Tackling The IS Tentacles In India: New Age Islam’s Selection from Indian Press, 30 August 2015

New Age Islam Edit Bureau

31 August 2015

Tackling the Is Tentacles in India

By Sazzad Hussain

Poison of Demographic Prejudice

Editorial, Economic and Political Weekly

The Indian Paradigm For Religious Tolerance

By Balbir Punj

Compiled by New Age Islam Edit Bureau

------

Tackling the IS Tentacles In India

By Sazzad Hussain

29 August, 2015

The spread of occupation of Islamic State or ISIL, ISIS is phenomenal since its rise to prominence in the Middle-East in the wake of the popular Arab Spring that started in 2011. The west’s consistent duplicity over the issue of bringing democracy selectively in the Arab world contributed immensely towards the formation of IS. While George W. Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq beyond integration to bring democracy by toppling Saddam Hussain in 2003, the Obama administration took eleven days to condemn the crackdown on pro-democracy activists at Cairo’s Tahrir Square by Hoshni Mubarak’s forces. Similarly the west spelled ‘restraint’ when pro-democracy demonstrations were brutally handled in Bahrain with Saudi forces. But the Anglo-Franc duo of David Cameroon and Nicholas Sarkozy bombed Libya and aided Al-Qaeda cadres on the ground to topple and hunt down Gaddafi. Same fate is being awaited for Bashar al-Assad of Syria, the last bastion of secular Arab establishment, as the west has been pumping money and arms to various Jihadi outfits with the help of some regional allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. The IS was made from foreign Jihadists that fought against Gaddafi’s army in Libya and from those who tried to take control Tunisia after the popular revolution that toppled the despotic rule of Zain al-Abedine Ben Ali. After its ‘spectacular’ success against the Syrian and Iraqi army, thanks to the large coverage by the western media, the IS now is trying to project itself as a global force. This objective and designs, very much multiplied in the social media are now echoed, though peripherally in India. It is high time now for all the stakeholders of the Indian state to root out the evil before it sprouts up in an immeasurable field.

Ever since the Islamist movements surfaced the Arab world, in the form of Muslim Brotherhood founded by Sayyed Qutb in Egypt in 1950s there were no takers for it in India, the home to world’s second largest Muslims. Though the political elites of the community did have a transnational agenda in the form of the Khilafat Movement a hundred years ago, it was mostly an anti-colonial mobilization rather than a religious affiliation. Maulana Mawdudi and those who dreamt of a political Islamic system where the idea of nation-state ceases, the Partition took them to Pakistan. Thus Indian Muslims were free from any political Islamic rhetoric after its independence. India’s secularism and New Delhi’s strong and unequivocal support for the Palestinian cause, the core issue for which the global launch of the Jihadi movement is excused, made Indian Muslims hard to find any logic to go against the state to join the global Islamist movements emanating from the Middle-East. India’s role in freeing Bangladesh from the tyranny of Pakistan also provided the Indian Muslims a thought that religious affinities do not mean political or territorial solidarity. Even the infamous armed seizure of the Ka’aba during the Haj of 1975 by Osman al-Uthaibi’s transnational Islamic followers could not attract the Indian Muslims for that cause as none of the Indian pilgrims joined that rebellion (there were many Pakistanis who did it). So when Muslim fighters from many Arab countries gathered near Peshawar from 1980 onwards to fight a Holy War against the Soviets in Afghanistan with US and Pak-Saudi help, there was no interest or enthusiasm about this among Indian Muslims and the ten Afghan president Dr. Najibullah was accorded a state honour during his official visit to New Delhi with much objection by Washington.

But seeds of dissent among the Muslim youths of the country were sown as the nation witnessed unprecedented unrest related to the Ayodhya dispute. The demolition of the disputed structure on 6th November, 1992 led to wide spread communal riots across the country. A slack administration, biased police force and the slow pace of the legal proceedings in providing justice to Muslims in those carnages antagonized a section of the youth from the community. Meanwhile the triumph of the Afghan Mujahedeen in Afghanistan with the withdrawal of Soviet troops by Gorbachev in 1989 encouraged Pakistan to try similar moves in Kashmir, Chechnya and the Balkans. The rise of the pro-Pak militancy in Kashmir and the communal riots after the Ayodhya demolition led some Indian Muslims to go against the state and it was the Pakistani agencies that took the chance of using them. Thus we have the Bombay Blasts of 1993 which continued for more than two decades with bombings in suburban trains, market places, the Gateway of India etc. However, though the Al-Qaeda emerged strongly during these period which culminated in 9/11 strike, there was no Indian Muslim as members or cadres of this terror group. No Indians figures in the list of twenty-two countries whose nationals numbering to more tan five hundred were arrested by US forces in Afghanistan and flown to the Guantanamo Bay for detention as Al-Qaeda operatives. But the politics of hate kept some Muslims in India to think the other way as we had the Gujarat pogrom. Outfits like the Indian Mujahedeen surfaced to engage in terror attacks with active support from Pakistan.

Whatever the armed or terror tactics used by some Indian Muslim outfits to play the act of revenge or to extend the Jihad, it has been characterized only being concentrated within the country or operations across the western border. No Indian Muslim outfits have been found calling for Jihad abroad or in the distant legions of the neo-Caliphate. The publicity of the IS through the social media is the reason behind the reported incidents of Indian Muslim youths joining that dreaded terror group operating in Syria and Iraq. The Indians are now following their European, Australian and American counterparts to join the outfit, mostly because of it glorification and romanticization in the social media. Thus it is important that the Indian state should initiate some measures to reverse this dangerous trend. Promoting the pluralistic character of the nation and Sufism in a great way could be one step in tackling this prevailing trend.

Sazzad Hussain teaches English at Lakhimpur Commerce College, North Lakhimpur, Assam

Source: countercurrents.org/hussain290815.htm

-----

Poison of Demographic Prejudice

Editorial, Economic and Political Weekly

Vol - L No. 35, August 29, 2015

India's demographic profi le remains stable; it is only the fi res of prejudice that are growing.

A fear that has been cultivated in India is of the majority being swamped by the minority “Other”: Hindus by Muslims. In Eastern India, the xenophobia has taken the form of a belief that a Bangladeshi influx is changing the demographic profile of the region. Across the rest of the country, a much older mythical fear is that the small Muslim minority will, in size, soon overtake the huge Hindu majority. It is claimed that Islam disapproves of any form of family planning and it is therefore just a question of a few decades (or even years) before Hindus become a minority in “their own country.” Until a few decades ago, such views were held only on the fringes; but since the late 1980s, aided and abetted by Hindutva groups, these have become mainstream views. The facts, if anything, increasingly show that the opposite is happening.

Take the case of the Census of 2011 population figures according to religion which were released earlier this week. Hindus now constitute 79.8% of the population, Muslims 14.2%, Christians 2.3%, Sikhs 1.7% and those of other religions and atheists making up the remaining 2%. The Muslim population of India grew by 2.46% a year between 2001 and 2011, which was indeed higher than the Hindu population growth rate of 1.68% a year. Yet, what is relevant for studying demographic changes is not this difference but how it has changed over time. The Muslim population growth rate of 2.46% between 2001 and 2011 was lower than the 2.95% recorded in the previous decade of 1991–2001. That of the Hindus too has declined, from 1.99% to 1.68%, respectively. But the decline in population growth is larger and faster among the Muslims. This is no surprise, rather it is common knowledge. Between 1992–93 and 2005–06, according to the National Family Health Survey, the fertility reduction among Muslims was as much as 30% while that among the Hindus was 20%. So much for Muslims not practising birth control or obeying religious diktats prohibiting the use of contraceptive techniques.

The attempt to project something like a countrywide Muslim fertility that is high and uncontrolled is also without any basis. The fertility rate of the Muslims of Kerala is far lower than that of the Hindus of Uttar Pradesh; and the fertility rate of the Muslims of Tamil Nadu is less than that of the Hindus of Bihar. The fertility rate of all religious groups in the poorer and more populous states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar is higher than elsewhere, and since the Muslim population in these states is disproportionately larger than elsewhere, the “average” fertility rate among Muslims has always been higher.

There have always been some fertility differences according to religious denomination. In the United States, fertility in the 19th century and the initial decades of the 20th century among the Protestants used to be lower than among the Catholics. But with the gradual spread of modern contraceptive practices across groups, these differences eventually disappeared. Likewise the differences in India will become insignificant, if not disappear altogether. With access to health services and education, with aspirations (and at times even in desperation), all social and religious groups are practising birth control and the differences in fertility behaviour are narrowing.

A reduction in fertility now will take some time to show itself in a lower population growth rate. So the Muslim population in India will continue to grow for a while—with or without immigration—slightly faster than that of the Hindus. Eventually—long before a radical change in population shares can take place—this difference too will disappear and the Hindu population will continue to outnumber the Muslim community by a factor of more than 5.

All of these are old facts, all of this is common knowledge to demographers and all of this will be apparent to anyone who is not swayed by the fires of prejudice. (In 2005, a special issue of EPW addressed this very question: “Religion and Fertility Behaviour,” 29 January 2005.) But when it is a question of prejudice, when did facts ever count? They could have if the media had taken its educative role seriously. Instead, the Indian media took the fear-mongering route earlier this week. “Muslim population rising faster,” “Muslim share up, Hindu share down,” and “Hindu population share falls below 80%” were some of the headlines meant not to inform but to create panic. The government and political groups could have, for their part, worked to delegitimise these myths. They too chose to abandon their responsibility. The Ministry of Home Affairs press release on the Census of 2011 population by religion is a scandal of its own kind. It listed the bare facts about the faster population growth of Muslims and the fall in share of the Hindus, both designed to feed the poison of prejudice. Quite predictably, Bharatiya Janata Party Members of Parliament like Swami Adityanath and Sakshi Maharaj have lost no time in raising an alarm about an impending demographic tsunami.

It is not a question of one government acting one way, and the other differently. The United Progressive Alliance government suppressed the data from the 2011 Census, as if running away from the challenge of explaining demographic patterns and dissolving mythical fears would bring it electoral dividend. In 2002, on the election trail Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who was then Chief Minister of Gujarat, called Muslim refugee camps “child-producing factories” and used the phrase hum paanch humare pachees for the purpose of electoral mobilisation.

epw.in/editorials/poison-demographic-prejudice.html

-------

The Indian Paradigm For Religious Tolerance

By Balbir Punj

The faithfuls, for whom bloodshed ofkafirs is an article of faith, must know that ‘god is one'. For those who hold the world to ransom claiming divine injunction, there is ‘only one god' and the rest is kufur or heresy

Is there an escape for the beleaguered world from the violence unleashed by the faithfuls, following the recent resurrection of medieval ideologies for whom bloodshed ofkafirs (non-believers and apostates) is an article of faith? Is the panic-stricken world fast reaching a stage of conflict and doom which eminent US political scientist Samuel P Huntington had predicted in his book, The Clash of Civilisation and Remaking of World Order in 1996?

Recently, Khaled Asaad, a respected scholar who devoted over five decades of his life to preserving the majestic 2,000-year old ruins of Palmyra, an ancient city in the Syrian desert, was beheaded by the Islamic State. Last month, it   released a video showing child soldiers summarily executing 25 Government troops in the city’s Roman amphitheater.

And nearer home, Pakistan has emerged as an epicentre of terror in the region and is a frequent witness to intra-religious feuds marked by shooting and bombing of the faithfuls by other faithfuls. All such assassins claim religious sanction! Thekafirs (Hindus and Sikhs) have already been accounted for in Pakistan.

Within the ‘secular’ Union of Indian, the population of pandits, the flag-bearers of the original pluralistic culture of the valley steeped in Vedic traditions, has dropped nearly to nil, following the cleansing by the kafirs, by those claiming to be the faithfuls, backed by guns.

All this destruction of symbols of kafirs/heathens and their killings are a part of a tradition lasting over hundreds of years. Wars were fought and civilisations exterminated. Genocides were committed and religious places belonging to kafirs or heathens laid waste. And they (crusaders/Ghazis) did all this in the name of their god and his messenger.

We, in this part of the world, have suffered this bigotry for long. When Christianity, and later Islam, came along with the traders within a few decades of their birth on the shores of Kerala, they were feted and welcomed.

India’s encounter with Christianity goes back to the fourth century when some Christians landed at Malabar to escape religious persecution in Iran at the hands of Christian orthodoxy who considered them to be heretics. Later, they were joined by refugees from Syria and Armenia flying from Christian heresy — hunters. The Hindu rajas and the general public received them and didn’t bother about the god they worshiped.

However, Hindu-Muslim relations changed with the invasion of Sind by Muhammad bin Qasim in the early eighth century, followed nearly three centuries later by Mahmud Ghazni’s pillaging raids deep into India. Two centuries later, Muhammad Ghori attacked India and after defeating Prithviraj Chauhan, established the Delhi Sultanate in 1208.

Since then, till the 18th century, it was a sordid tale of religious persecution, forced conversions and desecration and demolition of places of worship of the Indians by invaders and a section of locals who had converted to their faith, mostly under duress.

Apart from the motive of gathering plunder from fabulously rich India, the raiders were indeed energised by their religious fervor. Mahmud Ghazni, who repeatedly vandalised the famed Somnath Temple in Gujarat, had taken a vow to wagejihad (holy war), every year against the kafirs (idolaters) during the solemn ceremony of receiving the Caliphate honours on his accession to the throne of Ghazni. The precedents set by the likes of Ghazni are followed by the faithfuls till date.

In the case of Christianity, it was in 1542, that India saw its bigoted face when Saint Francis Xavier and his Jesuits from Portugal landed in Goa and later spread their operations in other parts of South India. The saint had come with a firm resolve of uprooting paganism from the Indian soil and planting Christianity in its place. The details of persecution of both Hindus and Muslims by the saint and the administration under his instructions, are well documented.

For Indians, Christianity was no longer one more way of reaching the divine. Hindus were facing medieval imperialism that was fired by an ideology of proselytisation, with all the implicit brutality and venality. In 1698, when the East India Company’s charter was renewed, a clause was included that laid down that chaplains were to learn native languages so as to instruct natives in the protestant faith.

Even today, in nearly half of the Western democracies, the state provides direct subsidies to religious charities. One-third clergy in the state-recognised religions is on the state’s payrolls. In 40 per cent of the countries, the state acts as a dues collector for churches!

Like the Islamic state in Pakistan has been exporting terrorists to India and providing them with training and arms, the church, funded by affluent West, has been trying to destabilise non-Christian societies (particularly India) by stealth, under the cover of serving the poor and sick.

Ghazni, Ghori, Saint Xavier….. East India Company, may be dead and gone. But the mission, they lived and died for continues. Techniques and strategies have changed with time. But the goal remains unchanged — establishing the god, and his messenger as a sole representative; and simultaneously seek the destruction of other traditions.

Behind the hands that pull the trigger, behead a hapless non-believer, detonate bombs, blow up bamiyan buddha, lay waste the ruins of Palmyra, or trade souls for a loaf of bread, is a mind-set shaped by religious texts (or its interpretations) and a theology, saturated with hate for non-believers, their traditions and identity. The war against terror thus has to be fought with by arms, and ideas as well. The insular mind-set will have to be countered by an alternate narrative.

This is where India becomes relevant. It’s home to Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and numerous other indigenous traditions, with a common silken thread running. No doubt, each of these faiths has an identity of its own. But they not only co-exist peacefully but go beyond. Far from having inimical feelings, the followers of Indian born faiths have genuine respect for each other’s beliefs. Jews and Parsese, when faced with religious persecution back home, found safe refuge in India.

The Indian paradigm probably holds the key to end the dogma inspired strife that has enveloped the world for hundreds of years. It’s in this context that a ‘global Hindu-Buddhist initiative on conflict avoidance and environment consciousness’ is being organised by Vivekananda International Foundation, in collaboration with International Buddhists Confederation and the Tokyo Foundation, Japan in New Delhi on September 3 to September 4. One hopes this initiative will kick-start a process leading to a more peaceful world.

We believe that ‘god is one’ with countless manifestations. For those who hold the world to ransom claiming divine injunction, there is ‘only one god’ and the rest iskufur or heresy.

dailypioneer.com/columnists/edit/the-indian-paradigm-for-religious-tolerance.html

-----

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/current-affairs/new-age-islam-edit-bureau/tackling-the-is-tentacles-in-india---new-age-islam%E2%80%99s-selection-from-indian-press,-30-august-2015/d/104423

We Cannot Be Hard-Headed In Fighting Home-Grown Extremism: New Age Islam’s Selection from World Press, 31 August 2015

New Age Islam Edit Bureau

31 August 2015

We Cannot Be Hard-Headed In Fighting Homegrown Extremism

By Yassin M. Yassin

Here We Go Again: The Drumbeat For Sending Troops Back To Iraq Has Begun

By Simon Jenkins

Bashar Al-Assad’s Fate: Is A ‘Face-Saving’ Deal In Play?

By Raed Omari

Compiled by New Age Islam Edit Bureau

-------

We Cannot Be Hard-Headed In Fighting Home-grown Extremism

By Yassin M. Yassin

30 August 2015

We cannot deny that there is a homegrown extremism problem in Britain. Latest figures estimate that around 700 Britons have joined ISIS. Although this is a small number considering the 2.7 million British Muslims, it is enough to make the government set out plans to fight this problem.

I am from a town where non-Muslims are the minority. Two boys that I grew up and played football with joined ISIS last year (they didn’t know each other). I was never close friends with them, but if we did pass each other by, we would shake hands and engage in small-talk. I don’t know how or what radicalized them and I have no interest in asking their family or friends about such a sensitive topic, but I know that their families are in a lot of pain right now. I want to give my recommendations – as a young British Muslim who probably knows extremism better than armchair commentators – on how prevent this problem. Part 1 of this article is for the Muslims and part 2 is for the Left and Right wing.

Let us welcome and aid the government in their counter-extremism strategy, because it is for our benefit too

Home grown extremism will not end unless there is compromise. Muslims, the right and the Left cannot keep pointing fingers at each other. Every side must accept part of the blame so we can deal with this issue. Can we just put our pride aside and think of the poor families who have lost their children?

Message to Muslims

Do not be suspicious of this government’s counter-extremism strategy. Measures such as PREVENT are not Islamophobic and they do not criminalize ordinary Muslims. The government only wants to fight extremists, radical Islamism.

Let us welcome and aid the government in their counter-extremism strategy, because it is for our benefit too. Firstly, those who commit terrorism in the name of Islam do not care if they harm Muslims also. Four out of the 52 killed in the 7/7 bombings were Muslim, which was bound to happen if a suicide bomb goes off in a city with a huge Muslim population like London. Secondly, if extremism is eradicated, there will be no need for the Muslim community to be constantly scrutinized and have to go on the defensive like we always have to. Are we not sick of constantly having to apologize for these extremists even though they do not represent us?

Let us also understand what is meant by non-violent extremism. This doesn’t mean we aren’t allowed to raise concerns for the plight of the ummah (Muslim world), nor take the government’s stance on foreign policy. No government would be stupid enough to expect Muslims to stop sympathizing with the plight of Palestinians. Non-violent extremism in the political sense, is to believe in the conspiracy theory that Islam is globally persecuted by the kuffar (non-believers). This grievance narrative creates a ‘them vs. us’ mentality between Muslims and non-Muslims. It is the belief that the believers and disbelievers will always be in a state of warfare, hence any western presence in Muslim lands is unacceptable.

Although the grievance narrative is sometimes justifiable, because many Muslims in the world are suffering, we have to be balanced. Let us remember the times when the West actually did good things for the believers. Wasn’t it NATO that saved our Kosovan brothers and sisters from Serbian nationalists?

Muslims opposed to western involvement in our lands view it suspiciously. Many of us ultimately view these interventions, not as altruistic, but based on selfish business interests. As a result, some of us resent countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE for having western countries as allies. This is also a form of non-violent extremism and we need to shake it off.

Let us view countries as humans. After all, they are run by humans. All humans are naturally selfish and want the best for themselves. Which human would willingly enter a friendship that is not mutually beneficial? For example, I am currently looking to get married. Can I just demand any random female’s wali’s (male guardian) number and begin negotiating mahr (dowry)? Of course not. I have to find to a woman that is nice, intelligent and whatever else appeals to my interests. Likewise, I would have to match what appeals to my potential spouse’s interests. The same applies to Muslim-Western relations. The west may only be there for our natural resources, but our countries are benefitting from their trade to help advance our economies and even protection to guarantee our security.

Just look at the plight of my parent’s country Sudan. Years of diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions from the West mean that Bashir’s government doesn’t even have the funds to filter sewage from drinking water. Before we view any relationship with disbelievers suspiciously, let us also not forget that (by mainstream accounts) it was a non-Muslim (Abu Talib) who protected our prophet (pbuh) from Quraysh.

The problem with non-violent extremism isn’t the opinions themselves. The most extremist person I’ve had the misfortune of knowing, holds all these opinions about how the kuffar (non-believers) will always persecute Muslims just because of our Deen (religion) and how Muslims shouldn’t integrate (neither domestically nor internationally). He is even violently capable. But he is also anti-ISIS and deems them transgressors. Nonetheless, I still fear how his words could indoctrinate the impressionable youth who adore him, into acts of violent extremism.

Nobody just wakes up one day and decides “I want to go to Syria now.” Radicalization builds up slowly but steadily, via non-violent extremism. The families of the people who join ISIS are also part of the ummah. Let us think of them, and prevent other families from the suffering of having to lose their loved ones in such a way – by getting rid of this ‘them vs. us’ mentality, once and for all.

Yassin M. Yassin is a Muslim, 20 year old born and bred Londoner. As a freelance writer, researcher, translator and amateur film-maker, his list of clientele include; The New Statesman, Dazed and Confused and the Guardian. His specialist topics are British and Arab politics and youth culture. Having interned at Al-Hayat's Riyadh office in 2014, he is currently studying for an International Relations degree at University of London, SOAS. A full portfolio of his work can be found on his blog; www.bookofyas.tumblr.com. He can be found on twitter at: @yassoon2015

english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2015/08/30/We-cannot-be-hard-headed-in-fighting-homegrown-extremism.html

-----

Here We Go Again: The Drumbeat For Sending Troops Back To Iraq Has Begun

By Simon Jenkins

29 August 2015

Is it going to happen again? Will the next 12 months really see western armies return to Iraq?

Last year was meant to signal an end to wars of intervention that dominated the world stage at the turn of the 21st century, attacks by powerful western states mostly against weak Muslim ones. It was assumed that Washington and London would draw a curtain over the most shambolic foreign policy adventures of modern times. The West would stop trying to reconfigure political Islam. Troops would return to base. Barack Obama and David Cameron were emphatic: ‘No more boots on foreign soil.’ As Cameron told Parliament last year after being stopped from intervening in Syria, ‘I get it.’

Yet the old tic, the twitch to intervene, has not gone away. Last October, despite his Commons rebuff, Cameron told his party conference that Islamic State was ‘a danger to Europe’ which he could not ignore. ‘There is no walk-on-by option,’ he said, though he did then walk on by. Since then he has plundered the lexicon for adjectives to hurl at Isis: vile, loathsome, evil, inhuman, odious. Like Tony Blair and George Bush, he sees terrorism as an ideology rather than a form of coercion. To him the Tunisian beach murders last June were said oddly to pose ‘an existential threat to Britain’.

Following his spring election victory, Cameron let it be known that he wanted Parliament to reverse its vote on Syria. It was then revealed that British pilots had been secretly involved in bombing Syria all along, in defiance of Parliament. Cameron was unrepentant. Like Blair, he craves covert liaison with Washington in matters of war and peace.

Britain’s leaders are at least consistent in their military adventurism. America is whimsical. It is hard now to recall Bush’s 2000 election rhetoric against what he and his aide Condoleezza Rice dismissed as wimpish ‘humanitarianism’ and ‘nation-building’. Blair was ridiculed for his interventionism. The world was not America’s business. The Somalia fiasco of 1993 was enough. There would be no more of the ‘101st Airborne leading kids to school’.

September 11 reversed all that. Bush became a born-again crusader and initiated an era of shock and awe which, by 2014, had engulfed the Muslim world from Pakistan to the Sahara. Governments were undermined or toppled, fuelling a fierce Islamist backlash, leading in turn to a refugee flood on a scale not seen since the 1940s.

By the time Bush left office, the Iraq and Afghanistan expeditions were widely discredited. I have counted some 200 books on them, barely one of which rates them with favour. The end was signalled by Obama’s 2008 election and his popular promise to bring troops home. Even the growth of Sunni militancy under Isis did not see an interventionist revival. Over the course of 2014 polls showed a solid 55 per cent of Americans against ‘boots on the ground’. Muslims should look after their own.

In the past year that has totally changed. The lame-duck Obama has had to send forces to support the helpless armies of Baghdad and Kabul. He wages a token air war against Isis-held territory that he is in no position to occupy or govern. Trapped by his military-industrial lobbyists into launching drone attacks across the region, he seems oblivious of the aid they offer Isis recruitment.

Iraq has now secured pride of place in the forthcoming American presidential election. Last year’s polls have gone into reverse, with more than half of recent Pew and Rasmussen surveys now in favour of a ground war against Isis. The latest CNN poll put Donald Trump well ahead of his rivals, with double the support offered Jeb Bush largely as he is seen as the candidate ‘to best handle Isis’.

The defining feature of the wars of intervention was media-induced mission creep. Each tended to start with sanctions and bombing, ‘intervention lite’. These were the fool’s gold of intervention. Subsequent Pentagon assessments of bombing campaigns were highly critical of their contribution to any strategic goal. Bombs tend to entrench a regime and draw people behind it. They are highly destructive, making it hard to restore administration afterwards. The past year’s bombing of Isis has reinforced its claim as champion of Islam’s defiance of the West, clouding its role in the Sunni war against the Shia. The longer Isis holds power across Sunni Iraq and Syria, the more its neighbours will move towards accommodation.

The question now is how long can London and Washington tolerate weekly Isis atrocity videos. The western media lacks any self-restraint in publicising them, such that Isis is said to regard them as a far more potent way of drawing attention to itself than the occasional act of terrorism. The clear objective is to goad the West into sending armies back to the desert and renewed entrapment. Nothing has changed since Gladstone was browbeaten into sending Gordon to disaster in Khartoum.

American election candidates are responding as if on cue. Everyone wants to take on Isis. Jeb Bush, hounded by Trump, declared last week that ‘the world is slipping out of control’. Only he could safely restore it. Hillary Clinton has attacked Obama’s plea that ‘We don’t do stupid’ as ‘not an organising principle’. She demands that he ‘fill the vacuum’, whatever that means.

Islamic State cannot pose any serious threat to any western state, yet the media is happy to accept politicians who pretend it does. Eisenhower’s ‘military–industrial complex’ should today be renamed the military–industrial-media one. For all the condemnation of Blair over Iraq, it should be remembered that every daily paper (except the Mirror) supported his call for force, including initially the Guardian.

In America, Fox News is hugely influential in setting the foreign policy agenda. It reincarnates Randolph Hearst’s belief that wars were good for circulation, retorting to a journalist who doubted there would be war over Cuba, ‘You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war,’ which he did. From another round of atrocities, it is a short step to transport jets roaring over Lakenheath air base and new carpets in Baghdad’s Camp Liberty.

There is little appetite in Britain for a return to Iraq. In the Commons last month, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon asserted, ‘Britain will not send ground forces into Iraq or Syria because it will be used by Isis as anti-western propaganda.’ He failed to explain why this did not apply to British pilots. But every British deployment in the wars of intervention began with similar denials of mission creep. Cameron has been making it very hard for Britain not to join an American reoccupation force.

In none of the wars of intervention was there any plausible casus belli, beyond the presence on television of ‘bad guys’. Kosovo was said to be humanitarian, but was effectively a war of partition. Afghanistan was punitive, but mutated into ‘rebuilding’ a nation — Britain’s Clare Short was even flown out to eradicate the opium crop. Iraq was claimed as a matter of ‘Britain’s national security’, but in reality was a simple decapitation of a dictator. Libya was ‘to avert a Srebrenica in Benghazi’, but soon changed into taking one side in a civil war — probably the wrong one.

I can find no truth to the left-wing claim that the wars were about securing oil. Even the most evil oil regime has to sell oil, and we have to buy it. Nor were the victim states significant harbours of terrorism. Most countries are that in some shape or form. In Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq it was only boots on the ground that altered the outcome, for good or ill. But the longer the boots stayed, the more likely was defeat, either in battle or in failing to resolve the anarchy that followed victory. ‘Wars among the peoples’ are rarely won by outsiders.

The conservative American Cato institute ran a regular analysis of the wars and their outcomes. It reached a clear conclusion. They were all wars of choice. The selected enemies ‘posed no existential threat to any western state’. Attempts to rebuild them proved ‘extremely costly, most of them fail and most erode American power’. The war in Iraq alone was estimated to have cost three trillion dollars.

Yet war still has the best tunes. Until the end Suez was popular in Britain, Vietnam in America. Foreign adventures have long appealed to insecure leaders. Callaghan said privately he was mortified that ‘I never had a Falklands.’ During Libya, Cameron yearned for a chance to play Henry V, with the help of his interventionist foreign policy aide, Ed Llewellyn. He still dives for his Cobra bunker at the slightest whiff of cordite and emerges speaking cod Churchill. Those who have no experience of war seem to crave it.

But Iraq, again? It is hardly to be believed. Must we join Kipling and watch as ‘the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire’?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/issues/29-august-2015/

------

Bashar Al-Assad’s Fate: Is A ‘Face-Saving’ Deal In Play?

By Raed Omari

30 August 2015

Recent meetings of key international and regional players have contributed to an emerging sense that the Syrian war is finally on track for resolution after almost five years. A well-informed Syrian opposition source told me that a framework for a political and mutually acceptable solution to the crisis is in the making. On the fate of President Bashar al-Assad, the source said: “A face-saving formula is being drafted.”

Washington has toned down talk of Assad’s departure over the last year. In March, Secretary of State John Kerry said the White House would have to negotiate with Assad for a political transition in Syria.

Assad has no place in a post-war Syria, but his replacement has to be decided during a transitional period by the warring parties, including the Russian-backed regime

Following dismay over this comment, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf quickly issued a clarification: “There has always been a need for representatives of the Assad regime to be a part of this process. It has never been and would not be Assad who would negotiate.”

Harf’s statement lies at the heart of the current U.S. vision of a negotiated political solution for Syria in which the Assad regime, rather than the man himself, is a component. Assad’s departure is not as much a priority for Washington as is the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

In order to avoid repeating the mistakes of Iraq and Libya following the ousters of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi respectively, U.S. policy on Syria is centered around keeping the state’s institutions intact.

As such, the Assad regime – not the man – is what matters. The U.S. rebel-training program, and its anti-ISIS coordination with Jordan and Turkey, are components of its new policy on Syria whereby moderate rebels will be trained to fight ISIS rather than the regime.

Assad has no place in a post-war Syria, but his replacement has to be decided during a transitional period by the warring parties, including the Russian-backed regime.

To avoid more tension with Russia and Iran, a veteran U.S. politician told me that the White House is studying two face-saving scenarios for Assad: either he leaves office within a transitional solution; or he remains in office until his term ends, without being allowed to run in the next presidential election. However, that may not be accepted by Syrian rebels, especially the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

Raed Omari is a Jordanian journalist, political analyst, parliamentary affairs expert, and commentator on local and regional political affairs. His writing focuses on the Arab Spring, press freedoms, Islamist groups, emerging economies, climate change, natural disasters, agriculture, the environment and social media. He is a writer for The Jordan Times, and contributes to Al Arabiya English. He can be reached via raed_omari1977@yahoo.com, or on Twitter @RaedAlOmari2

english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2015/08/30/The-fate-of-President-Bashar-al-Assad.html

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/current-affairs/new-age-islam-bureau/we-cannot-be-hard-headed-in-fighting-home-grown-extremism--new-age-islam%E2%80%99s-selection-from-world-press,-31-august-2015/d/104422

Children of a different law

By G. Sampath

August 30, 2015

A recent sting video shows the men acquitted in the Laxmanpur Bathe case boasting about the same massacre. Will the passing of the Prevention of Atrocities (Amendment) Bill finally change the way justice is delivered to Dalits?

On the night of December 1, 1997, in Laxmanpur Bathe, a village in Bihar’s Arwal district 90 km from Patna, 58 Dalits were slaughtered by a gang of dominant caste men that went by the name of Ranvir Sena. One of the worst instances of caste violence in independent India, the then President K.R. Narayanan called it a “national shame”.

For the next 12 years, this atrocity wound its way through the tortuous intestines of the Indian judicial system. Finally, on April 7, 2010, a Sessions Court sentenced 16 of the 46 accused to death, and 10 more to life imprisonment. Three years later, on October 9, 2013, the Patna High Court acquitted all the 26 who had been convicted, citing lack of evidence. Narayanan was no longer alive by then. So we don’t know what he might have said about the way our criminal justice system handled this national shame.

Earlier this week, the investigative news portal Cobrapost released a video. In it, the very members of the Ranvir Sena who had been acquitted by the Patna High Court are seen boasting about their murderous exploits, including how they executed the massacre in Laxmanpur Bathe. The emergence of this video has two implications.

First, it suggests that lack of evidence – though cited often by our courts — may not be the real reason why cases of caste atrocity almost never end in convictions, or if they do, don’t survive the appeals process. It is clear that evidence is available for those serious about finding it.

Second, the pattern of interminable delays in trial proceedings, followed by conviction by a lower court (though rarely under the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989), followed by acquittal at the High Court, has become too glaring to be ignored any longer, especially in the light of the Cobrapost video, which is effectively an 80-minute commercial that advertises guaranteed impunity for caste atrocities in India.

One could easily cite several cases that fit the Laxmanpur Bathe trajectory. For instance, in the Bathani Tola massacre of 1996, 21 Scheduled Caste (SC) and Muslim farm labourers were killed by dominant caste landlords. The trial court convicted 23. The High Court set aside the convictions.

In the Nagari Bazaar massacre of 1998 in which 10 Dalits were killed, the trial court convicted 11. The High Court set aside the convictions. In the Miyapur massacre of 2000, 34 SC and Backward Class (BC) labourers were killed. Nine landlords were convicted by the lower court. All were acquitted by the High Court.

This trend goes back to the Kilvenmani massacre of 1968, in which 44 Dalits were killed by upper caste landlords. The lower court found eight of the 23 accused guilty. The Madras High Court acquitted everyone.

Legislative remedy

Clearly, from the perspective of Dalit victims, the Indian criminal justice system has failed to deliver. Yet the only recourse open to them seems to be the legal one.

India has seen several pieces of legislation enacted for the express purpose of deterring caste-based violence. We began by abolishing the primal atrocity of untouchability under Article 17 of the Constitution. Since it wouldn’t get abolished, however, we enacted the Untouchability (Offenses) Act, 1955. This was found to be not stringent enough, so it was amended and became the Protection of Civil Rights Act (PCR), 1955. The PCR Act was still not effective in protecting SCs from caste violence. So we made the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST POA Act).

It may be noted that all but one of the atrocities cited above took place after the 1989 POA Act was enacted. So this legislation too hasn’t been effective, as its conviction rate is also abysmal.

The solution? Another legislation: the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2015 (henceforth the Amendment Bill).

To deter caste atrocities

According to Ramesh Nathan of the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR), the 1989 SC/ST POA Act did not have answers to several implementation-related problems.

Describing the experience of Dalit victims who sought redress through this law, Mr. Nathan says, “In most cases, the police would not file FIRs, or do so under the wrong section. The accused are not arrested on time. The investigations are not done on time. The charge sheets are not filed on time. Compensation to victims is not given on time.”

Apart from these, other problems included the frequent filing of counter-cases against Dalit victims, thereby forcing them into a “compromise” with the accused. According to D. Shyam Babu, senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, a common stratagem adopted by the police is to “turn every atrocity into a group clash”, and file cases against both Dalits and upper caste aggressors.” This would automatically ensure that the POA Act would not be applicable.

Mr. Babu adds that typically the police, tasked with maintaining law and order, would put the onus on the Dalit. “If a Dalit groom wanted to ride a horse or a bike, they would say to him, ‘Why do you want to provoke?’ Or ‘Why not take a different route?’ Given that Dalits are a minority in many rural communities, the police are not really going to risk a law and order situation just so that SCs can exercise their equal rights.”

It is to address these problems with the 1989 legislation that Dalit human rights organisations, in consultation with Adivasi rights groups, came up with the draft Amendment Bill, which they submitted to the government in 2010. The UPA-II, however, failed to pass it, and notified it as an ordinance in March 2014.

Earlier this month, the NDA government finally passed the SC/ST POA Amendment Bill, 2015 in the Lok Sabha. The Bill’s provisions are virtually the same as the ordinance passed by UPA-II. It needs to be passed by the Rajya Sabha and notified by the government in order to become law.

Will it make a difference?

The big question is: will this latest legislative salvo against caste atrocities fare any better than its predecessors? Or will it once again, like the 1989 Act, be subverted by a criminal justice system that is itself steeped in caste prejudice?

Dalit activists are cautiously optimistic. Mr. Nathan explains that their hopes stem specifically from four aspects of the newly amended law.

First, the 1989 POA Act had merely provided for re-designating existing courts as special courts for prosecution of crimes under the POA Act. This meant that these “special courts” were also burdened with non-atrocity cases, as a result of which atrocity cases began to pile up, defeating the very purpose of a “special court”.

The Amendment Bill, however, mandates the setting up of “exclusive special courts” that will only try offences under the POA Act. Eliminating the bottleneck created by the burden of non-atrocity cases is expected to ensure speedier completion of trials.

Second, the Amendment Bill extends the roster of punishable offences to include new ones hitherto not covered, such as garlanding with chappals, defiling objects sacred to SC/STs, forced tonsuring of head, etc. The number of casteist offences that did not have a section under which prosecution could be initiated has thus been minimised.

Third, to address the problem of endless delays, the Amendment mandates that trials must be completed within two months, “as far as possible”.

Finally, the Bill defines the content of “wilful negligence” by public servants, which had been left vague in the 1989 legislation. It specifies, for instance, that the duties whose negligence would attract penal provisions under the POA Act include not registering a FIR under the Act, not reading out to the victims the information given orally and recorded in writing, not registering a FIR under the appropriate sections of the Act, and so on.

The overall expectation from the Amendment Bill is that it will address the two major challenges for SC/STs seeking justice: endless delays, and the police either refusing to co-operate or colluding with the non-SC accused.

The law and its limitations

While the activists who have campaigned for this legislation remain hopeful that it will empower them in the battle to protect SC/STs from atrocities, they are also conscious of its limitations, both social and juridical.

At the social level, the Bill follows the definition of SCs as laid down in the Constitution. This means that only Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist Dalits are recognised as SCs under the law. Thus, Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims will not benefit from it. This is a serious flaw as Dalits from other faiths also face caste violence. For instance, the victims of the infamous Karamchedu massacre of 1985 included Dalit Christians.

Says Mr. Nathan, “We wanted to expand the law to include Muslims and Christians. But the feedback we received from the government was that since this needs a constitutional amendment, it could take a long time. So even this proposed amendment would get delayed. So we decided to take one step at a time.”

Second, the Bill cannot help migrant Dalits either, since the legal definitions of SCs are geographically grounded, linking specific castes to specific States and districts.

These shortcomings apart, legal experts are of the view that even juridically, this legislation may not yield a dramatic change in legal outcomes — at least not in the short term. Saurav Datta, a criminal justice reforms activist, elaborates. “What has been the main reason why convictions don’t happen in cases of caste atrocities? It is because our courts have steadfastly refused to see caste prejudice or caste hatred as a key component of what we call the mens rea or criminal intention. Take the 2006 Khairlanji massacre, for example. The courts refused to accept that the brutalities inflicted were because of caste. There were convictions, but they were for murder, not for any offence under the POA Act.”

The law makes a distinction between a crime and an atrocity: a crime is any act punishable by law; but an atrocity denotes “the quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane”. It also implies “any offence under the IPC committed against SCs by non-SC persons”. Caste considerations as a motive are “not necessary to make such an offence an atrocity.”

Yet, as Mr. Datta points out, the Indian judiciary, including the Supreme Court, has repeatedly chosen to treat atrocities rooted in caste like any ‘normal’ crime under the IPC. “If an SC woman is raped by a non-SC, the courts might give a conviction for rape. But that still doesn’t recognise the caste origin of the atrocity — in which case, it doesn’t really help the Dalit cause.”

Everyone agrees that the best thing about this Bill is that it will make it easier for Dalits to file cases. “But when prosecution happens, will the cases stand in court? Or will we see cases simply piling up?” asks Mr. Datta. “Only when this law yields a precedent or two of successful prosecutions in the higher courts will the Dalits finally have something concrete. For this to happen, the judiciary must first make a conscious effort to rid itself of caste prejudice.”

Professor G. Mohan Gopal, director, Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Contemporary Studies, presents a different view. “It won’t be easy to get the new Bill implemented in its spirit,” he admits. “But it is nevertheless an important tool from the perspective of Dalit rights. It has given the Dalits a useful lever to mobilise around, and deepen their struggle. As their movement gains in strength, the law’s implementation will also gradually improve.”

All said and done, laws alone do not deter atrocities; convictions do. The SC/ST POA Amendment Bill, 2015 is a step in the right direction. But Dalit rights activists and civil society have their task cut out to make the judiciary and the state responsive to this legislation. A lot will depend on their success in sensitising the public to the insidious nature and wide prevalence of caste prejudice and privilege.

Source: thehindu.com/sunday-anchor/sunday-anchor-g-sampaths-article-on-children-of-a-different-law/article7569719.ece

URL:http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-politics/by-g-sampath/children-of-a-different-law/d/104425

Don't Manipulate Census Data to Support Half-Truths

By Faizan Mustafa

Aug 31, 2015

The long-awaited 2011 census data on religious communities has now been released prior to the crucial Bihar elections. In spite of demands from several quarters caste data has not yet been released. There are concerns about the rise in Muslim population and marginal decline in the Hindu growth rate, which has gone down to 79.8% with 966.3 million Hindus in absolute numbers.

Muslims constitute 14.23% and make up 172.2 million. In spite of large-scale alleged conversions to Christianity, they continue to be a meagre 2.3% of our population. Statistically speaking there is no possibility of Muslims ever overtaking Hindus in terms of numbers. Therefore, false propaganda on this count must stop.

There is no doubt that just like previous census reports the Muslim growth rate is certainly higher than the Hindus. Thus while the Hindu population grew by 16.76%, Muslims increased their number by 24.6%. But the vital fact which should not be overlooked is that there is a remarkable decline in the population growth of both the majority community as well as the minority community.

In fact, it is heartening to notice that the decline is highest amongst the Muslims as they have recorded a huge decline from 29.52% to 24.6%. The other heartening feature is that the Muslim growth rate in educated Kerala is lower than all the communities of northern states, thereby proving the thesis that fertility rates have nothing to do with religion. Education, financial status, health care and regional factors are far more important than religion.

The use of birth control in Islam is part of the wide complex of its ideas and social institutions. The Islamic attitude towards family planning consists only of the opinion of jurists since the Quran says nothing about contraception.

Two contradictory views are presented by theologians. The conservative group is led by Ibn Hazm and Maulana Maududi, and the liberal view, which has the support of a large number of scholars, is led by Imam Ghazali. The former group quotes the Quranic verse: “Kill not your children, on a plea of want. We provide sustenance for you and for them.”

The other group also quotes the Quran: “And one (God’s) sign is, that he has created for you your mates from yourself, that you may dwell in tranquillity with them, and has ordained between you love and mercy.”

In view of absence of an authentic religious text, Imam Ghazali discussed contraception from premises rooted more in profane biology and economics than in strictly religious sources.

Prohibition in Islam was possible only by adducing an original text or by analogy with a given text. Ghazali argued that while abortion and infanticide were crimes against an existing being, contraception was different. While Ghazali accepted some of the motives for birth control, he rejected others as objectionable.

The use of contraception for fear of having daughters is not allowed in Islam. Its use by women for personal reasons — such as that they dislike pregnancy or they have a fetish for absolute cleanliness or simply because they did not want to be bothered about childbirth — are not permitted either.

It must, however, be noted that it was the intent that was objectionable, not the concept of family planning per se.

Ghazali supported the use of contraceptives with one’s wife to protect her from the dangers of childbirth, or simply to preserve her beauty. He also supported the economic reasons for family planning such as wish to limit the family to a manageable size.

Another valid reason for practising contraception in Islam is the well-being of children. The presence of a nursing infant was a major reason for birth control.

It is disgraceful that fanatics continue to malign Indian Muslims for possessing large families. Empirical researches on acceptance of family planning by Muslims do demonstrate that Muslim acceptance of family planning is on the rise.

It has been found that as against 57.8% of Hindus, 45.7% of Muslims practise family planning.

In more than a dozen states, more than 50% of Muslims practise family planning. Here again territorial differences are clearly visible. It is the higher rate of literacy in Kerala which has to be credited for the acceptance of family planning there.

According to the above survey, the rate of decadal increase in family planning acceptance amongst Muslims was 300% as against only 264% amongst Hindus.

This increasing acceptance of family planning is reflected in the sharp decline in the total fertility rates of Muslims in the latest data.

In fact, by 2050 Muslims are expected to reach the replacement levels of fertility. Another positive feature of the data just released is that the Muslim community has further improved the male-female ratio.

As against the Hindu sex ratio of 939 females for 1,000 males, the Muslim community has a healthy sex ratio of 951 females for 1,000 men.

Faizan Mustafa is vice-chancellor, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.

Source: hindustantimes.com/analysis/don-t-manipulate-the-census-data-to-support-half-truths/article1-1385870.aspx

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/current-affairs/by-faizan-mustafa/don-t-manipulate-census-data-to-support-half-truths/d/104426

Hazrat Umar and the Roman ambassador

By Dr A Q Khan

August 31, 2015

Observing the grand entourage of our rulers makes me contrast the personality and reign of Hazrat Umar (ra), the second caliph. He ruled the largest dynasty of the time – almost ten times the size of Pakistan – stretching from Arabia to Azerbaijan and Armenia to Central Asia and Punjab.

Despite their regal lifestyle, our rulers continue to carry a begging bowl. Contrast that to how Hazrat Umar (ra) lived and ruled, his administration and governance. Our leaders could learn much from his way of governance. Should you wish to know more about Hazrat Umar (ra), please read Al-Farooq by Shibli Naumani. Here I would like to write about the visit of the Roman ambassador to Hazrat Umar (ra). I am reproducing this event as described by the indomitable Maulana Rumi, translated by Squadron Leader Waliuddin as Sel-e-Masnavi and published by the Kifayat Academy, Karachi and Lahore.

“Listen to a story so that you also learn something. A messenger from the Roman king came to Madina and asked the people for the address of the palace of the Caliph Umar (RA) so he could present the gifts he had brought. The people told him that Hazrat Umar (RA) had no palace and though he was renowned as a ruler, he lived like an ordinary poor person. How could you appreciate his grandeur when you are already prejudiced? You must remember that the Almighty is present everywhere, just like the moon.

“Had not the people asked the Prophet Noah where the blessings were that he had promised them. Some people with eyes are blind and cannot see the truth. On hearing this, the ambassador became even more curious to meet Umar (RA). He left his horse and presents unattended and went in search the Caliph. After looking around an Arab lady told him that Umar (RA) was sleeping on a mat under a date tree.

“The ambassador went there and stood at a distance and stared at the sleeping caliph. He thought that, while he had seen emperors and kings, he was never overawed; he had seen tigers and leopards and had never felt fear; he had fought many wars, his body had been covered with wounds and he had wounded many strong and powerful opponents, but he had never been afraid; I have always been a brave person, he thought, but this person, Hazrat Umar (RA), is sleeping unarmed and my whole body is trembling with awe. It is definitely due to a divine presence, not of a human being. One who is afraid of the Almighty and follows the right path can infuse fear into the hearts of others. Standing in deep thought, he just stared at the sleeping caliph.

“After about an hour Hazrat Umar (RA) woke up. The ambassador greeted him with the utmost respect. Umar (RA) greeted him back (our Holy Prophet [pbuh] advised to always greet first and then talk) and asked him to come closer and sit by him. Through his polite and kind behaviour, Umar (RA) put the ambassador totally at ease and made him happy. Then Umar (RA) explained the finer points of Islam, the one-ness of God, about His prophets and about His blessings on His prophets and pious people. Then Umar (RA) explained about the soul, the soul’s journey and its destination. Umar (RA) found this stranger to be quite receptive and put in his heart the gist of Islam.

“The ambassador asked many questions about the creation of the soul (human beings) and was informed that it was in the power of the Almighty to say ‘Be’ and it was done. The Almighty said something to the earth and it pushed out water. The same is true for human beings. When they are in trouble and facing a complex situation, then it is Allah, and only Allah Almighty, Who guides them what to do and how to do it. Umar (RA) advised the ambassador to turn towards Allah to understand the secrets of the Almighty. The revelation is nothing but to talk to the inner truth. Therefore, remembering that there is no God but Allah has made me more of a believer in Allah.

“My friend, this love for Allah and belief in His presence is no compulsion. This is a light – the light of the moon. My son, this compulsion, force, is felt only by those whose eyes and hearts have been unsealed by the Almighty. They can see the secrets of the future. It is child’s play to them to know about the past. Their power is just like the drops of water in a shell which are turned into beautiful pearls by the Almighty, or like the drops of blood in the intestine of a deer which is turned into musk. How copper is turned into gold is a manifestation of the Almighty’s work.

“This power and compulsion is just in your imagination. When you look deep down into it, you will realise that all this is the work of the Almighty. See, the bread on the plate is a dead thing, but when it enters the body of a human being, it becomes life, the soul of the body. It is not possible to distribute the bread when on the plate, but when it goes into the body, the body distributes it according to requirements.

“When life has so much power and strength, imagine what power the Creator of that life must have. Think about the strength of a mine. On the face of it, man is nothing but a bundle of flesh and bones, but this creature can dig into mountains, bringing out the precious metals and stones. Look how the stone-breaker (Farhad) cut into stone but how our Prophet (pbuh) was able to cut the moon into two. If you understand these secrets and miracles, then you can reach the sky. If the Almighty chooses to open all these secrets, love for Him can burn the whole world.”

After this discourse, the ambassador embraced Islam and did not return to his emperor.

Tailpiece: Due to lack of space I have severely shortened the text, which has somewhat lessened its impact, for which I apologise.

In my previous column, the name of a competent officer, Col Amjad, was erroneously left out. He made valuable contributions to our programme and could issue orders just with the movement of a finger.

Source: thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-337375-Hazrat-Umar-and-the-Roman-ambassador

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-spiritualism/by-dr-a-q-khan/hazrat-umar-and-the-roman-ambassador/d/104424

ISIS, Slavery, and Islamic Abolitionism

ISIS, Slavery, and Islamic Abolitionism

By Usaama al-Azami

29/08/2015

Does Islam sanction slavery? Until recently, this question would have been seen as somewhat outlandish or else academic. It is akin to the question: does Christianity sanction slavery? Aside from the odd embarrassing right-wing talk show host in the US, the latter question does not generally arise these days except in academic and theological discussions.

In a perspicacious and amusingly devious piece, The Economist points out that a "hyper-literal" reading of scripture would render Judaism and Christianity liable to practicing slavery, too.

That the overwhelming majority of modern Muslims reject slavery does not make them that different to adherents of other religions today. One may extrapolate from this that it does not make ISIS "Islamic" in anything other than an academic sense. The same sense in which, say, the KKK is Christian.

The modern rejection of slavery, then, has been true for virtually all modern Muslim countries until very recently, when ISIS (which claims for itself the title of "the Islamic State"), revived unreconstructed medieval legal interpretations that have been obsolete since modern states throughout the Muslim world banned slavery over the past 200 years.

I stress that these are legal interpretations of the Prophet Muhammad's legacy, not the legacy itself, for which abolitionist interpretations are the most dominant today. Again, this is true for modern interpretations of Judaism and Christianity, as well.

In a late 2014 issue of its English-speaking magazine, ISIS elaborated a justification for reviving slavery in the present day, and as the New York Times details in a lengthystory in the past month, they have systematically put their slave-holding beliefs in practice. In painful detail, the Times documents the horrors of ISIS' practice of sexual slavery including the abuse of girls as young as 11. ISIS attempts to justify its horrific acts in the name of scripture. But to what extent is their reading of scripture reasonable?

The trouble with expert opinion

To answer this question, the Times consulted two experts with opposing views. The first, Kecia Ali, an associate professor at Boston University, and a leading expert on Islam and slavery states that, "In the milieu in which the Quran arose, there was a widespread practice of men having sexual relationships with unfree women," adding: "It wasn't a particular religious institution. It was just how people did things."

As a counter view, the Times author cites a colleague of mine at Princeton, Cole Bunzel, who is a specialist in Wahhabi theology and an expert on ISIS. He points to centuries of Islamic legal scholarship that took for granted that slavery was perfectly acceptable.

The Economist, which usually strikes a better tone than most when dealing with Islamic issues, does something similar to the Times in an article from a week or so later. To its credit, it notes that Muslim scholars--it uses the term "preachers"--have been clamorous in their rejection of ISIS' slave practices.

But then, in asking whether ISIS does in fact "adhere to Islamic tradition," they also cite two opposing views. The first is a Muslim scholar and theologian--a graduate from a Saudi Salafi seminary with a doctorate from Yale--who they characterize as an "apologist" and refer to as "Mr [Yasir] Qadhi." The Economist appears unaware that he happens to be an assistant professor at Rhodes College in Tennessee. This Muslim theologian elaborates the argument that Islam advocates abolition.

The opposing view is presented in the newspaper by an Israeli academic, "Professor Ehud Toledano" who is undoubtedly an expert on the history of Islamic slavery. This passage is worth quoting in full:

Other scholars insist, however, that [ISIS'] treatment of Yazidis adheres to Islamic tradition. "They are in full compliance with Koranic understanding in its early stages," says Professor Ehud Toledano, a leading authority on Islamic slavery at Tel Aviv University. Moreover, "what the Prophet has permitted, Muslims cannot forbid." The Prophet's calls to release slaves only spurred a search for fresh stock as the new empire spread, driven by commerce, from sub-Saharan Africa to the Persian Gulf. [My italics.]

For both papers, it is somewhat ironic that Muslims are the ones advocating a form of Islam that rejects slavery, and non-Muslim scholars are attempting to justify ISIS' actions on Islamic grounds. Kecia Ali's recent article on ISIS and slavery, written after she was cited by the Times, makes a useful point in this connection. She states:

It is one thing for committed religious thinkers to insist that scripture must always and everywhere apply literally, but it is ludicrous for purportedly objective scholars to do so. Anyone making that argument about biblical slavery would be ridiculed.

In making an academic point about Islamic history, both Bunzel and Toledano are also intervening in a current Islamic debate in which they are unintentionally siding with ISIS over the global Muslim community and its scholars.

As Kecia Ali is suggesting, surely it is Muslims who decide on how their religion is to be understood. It is one thing to describe the historical state of affairs in the Islamic legal tradition; it is entirely something else to intervene in a live Islamic argument, and take what most Muslims would consider the wrong side--a side that is also viewed as morally repugnant by most of the globe, including the commentators themselves. This is all the more dangerous given the dramatic rise of Islamophobia in the Western world in recent years.

Academics and public statements on Islam

While their citations provide useful material for understanding ISIS' perverse theology, such generalizations about Islam can unwittingly give scholarly cover for Islamophobia, leaving the anti-ISIS Muslim majority to pick up the pieces. "These Muslims, and their leading theologians, can declare ISIS' beliefs un-Islamic, but what do they know compared to Western academics?"

The editorial choice to give such academic voices equal weight in deciding this issue seems highly problematic. It would not be viewed as reasonable in the case of either Judaism or Christianity. As noted earlier, The Economist astutely points out in a previous article that this applies one rule to Muslims and another rule to Jews and Christians when it comes to violent passages in their scriptures.

Given the rise of Islamophobia in recent years, it seems that academics, non-Muslim and Muslim, bear an additional burden of contextualizing when they step out of the ivory tower to speak publicly on Islamic issues.

Abolitionism in modern Islam

Thus, while there is no denying that slavery existed in the medieval world in which Islam emerged, the vast majority of Muslims scholars today, like their counterparts in Judaism and Christianity, roundly reject slavery.

They argue that the Islamic scriptures' emphasis has always been the emancipation of slaves, although medieval Muslim scholars, like contemporaneous Jewish and Christian scholars, did not push for abolition. Modern Muslim scholars, on the other hand, reject slavery and condemn ISIS' practices.

An oft-quoted maxim of Islamic jurisprudence informs Muslim jurists that legal rulings change with time and place. Hence, it is less relevant, according to Islamic law as practiced by Muslims throughout Islamic history, what scripture says, and more a question of how it applies to a given context.

In this respect, Muslim scholars over the past century have developed systematic and scripturally rigorous arguments to say that while slavery existed in the time of the Prophet, and was widely practiced by all religious traditions in the Middle East, this is no longer acceptable today.

As an outsider, one may find the argumentation more or less convincing with respect to scripture, but what really matters is what Muslims think; and Muslims have overwhelmingly come to accept such a proposition in their practice. In fact, the abolition of slavery has been declared a matter of juristic consensus, which raises the legal authority of such an opinion to the unimpeachable level of scripture itself.

Using the academic point that ISIS identifies with Islam to suggest that thisvanishingly small minority of Muslims are on an equal footing with the rest of the world's Muslims comes dangerously close to supporting ISIS' extreme view of the religion. This would be akin to saying the KKK are representative of Christians, since they too, like their anti-abolitionist predecessors, would support their arguments with scripture.

Slavery in Islamic History

The Economist, in its most recent treatment of the issue of slavery implies that, in part, slavery persisted in Muslim lands because sometimes being a slave was highly desirable. It notes that there were cases in which being a slave was "[a] path to power." This is in stark contrast with the recent Western experience of slavery, which was an overwhelmingly negative one for slaves.

Yasir Qadhi, the theologian cited earlier, notes that the majority of Caliphs in 1300 years of Muslim history were the offspring of slaves. The same is true with respect to many senior figures in the political and military establishment.

Being a slave in a Sultan's harem could make a woman quasi-royalty, and the possible mother of a future sultan. Such possibilities were frequently realized. The glamorous end of servitude made harsher forms of peonage simply fall on a spectrum that had both good and bad.

Such factors explain why the Muslim world was late in joining the emerging Western liberal consensus in the 19th century that slavery was a scourge on humanity. For many Muslims it must have been a difficult argument to make sense of.

Indeed, it must have seemed to a privileged class of late Ottomans that the West was simply bent on destroying the means of social mobility that had ensured their own success. Abolishing such a system would prevent the often marginal communities they originated from enjoying such privileges in the future.

Many of these privileges arose as a consequence of the Prophet Muhammad's active amelioration of the conditions of servitude in 7th century Arabia. Haroon Moghul explores some of the regulations Muhammad introduced in his excellent piece: "Why it (still) makes little sense to call ISIS Islamic."

Among other things, he deals with the serious charge that Islam sanctions rape. This, he shows, is not only rejected by modern Muslims and their scholars; it has no sanction in the teachings of Muhammad.

Once again, this does not mean that medieval interpretations of Islam did not have problems in how they conceived of the ideas of consent, rape, and underage sex; but these interpretations are not particularly relevant to how modern Muslims conceive of their tradition. Nor is this a uniquely Islamic problem.

The notions of consent, rape, and underage marriage as we understand them today only arose in the last few decades challenging not only religion, but earlier interpretations of Liberalism. For modern followers of any tradition, whether it be Islam, Christianity, or Liberalism, the relevant question is not so much: what did past adherents think, but how should we understand our tradition today?

On all of these issues, in addition to slavery, the view of Muslim scholars is that there is no religious requirement to maintain past ideas. The task of Muslim scholars is to interpret Prophetic teachings in a way that is suitable for our times, while remaining faithful to those teachings.

Once again, what constitutes faithfulness to these teachings is a judgment that Muslims must make, and the vast majority of them have no problem making such judgments in a way that harmonizes with modern international law.

Speaking out against slave-like conditions

This brings us to another issue. In the article already cited, The Economist also discusses the prevalence of worker abuse in many Muslim countries, as is the case with migrant workers in the Gulf, and notes that though this is not technically slavery, it is "slave-like."

This, the paper speculates, owes something to the history of proslavery practices in medieval Islam. The article concludes by asking: "Is it too much to hope that the Islamic clerics denouncing slavery might also condemn other instances of forced and abusive labour?"

This is an important question for Muslim scholars that too few are dealing with. Why might this be? In the same paragraph, The Economist concedes that with respect to such issues, "Western governments generally have other priorities."

Sadly, many Muslim scholars are not that different, and sometimes it is difficult to fault them too much. Western governments wish to maintain cozy economic and geostrategic relations with its allies in the region, despite their abysmal domestic human rights records.

Similarly, most scholars in the Middle East are usually too beholden to these states to say anything against them. In the autocratic cultures that have re-entrenched after the short-lived democratic experiments in the region, free speech has been curtailed even more dramatically than before. Few people are willing to undertake the thankless task of speaking out about workers rights.

One of the few exceptions of a local scholar speaking out against the abuse of workers in the Gulf is found in a remark by Tariq Ramadan, who is the director of an Islamic research centre in Doha, besides his teaching post at Oxford University.

He stated in a lecture at the Qatar Foundation in 2014 that there was a need for greater "self-criticism," that "human rights violations are against Islamic principles and ethical standards," and that there was a "need to teach people that such practices are completely unacceptable on religious and moral grounds."

But such statements are extremely rare to find. This issue is not one that has been taken up by scholars in the region, and it may be easier for a Western 'expatriate' scholar like Tariq Ramadan to say such things in English rather than Arabic.

A scholar's responsibility

Islamic scholars can't be let off the hook so easily, however. Indeed they have a lot to answer for. The Islamic scholars' self-image, past and present, has been that of the moral standard bearer in society. Such a claimed status naturally brings responsibilities.

In this regard, they have often been failing miserably, and the recurring crises of the Muslim world should be a wake-up call for them. This is arguably also the case for Muslim scholars and academics in the West, though this is unfortunatelycontroversial in Western academia.

It is not difficult to find reasons to be highly critical about the abuse of migrant workers on religious as well as more generally ethical grounds. One may cite the Prophetic statement exhorting a person to pay and otherwise render rights owed to hired workers, "before their sweat has dried."

By contrast, many workers in Qatar, the richest country per capita in the world, wait months to be paid. The commentary on the Prophetic statement notes that delayed or reduced payments constitute cruelty, oppression, and the abuse of trust, all of which are condemned in scripture in no uncertain terms.

Muslim scholars in the Gulf, where migrant workers are routinely abused, and have frequently died in large numbers due to unsafe working conditions, should speak publicly about such matters, and use the potency of religiously grounded arguments to raise public awareness regarding such issues. This could lead to real change, while empowering Muslim scholars with ethical agency in their communities.

Returning to the original question of this piece: does Islam sanction slavery? Muslims today, like their counterparts in other major religions, overwhelmingly respond in the negative. In combating the blight that is ISIS, it serves everyone better if their attempts at reviving slavery today on Islamic grounds are understood for the anachronism they are, and treated as they should be, with scorn and ridicule.

huffingtonpost.com/usaama-alazami/isis-slavery-and-islamic-abolitionism_b_8050606.html?ir=India&adsSiteOverride=in

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-human-rights/by-usaama-al-azami/isis,-slavery,-and-islamic-abolitionism/d/104430

The Vatican as a Principle

The Vatican as a Principle

By Maulana Wahiduddin Khan for New Age Islam

The Vatican City is a walled enclave within the city of Rome. With an area of approximately 110 acres, and a population of little more than 800, it is the smallest internationally recognized independent state in the world in terms of both area and population. The independent city-state came into existence in 1929 by the Lateran Treaty between the Holy See and the government of Italy.

For centuries, each succeeding Pope was the uncrowned king of Christian Europe. Today, a palace for the Pope still exists in the city of Rome. But, in later times, great differences arose between the Church and secular people. The Pope ultimately saw that he could not return to the previous position, so he agreed to confine his jurisdiction to the Vatican City, which is recognized by the government of Italy. Eventually, even from this territorially small domain, the Pope continued to hold great religious sway not only over Italy, but also over many other parts of the world.

This history of the Vatican gives us an important principle—if you cannot keep your control over the whole, then agree to restrict yourself to a small part. Muslims who are engaged in infructuous fighting in different countries should take the opportunity to succeed in the same way in other fields—that is, they should be ready to accept a “Vatican”.

Now, let us take the case of Saddam Hussein (1937 – 2006). He was the ruler of Iraq for almost twenty-one years. Towards the end of this period, circumstances went against his rule and it became clear that he would not be able to retain his former position. However, he continued to fight unnecessarily until on December 20, 2006 he was executed. Saddam Hussein was an educated person. Had he drawn lessons from history, it would have been possible for him to live in Iraq as in a “Vatican”.

At that time, Saddam Hussein owned eight palaces in Iraq. U.N. documents list eight main Saddam Hussein palace compounds containing more than 1,000 buildings – luxury mansions, smaller guest villas, office complexes, warehouses and garages – and covering some 32 square kilometres (7,900 acres) in total.

The area of the Vatican is a mere 110 acres, while the cumulative area of Saddam Hussein’s eight palaces was 7,900 acres. This story shows that it could have been possible for Saddam Hussein to establish a peaceful kingdom for himself. He could have given up political power and, with his eight palaces, he could have built the largest university of the world. Stanford University, the second largest university in the world at present, has an area of 8,000 acres. Had Saddam Hussein changed his thinking from the political to the peaceful, he could have made a university compound of 7,900 acres. It would have been regarded as one of the biggest educational centres in the world.

Saddam Hussein was obsessed with political power and so he could not understand the importance of the non-political option available to him. This is the case of all Muslim leaders of the present age—they have remained unrealistically obsessed with political power. But political power has limitations, so it has not been possible for them to achieve their goals through it. When they have not been able to achieve their goals, they have become seriously frustrated, as inevitably happens when human beings go against the law of nature.

Barack Obama entered the White House on January 20, 2009 as the President of the United States of America. He was also elected to serve a second term in November 2012, and was sworn in as president for the second time on January 20, 2013. In the beginning, he was very hopeful of bringing about a change in America under his presidency. But even after serving for two terms, he has not been able to bring about the desired change in his country. He himself admitted this fact on June 18, 2015:

 ‘I am frustrated, and you have every right to be frustrated, because Congress doesn’t work the way it should.  Issues are left untended. Folks are more interested in scoring political points than getting things done – not because any individual member of Congress is a bad person – there are a lot of good, well-meaning, hardworking people out there – but because the incentives that have been built into the system reward short term, reward a polarized politics, reward being simplistic instead of being true, reward division. And as mightily as I have struggled against that […] It still is broken.’

This statement has a great lesson for those Muslim activists who are fighting for the same unrealistic goal, that is, to bring about change through political power. Almost all political leaders have been obsessed with political authority. They wanted to acquire political position so that they would be able to bring about change. But history tells us that this is a case of having exaggerated expectations of political power, because when these leaders acquired political authority, they were still unable to bring about any real change.

History shows that no one has been able to bring about change through political activism. According to the law of nature, real change always comes through peaceful struggle in non-political fields.

For his 1991 Gulf war, Saddam Hussein used the word Umm al-Ma’arik (Mother of All Battles). But this proved to be a complete failure. Had Saddam Hussein, on the contrary, converted his eight palaces into an educational complex, his peaceful institution would have been alive even today.

History tells us that war is like a rootless tree. A storm can completely uproot it. But a peaceful plan is like a tree which stands upright on its own strong roots and remains unaffected by storms.

A war plan has never been crowned by success in history. However, peaceful plans have always been successful. Those who do not take heed from this experience of history are not choosing a course which has been successful in the past nor will it ever be so in the future. A war plan is doomed to failure, while a peace plan will certainly bring success.

In the present age the story of all Muslim leaders is like that of Saddam Hussein. Each had the possibility to make a big or small peaceful empire by utilizing whatever resources were available. However, all of them took to violence. In this way they destroyed both themselves and also others.

The time has come to put an end to any violent course of action in the twenty-first century and make new plans to tread the path of peace. The failure of those who choose to take to violence will clearly be attributable to their unwillingness to learn from the past.

URL:http://www.newageislam.com/spiritual-meditations/by-maulana-wahiduddin-khan-for-new-age-islam/the-vatican-as-a-principle/d/104427