time They Get Their Act Together I had linked the meeting held in Deoband recently. Here is the report at the end of that session declaring terrorism unislamic.

This effort should be lauded and duplicated in Pakistan also. Clerics and madaris of all hues should get together and discuss the issue and agree to make a similar declaration. And if that happens then there should be a concerted effort all over the print, electronic and display media to thrust that message all over Pakistan.

Muslim clerics declare terror 'un-Islamic'

DEOBAND: Denouncing terrorism in all its manifestations, top Muslim groups in India on Monday adopted a declaration calling it "un-Islamic" and terming it against the Islamic principle of "peace". The declaration adopted by the organisations at a meeting here on Monday, however, also criticised attempts to malign Muslims and madrassas. The Anti-terrorism Conference organised by Islamic seminary Darul Uloom in Uttar Pradesh's Deoband town was attended by clerics, scholars and religious leaders from several sects and groups across the country. "Islam is a religion of mercy for all humanity. Islam sternly condemns all kinds of oppression, violence and terrorism. It has regarded oppression, mischief, rioting and murder among severest sins and crimes," said the declaration, adopted by over 10,000 participants. "Islam prohibits killing of innocent people," it said. The conference, however, expressed its deep concern and agony on the present global condition in which most of the nations are adopting an adverse attitude towards Muslims. "It is a matter of greater concern that the internal and external policies of a country are getting heavily influenced by these forces," it said. The gathering also condemned attempts to implicate Muslims and particularly religious institutions for terrorist acts. "The disease (terrorism) has been diagnosed in a wrong way. Whenever there is any incident of terrorism, every possible attempt is made to link it to Muslims and particularly who have studied in madrassas and some religious institutions. This is totally wrong," said Adil Siddiqui, public relations officer of Darul Uloom.

http://baithak.blogspot.com/search?q=islam+values+life

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

About Time They Put Their Act Together

Islam values life. Taking one life is equivalent to killing humanity. Non Muslims are puzzled by this dichotomy. How can this religion give rise to the profusion of suicide bombers? ToI reports that 60,000 madrasa heads are meeting next week to deliberate - t

Muslim heads huddle to discuss terror

NEW DELHI: A meeting at Darul Uloom at Deoband next week, expected to be attended by ulema from over 6,000 madrassas including those affiliated to other sects like Barelvis and Ahl-e-Hadiz, will deliberate on the need to take a stand against groups which justify terrorism as being sanctioned by Islam.

The day-long discussions have been planned in view of terror groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed arguing that violence against non-believers, including innocent bystanders, was part of religious duty and was theologically approved by Deoband's Darul Uloom.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

shah waliullah -- khwaja masud

Before and after Sir Syed Ahmad Khan


Prof Khwaja Masud

The writer is a former principal,
Gordon College, Rawalpindi

khmasud22@yahoo.com

Feuilleton

Shah Waliullah (1703-1762) and his school of thought have been the predominant influence in the Muslim religious and intellectual life from the mid-18th century onward.

Among Shah Waliullah’s main contributions is the fact that he broke the shackles of taqleed (compulsory adherence to any one of the four main schools of Islamic jurisprudence), which has been the single biggest factor in the intellectual stagnation of the Muslim thought.

Shah Waliullah’s main point of departure was the attempt to work out the social basis underlying the Qur’aanic injunctions. The Shariah, he pointed out, only aims at the reform of society. But, no Shariah takes place in a vacuum. It develops in the context and on the basis of usages and customs of the society concerned. This is also true of the Islamic Shariah. The customs of the Arabs, and, among them especially of the tribe of Quraish, constituted the raw material of the Shariah of Islam.

Iqbal also took the same line. After giving a summary of the prophetic method as explained by Shah Waliullah, in Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, he says: "The Shariat values (ahkam) resulting from this application (for example, rules referring to penalties for crimes) are in a sense specific to that people; and since their observance is not an end in itself they cannot be strictly enforced in the case of future generations."

Preceding Iqbal, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan independently discussed the principles of the exegesis of the Qur’aan. He was dealing with the problem when the discoveries of natural sciences were sought to be rejected on the plea of being opposed to the Qur’aanic text. Sir Syed argued for the word God (revealed text) to be understood in terms of the work of God (ie nature); its meaning, he said, will have to be reinterpreted in the light of the ‘ever’ of the ever-growing human knowledge and the latest discoveries of science.

Sir Syed applied the same principle of exegesis of the Qur’aan in matters concerning social affairs. He came to the conclusion that cutting of the hands of a thief is not compulsory, nor is polygamy, nor slavery. The Qur’aan at one place enjoins adl (justice, equity) between wives; at another, it says equity is impossible (III, 13; III, 129). Sir Syed argued that, read together, the two verses sought to prohibit polygamy. In the same way, he argued that the Qur’aan sought to abolish slavery gradually.

Moulvi Chiragh carried forward Sir Syed’s idea in a more radical way. He says in Azam-ul-Kalaam fi Irtiqa-il-Islam, "The most essential civil and political problems of Islamic Shariah said to be based on the Qur’aan have been deduced from a single word or sometimes from a single phrase. Uncalled for insistence on following the letter, neglect of the true intent of the Qur’aan has become a characteristic of our exegesists and our jurists. Of the six thousand verses in the Qur’aan, there are only about two hundred, which relate not only to civil, penal, fiscal and political matters, but also to prayers and religious rites. It is obvious that these verses cannot provide definite guidance or specific rules about civil law."

About the traditions of the Prophet (PBUH), Moulvi Chiragh maintained that the Prophet (PBUH), his Companions and Successors had condemned the practice of compiling the Traditions, thus denuding them of religious authority.

About the third source of Muslim Law, Moulvi Chiragh notes that none of the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence has claimed any finality for their conclusions. They never insisted that their opinions or analogical deductions be compulsorily followed by their contemporaries, not to speak of the future generations.

Let us see what the Quaid-i-Azam had to say on the matter. On February 6, 1912, an amendment to the Special (Civil) Marriages Act was moved by Bhupendra Nath Basu in the Legislative Council. It sought to provide for the registration of the civil marriages between persons belonging to different religious denominations. Till then, both the parties to such marriages had to declare that they belonged to no religion. The amendment was lost. But the 1912 amendment is memorable for Quaid-i-Azam’s speech on the subject.

When Quaid-i-Azam rose to speak, the Law Minister, Sir Ali Imam, drew his attention to the Qur’aanic injunction prohibiting a Muslim male from marrying women outside the People of the Book (Ahl-i-Kita and, of course, the Muslims and Muslim women from marrying any but a Muslim.

Quaid-i-Azam, then, reminded the Law Member that it was not the first occasion in the history of legislation in India that the Council had either ignored or amended Islamic law in such a way as to make it suitable to meet the requirements of the times. He cited many examples. The Islamic Law of Contract was not recognised any more. The Islamic Penal Law, which had continued to be in fora even after the establishment of British rule in India, had been completely abrogated. The Law of Evidence, as set forth in the Islamic Law was nowhere prevalent in the country. Then there was the Caste Disabilities Removal Act of 1854. Under Muslim Law, a person in the event of apostasy lost all rights of inheritance. This, too, had been abrogated.

"I submit", said Quaid-i-Azam, "that these laws are the precedence which we should follow in order to be able to meet the requirements of the times. For this many a precedence can be found in Islamic Law."

On August 4, 1955, a seven-man commission was appointed to study the existing laws of marriage, divorce, and family maintenance to determine whether these laws needed modification in order to give women their proper place in society according to the fundamentals of Islam. Dr Khalifa Abdul Hakim, secretary of the commission, wrote in the introduction to the majority-report: "Islam is not the name of any static mode of pattern of life; it is spirit and not body; it is an aspiration and not any temporal or rigid fulfilment. The essence of life is constituted of permanence and change. The ideal only is permanent; the changes or the regulations that deal with particular situations of a particular epoch can never assume the status of the ideal. Land and capital mean different things in different epochs; the mode of the handling them must change accordingly."

The trouble with the traditionalists, as Khalifa Abdul Hakim sees it, had been that they confused the permanent ideal with the temporary regulations.

As a result, the Islamic law lies buried beneath the heap of retrograde legalism, its spirit smothered by centuries of obscurantism, clericalism and despotism.

Too often, too many people have been duped in the name of religion. But obscurantism stands doomed, though the struggle is tough and hard.

Inspired by the true and ever-fresh spirit of Islam, people are moving ahead, despite temporary setbacks. The direction of the path travelled by Islamic thought so far makes it amply clear.

Islam is a faith in which God provides mankind anew, every day, riches whereby we can understand and solve the problems created by an ever-changing reality and an evolving universe.

At one end, Islam relates itself to the immeasurable diversity of mankind; and, at the other end to the immeasurable greatness of the Divine.

Monday, June 09, 2008

A champion of secular Islam looks to harness 'heresy' - Lynda Hurst

It was billed as the first-ever "Muslim Heretics Conference."

Provocative? To be sure.

But when Sudanese-American scholar Abdullahi An-Naim organized it in Atlanta this April, what he really wanted to do was ignite some innovative thinking – brainstorm the predicament of traditional Islam in the modern world.

"I deliberately wanted to shock people into seeing `heresy' as a creative force," he laughs.

Naim may describe himself as a Muslim heretic (his conservative critics certainly do), but his peers in academia prefer the rather more admiring designation of public intellectual. Either way, the Emory University law professor has become famous throughout the Muslim world for championing the concept of secular Islam. The case he makes for it is simple but, given the political tenor of the times, paradigm-changing. To wit: Human rights are universal and trump religious dictates. The state must be secular because neutrality protects all religions. Faith belongs in the private, not the public, domain.

Perhaps even more contentiously, Naim calls for sharia, the Islamic code of laws for living, to be "renegotiated" and brought into the present: Regarding sharia as "an immutable body of principles universally binding on all Muslims would have been inconceivable," he says, "to those who created it in the 8th and 9th centuries."

Even as a boy in Sudan, Naim says he contested sharia because its rules, particularly relating to women, seemed manifestly unconnected to the true nature of Islam.

The son of an illiterate mother and self-educated father, he was a law student at the University of Khartoum in 1968 when he joined a reform movement called the Republican Brothers. It was led by Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, a Sufi reformer, regarded by many as a mystic, but by Naim as a mentor.

He was profoundly affected by Taha's belief that a balance must be struck between the individual's need for absolute freedom and the state's need for total social justice.

Taha recognized the state of Israel, says Naim, and inveighed against all violence, warning years before 9/11 that it had to be checked in certain Muslim societies. He argued that sharia rules were archaic and that the Qur'an must always be understood in its historical context.

Those views guaranteed trouble when a sharia-enforcing Islamist dictatorship took control in Sudan. In 1985, Taha was hanged, his books burned. Naim fled the country.

"But you can't kill an idea by killing the author," he says.

In 1989, he became head of the Africa bureau of Human Rights Watch and made his first foray into shark-infested waters with his book, Towards an Islamic Reformation. Since 1995, he's taught law at Emory in Atlanta ( a school he praises for having gone to court in the early `60s to end racial segregation).

As director of its Religion and Human Rights Program, he has overseen a global study on how sharia family law is applied in the non-monolithic, hugely diverse Islamic world – and was heartened by some of the results. In several states where sharia law is the public law, changes and adaptations are happening, he says: A man wishing to take a second wife, for example, now requires judicial approval.

That may not seem much to the Western eye, but to him, it's a critical start. He's convinced that modern communications will accelerate progress. Reform will come.

Naim's latest book, Islam and the Secular State (Harvard University Press) is the culmination of his life's work, he says. At 61, he's spent 40 years working through the seeds planted by Taha and reaching his own considered conclusions.

"Taha's great lesson was to be yourself, not a carbon copy of him. He would approve of the book because I am standing my own ground."

What criticisms Naim makes of religious tradition are made as a devout, observant Muslim, he stresses: "When I protest the inequality of women, I do it as a Muslim, as the fulfilment of Islam."

The book argues that sharia can become a relevant code for living if it is reworked to include modern democratic principles as well as Islamic values. And secularism, despite its bad press among Muslims, should be welcomed by them. It is not a refutation of true Islam, as many assume, but the reverse: a protection.

A champion of secular Islam looks to harness 'heresy' - Lynda Hurst

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Pakistan At the Precipice: II- MIF Kakistocracy: Military-Industrial-Feudal Complex

I – Human Rights in Islam
II – MIF Kakistocracy: Military-Industrial-Feudal Complex
III – Vision for Coexistence

Democracy becomes a government of bullies, tempered by editors."
— Ralph Waldo Emerson, American essayist, public philosopher and poet (1803-1882)


MIF Kakistocracy: Military-Industrial-Feudal complex

Ike’s military-industrial-complex can be modified to include the feudal lords. This Military-Industrial-Feudal complex has continued to prosper at the expense of the ever dwindling middle and poor classes.

While the poor have found an outlet in distorted religious values and increasingly blow themselves up in targeted killings, the not so poor resort to breaking laws, occupying land, robbing and stealing at gun point.

If the past governments had sincerely puts their resources at removing the causes of poverty, the poor and the disenfranchised would have been less susceptible to fall for doctrines of intolerance and hatred taught in the madresas in the guise of religious education. The belated government steps to reform the madresas are not supported by effective measures for poverty elimination and alternative educational opportunities.

The massive support for the lawyers’ led movement for an independent judiciary is seen as a movement to restore a check on the tilted executive and empower the manipulated legislative by the middle and not so poor classes.

A segment of the indoctrinated and brainwashed do not support this popular movement and want to take their fight directly to those in power. They find it easier to opt for change through violence and terror.

In the context of the rise of violence in Pakistan it will be of interest to also reflect on the second article of this declaration.

Article 2:
(a)Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to safeguard this right against any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a shari'ah prescribed reason.


It remains to be seen how a beleaguered and increasingly isolated Musharraf Administration can maneuver himself and the Army out of this stalemate.

The one thing that post colonial leadership of every stripe in Asia and Africa has learned well from its past colonial masters is the game of divide and rule. When seen through this prism, the rise in Mullah power in Frontier and in Balochistan, and the proliferation of ethnic and political parties and groups to offset the major political forces by the this Kakistocracy can be understood more clearly.

Political Stalemate

The Army backed President General Musharraf has his vision of ‘enlightened moderation’ for Pakistan. Co-opted by the US, he has maneuvered Pakistan to become a front line state in the fight against terrorism. This has earned his government the wrath of Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani supporters of Taliban.

He sent the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of the Muslim League (N) into exile. Another former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Chairperson for life of the Pakistan Peoples Party, was already in exile facing corruption, money laundering, mismanagement and extra judicial killing charges.

Both of them have had two runs at governing the state in the 80s and 90s and squandered their chances. Now they yearn to get back into power and demand a ‘fair and free’ election under a caretaker government.

While in power, they paid scant respect for democratic norms and tolerance. Their usage of the word ‘democracy’ today appears to be a euphemism for the roll back of army intervention in state affairs: some of their suspicions are well grounded.
Over the last four decades the Army has increasingly acquired a stake in all spheres of state affairs. After the Government of Pakistan, they are one of the biggest employers in the country. They grab and award themselves prized real estate and haliburtonesque contracts at rock bottom prices. Inexperienced and inept serving and retired officers head ‘lucrative’ civilian jobs, ambassadorships, and are offered sinecures as chiefs of semi government agencies.

Both the Army and the politicians are suspicious and intolerant of each other and unwilling to agree to a power sharing formula. The judiciary, marginalized since 1954, is just showing signs of shrugging off the deep slumber.

This mutual suspicion and adamancy leads to an impasse. The US is exerting pressures on both to come to an understanding.


The Role of Politicians

The recently concluded, misnamed, All Parties Conference held in London at the behest of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif appeared to be a photo-op of disgruntled politicians. Another former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, in distancing herself from Nawaz Sharif, is making the right sound bites.

According to Zafar Abbas, Islamabad Bureau Chief of the Daily Dawn, Benazir Bhutto and General Musharraf came close to a power sharing deal in April. These negotiations aimed at reaching an accommodative understanding for the forthcoming national elections are still going on according to reports attributed to the BBC and the Globe and Mail.

The Pakistani politicians demand:
* Free and Fair Election under a Caretaker Government
* An independent Judiciary to ostensibly check the Army’s power grab
* Army back under full Civilian Control

To goad the Army back into the barracks is a Herculean task. The politicians have to guarantee them immunity from past excesses and some checks against what the Army perceives as political corruption, misrule and ineptitude.

Can a fledgling democratic government, in alliance with the Army curb the violence and alleviate the causes remains to be seen. Meanwhile, Pakistanis brace themselves for more suicide bombers.

Monday, June 02, 2008

Baithak World Jun 01: New Face of Islam, Egyptian Emergency, Princess Lubna, David Hirsh, Robert Fisk, Headlines, RealNews

Intellectually and theologically, a lot of the most ambitious work is being done by a group of scholars based in Ankara, Turkey, who expect to publish new editions of the Hadith before the end of the year. They have collected all 170,000 known narrations of the Prophet's sayings. These are supposed to record Muhammad's words and deeds as a guide to daily life and a key to some of the mysteries of the Qur'an. But many of those anecdotes came out of a specific historical context, and those who told the stories or, much later, recorded them, were not always reliable. Sometimes they confused "universal values of Islam with geographical, cultural and religious values of their time and place," says Mehmet Gormez, a theology professor at the University of Ankara who's working on the project. "Every Hadith narration has ... a context. We want to give every narration a home again." The New Face of Islam [thanks A]


The People's Assembly voted on Monday to extend the emergency law for another two years. The extension came in spite of promises, repeated endlessly in 2006, that emergency rule would be replaced by an anti-terror bill once the current extension expired. The emergency law, in force since 1981, grants police and security forces sweeping powers, allowing them, in effect, to hold Egyptian citizens indefinitely, without charge. Some 305 MPs voted in favour of the extension, and just 103 voted against. Emergency since 1981?

Sheika Lubna
Princess Lubna is the U.A.E.'s biggest business envoy, paving the way for billions in new investment. She's the first female foreign trade minister in the Middle East—and the first anywhere with her own perfume line. Mover and Sheika by John Arlidge


A boycott of Israeli academics would harm the Palestine solidarity effort, it would harm the Israeli peace movement and it would harm the peace process. It would mis-educate young people who were concerned about the Middle East to believe that it was a simple problem of good against evil. It would harm the boycotting universities and unions and it would harm the boycotted universities. It would act as a catalyst for antisemitic ways of thinking and it would constitute in itself an antisemitic exclusion. The only good the boycott campaign does is to make some comfortable and self-righteous people, far away from the violence, feel that they are 'doing something' to help. Arguments against the academic boycott of Israel - David Hirsh

Six thousand dead in Afghanistan, tens of thousands dead in Iraq, a suicide bombing a day in Mesopotamia, the highest level of suicides ever in the US military – the Arab press wisely ran this story head to head with Hayden's boasts – and permanent US bases in Iraq after 31 December. And we've won? Less than two years ago, we had an equally insane assessment of the war when General Peter Pace, the weird (and now mercifully retired) chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, said of the American war in Iraq that "we are not winning but we are not losing". At which point, George Bush's Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, said he agreed with Pace that "we are not winning but we are not losing". Robert Fisk: So al-Qa'ida's defeated, eh? Go tell it to the marines


Headlines


Arab women push boundaries gently



Inconvenient Truths: Get Ready to Rethink What it Means to Be Green
1: Live in Cities
2: A/C Is OK
3: Organics Are Not The Answer
4: Farm the Forests
5: China Is the Solution
6: Accept Genetic Engineering
7: Carbon Trading Doesn't Work
8: Embrace Nuclear Power
9: Used Cars — Not Hybrids
10: Prepare for the Worst



Doonesbury@SLATE

Paul Jay presents RealNews
Iraqi clerics against US bases
Clerics call for referendum on proposal to indefinitely station US troops in Iraq view

China: Changing horizons, changing diet
Guardian: Food crisis, part 4, reports on the impact of urbanization and consumerism in China view

Kabul's new drug crisis
Guardian: Iran and Pakistan deporting drug addicts to Afghanistan view

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Baithak World Apr 23: Clinton Survives, Canada, India Stands Firm, Gates Spin, RTI, Infinity Pool, US Economy, Spying for Israel, Al Qaeda Delusion...

PHILADELPHIA -- Hillary Rodham Clinton took the Pennsylvania primary tonight, staving off elimination and ensuring the Democrat's fierce nominating battle would last at least another two weeks. In a state racked by economic anxiety, Clinton rolled to victory with strong support from women, seniors and blue-collar voters -- the coalition that carried the New York senator to wins elsewhere including, most notably, her back-to-the-wall victory last month in Ohio. With 96% of precincts reporting, Clinton was ahead 55% to 45% in Pennsylvania. "Some people counted me out and said to drop out, but the American people don't quit, and they deserve a president who doesn't quit either," she said at a victory rally in Philadelphia.Hillary Clinton stays alive with Pennsylvania win


The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it. Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election. If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead. The Low Road to Victory

OTTAWA–Canadians patting themselves on the back for going green on Earth Day got a splash of cold water today: a new report shows Canada is one of the world's highest per capita greenhouse-gas emitters. A study from Statistics Canada says Canada trails only the United States and Australia when it comes to the amount of greenhouse gases each of its citizens emits on average annually. Each Canadian was responsible for just over 23 tonnes of greenhouse-gas emissions in 2005, the agency says, compared with an annual average of 24.4 tonnes in the States and 27.7 tonnes in Australia. That's markedly higher than countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Japan, whose per capita emissions were roughly half Canada's. Canada among worst offenders on emissions


A day after the Bush administration urged India to step up pressure on Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on his coming visit to New Delhi, India tartly said it did not need “any guidance on the future conduct of bilateral relations,” making it plain that no saber rattling from its friends in Washington would impair its relationship with a vital energy supplier. “India and Iran are ancient civilizations whose relations span centuries,” the Indian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Tuesday. “Both nations are perfectly capable of managing all aspects of their relationship with the appropriate degree of care and attention.” India: U.S. Advice on Iran Is Rejected


WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he believes Iran is "hell bent" on acquiring nuclear weapons, but he warned in strong terms of the consequences of going to war over that. "Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need and, in fact, I believe it would be disastrous on a number of levels," he said in a speech he was delivering Monday evening at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. A copy of his prepared remarks was provided in advance by the Pentagon. He said he favors keeping the military option against Iran on the table, "given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat _ either directly or through proliferation." Defense Secretary Gates: Another Mideast War Would Be "Disastrous"


Last week, this newspaper reported that an RTI application asking whether Supreme Court judges were making a periodic declaration of their assets to the Chief Justice of India - a practice that was adopted in the late 1990s - was returned by the court saying it had no information on this matter. A few days later, Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan said that his office was not bound by RTI since he was a constitutional authority. Now Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee has waded into the debate by saying that RTI should apply to all public servants. The Speaker is right. There is no reason why judges should be exempt from RTI. If all government offices as well as the country's elected representatives are subject to RTI, why should the judiciary be an exception? The Chief Justice's assertion about his post being a constitutional one is problematic since RTI makes an exception only on information that affects national security. Besides, the RTI application with regard to Supreme Court judges did not ask them to reveal their assets. It merely wanted to know whether the judges were declaring their assets. The reaction of the Chief Justice did nothing to clear the air on questions regarding transparency of the courts. RTI Should Apply to Judiciary Also



If you are looking for a taste of life on the edge, this just has to be the place. Only a slippery, submerged lip of rock stands between these bathers and a 100m drop over the world's largest waterfall. The Devil's Swimming Pool is certainly aptly named. It is created each year at the fringes of Victoria Falls, when the dry season reduces water levels to create what has been likened to the ultimate infinity pool. Hundreds of thrill-seekers descend on the falls, on Zambia's border with Zimbabwe, clambering across rocks and wading through shallows across the precipice to reach the pool. Is this the ultimate (and most dangerous) infinity pool in the world? The natural water hole perched on the edge of the Victoria Falls


By 2007 total indebtedness was three times the size of the gross domestic product, a ratio that surpassed the record set in the years of the Great Depression. From 2001 to 2007 alone, domestic financial debt grew to $14.5 trillion from $8.5 trillion, and home mortgage debt ballooned to almost $10 trillion from $4.9 trillion, an increase of 102 percent. A crisis in the mortgage market in August 2007 brought the party to an end. The second component of the perfect storm is the upheaval in the oil industry. Domestic production peaked in 1971, and there are signs that production worldwide is also peaking. (Mr. Phillips cites experts who believe it already has.) And with the emergence of new economic powers like China and India, demand has risen dramatically and prices have been climbing steadily; by 2004 a rapidly growing China had become the second largest oil consumer, after the United States. Finally, Mr. Phillips turns to what he terms America’s “calcified” political system. We may need new regulations to deal with the debt mess, along with an energy policy to address the changing world of oil, but Washington, he says, has become dedicated to “the politics of evasion,” reluctant to pass dramatic reforms or to call for sacrifice from the public. Democrats and Republicans alike are so entrenched, so dependent on campaign money and special interests, that “the notion of a breath of fresh air has become almost a contradiction in terms.” Instead of a “vital center” in Washington, we now have a “venal center.” What Ails the American Economy? Everything, and There’s Worse to Come


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. authorities arrested an American engineer on Tuesday on suspicion of giving secrets on nuclear weapons, fighter jets and air defense missiles to Israel during the 1980s, the Justice Department said. Ben-Ami Kadish, 84, acknowledged his spying in FBI interviews and said he acted out of a belief that he was helping Israel, court papers said. He was accused of reporting to an Israeli government handler who also dealt with Jonathan Jay Pollard, an American citizen serving a life term on a 1985 charge of spying for Israel. American arrested as nuclear spy for Israel


In an audio tape posted on the internet, Zawahiri insisted al-Qaeda had carried out the attacks on the US. He accused Iran, and its Hezbollah allies, of trying to discredit Osama Bin Laden's network. Correspondents say the comments underline al-Qaeda's increasing public hostility towards Iran. In a two-hour audiotape posted on an Islamist website, Osama Bin Laden's chief deputy responded to questions posted by al-Qaeda sympathisers. In response to a question about persistent rumours in the Middle East that Israel was involved in the 9/11 attacks, Zawahiri said the rumour had begun on the Hezbollah television station, Al-Manar. "The purpose of this lie is clear - [to suggest] that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no-one else did in history, he said. "Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it." Why should Anyone be Proud of It?


Officially, Ramadan, 45, is a professor of Islamic studies in Geneva. But now he has just come from Oxford, where he teaches at St. Antony’s College as a visiting fellow. In effect, Ramadan is something of a modern-day itinerant preacher. His mission is to boost the self-confidence of Europe’s Muslims and to explain his vision of a “European Islam” to Europe’s Christian elite. The new brand of faith which, according to Ramadan, “is currently taking shape among European Muslims with Islamic-European culture” aims to reconcile Western values with the teachings of Islam. This “Euro-Islam” has allowed Ramadan to win friends among immigrant children and proponents of interreligious dialogue -- and make enemies among right-wing nationalists and hardline Islamists. Ramadan has given thousands of presentations over the past few years, speaking to a wide range of audiences, including Muslims and Christians, atheists and Jews, church representatives and politicians, industrialists, students and anti-globalization activists. Over the weekend, he made four appearances in France where he spoke to over 2,500 people, mostly young Muslims. Tonight he will speak in Birmingham at a police convention, tomorrow morning his schedule takes him to Blackpool; he can't remember off the top of his head who he's talking to there. The Theologians Working Towards a Euro-Islam By Dieter Bednarz and Daniel Steinvorth


Many of the bigger challenges we will be forced to address in the 21st century have major environmental implications. On many of these issues, there are opportunities to choose more sustainable and ecologically friendly ways of life. For example, if, as experts warn, that oil demand will soon outstrip our available, dwindling supply, then our petro-dependent society will change along with it. It's a chance to pursue cleaner and more efficient methods of using energy -- switching from cars to public transport, and going from oil to solar and wind. AlterNet picked eight topics -- water, global warming, food, health, energy, pollution, consumption and corporations -- that pose real dangers to the future of human life and selected a series of recent essays that illustrate these problems, along with links to organizations and further resources that address these issues. (Please use the comment section to share other articles and resources on these issues. ) Eight Reasons Our Changing World Will Turn You Into an Environmentalist, Like It or Not


Of all the resources needed to build an economy that will sustain economic progress, none is more scarce than time. That is one of the key messages of PLAN-B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, the newest book by Lester Brown -- available as a free download at earthpolicy.org.
Plan A -- the western fossil-fuel-based, auto-centered, throwaway economic model -- is not going to work for China, India, or the 3 billion other people in developing countries, and it will not continue to work for the industrial countries either. It's time for Plan B -- an all-out response at wartime speed proportionate to the magnitude of threats facing civilization. The four overriding goals of PLAN B 3.0 are to stabilize climate and population, eradicate poverty, and restore the earth's damaged ecosystems. Failure to reach any one of these goals will likely mean failure to reach the others as well. How Many Earth Days Do We Have Left? By Terrence McNally,

Paul Jay presents RealNews

Will Sadr declare open war?
Behind Sadr's warning to the US lies an unavoidable fact: He holds critical cards in Iraq view

Democrats fight in Philadelphia
Pepe Escobar on the punches Dems are dealing, mostly to themselves view

South Philadelphia: Obama land?
Pepe Escobar speaks with residents of South Philly, an area expected to vote heavily for Barack Obama view

Refining Oil in the Doura District
Alive in Baghdad: Refinery workers face constant threat of violence from local militias view