OIC statement on Kashmir hurting interests of 150 million Indian Muslims

By Sultan Shahin

New Delhi has done well to reject observations made by the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) on Kashmir calling it a burning political dispute and reiterate that ‘Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India’. It is customary for OIC to make references to the State in a rather gratuitous manner, without showing any concern for the interests of over 150 million Muslims living in India peacefully and participating in all walks of life.

It would be best if OIC were to leave Indian Muslims including Kashmiris to live in peace and not create problems for them by focussing attention on them as separatists or supporters of secessionism. If it can’t do them any good it should at least leave them in peace. One would have felt greater respect for OIC if it focussed attention on encouraging Muslim countries to treat their minorities better: this would automatically strengthen the case of Muslims living as minorities in non-Muslim majority lands. India is the only major non-Muslim majority country to allow Muslims not only full share in its socio-economic life but also to live their family life in accordance with their religious laws. Let us not forget that no other major country, democratic or otherwise allows Muslims this luxury of managing their family life according to Muslim Personal Law.

India has done well to reject the comments on Jammu and Kashmir in the final document of the recent OIC summit at Dakar, Senegal, saying the forum has no locus standi in matters concerning its internal affairs. The Secretary General of the 57-member organisation, Ekmeleddin Ibsanoglu, described Kashmir as a pressing and burning political dispute. Noting with “regret” the reference to Kashmir in the document that followed the summit on March 13 and 14, a Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson said, “The OIC has no locus standi in matters concerning our internal affairs, including Jammu and Kashmir, which is an integral part of India. We strongly reject all such comments. It is customary for the OIC to make such references to the State.”

India also took strong exception to the OIC’s “concern” over the “alarming increase in indiscriminate use of force and gross violation of human rights committed against innocent Kashmiris” and regret that India was not allowing a fact- finding mission to visit the State. Unfortunately, the OIC’s comments come at a time when violence is at a lower level than five years ago and the State it is gearing for Assembly polls. Apparently OIC is not conversant with the realities on the ground in Kashmir.

India is also displeased with good reason with a resolution that said New Delhi was “maligning” the “legitimate” Kashmiri freedom struggle by “denigrating” it as terrorism. This is strange as even according to the recent definition of the Ulema convention at Deoband attended by tens of thousands clerics the killing of innocents that has been going on in Kashmir for some time is to be considered terrorism.

The MEA also has reasons to believe that the resolution is lopsided as it showered encomiums on Pakistan for moving towards a peaceful settlement while remaining silent on India’s contribution to several joint initiatives. The OIC doesn’t seem to understand that Pakistan has no policy on Kashmir beyond seeking to embarrass India in international fora, now that its previous policy of forcing India to the negotiating table by exerting pressure of the so-called “Jihad” has failed, having taken the lives of tens of thousands of Kashmiris and other Indians.

The OIC, however, showed some sense too. A resolution at the summit welcomed the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan as also the opening of the bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad. It also welcomed the fact that leaders of both countries agreed to build on convergences and narrow down the divergences in the joint search for mutually acceptable options for a negotiated peaceful settlement of issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, in a sincere and purposeful manner.

My URL: myspace.com/sultanshahin

Also see:

http://rethinkingislam-sultanshahin.blogspot.com

Indian Muslim women deserve congratulations for their new marriage code

Indian Muslim women deserve congratulations for their new marriage code

By Sultan Shahin

Indian Muslim women deserve congratulations for coming out with their own marriage code. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) is using its clout in the media to denigrate this move. But they have yet to come out with a coherent answer to the question: after all, what is wrong or un-Islamic about the new women’s proposed code. Before criticising the women board’s effort and calling it irrelevant and useless and so on, they should come out with cogent explanations of what is wrong with it.

Our experience with ulema is not very encouraging. I am certain that if someone were to go to the ulema, at least in Phulwari Sharif, Patna, of which I have some experience, and say I dreamt of having divorced my wife thrice in one go, they would say that he is now divorced and if he wants to live with his wife now he should hand over his wife to an aalim or someone else for the dastardly practice of halala. I know of a case where a woman had been divorced during pregnancy and though there is a provision in Islamic law that such a divorce should not take effect unless the husband were to feel the same way and repeat his pronouncement even after the birth of the child, the ulema pronounced divorce as legal as per their habit. The practice of ulema’s ruling in the case of Muslim family dispute is indeed quite ridiculous. Their fatwas could indeed be termed hilarious, if they were not so dangerous. In fact any one with a modicum of sense of humour who wants to have a good laugh can do nothing better than sit down with a voluminous book of fatwas pronounced by ulema on a variety of subjects, ranging from the ludicrous - whether one should put one’s left or right foot forward first while going to the loo – to the relevant disputes in family lives that can rebuild or destroy people’s lives.

I do not have a copy of the new or old nikahnama and cannot form a very well-informed opinion in the matter. But from the reports in the media, the new one looks quite formidable and commendable and need of the hour.

The following points have been made in media reports. I am citing them below to keep them on record:

Daring the ulema and orthodox Muslims, the All India Muslim Women

Personal Law Board in its "Shariat Nikahnama" released on Sunday, March 16, 2008, has come up with a host of measures that ensures that Muslim women get their right. Not only does it recognise the right of women to seek divorce (khhula) and separation, it ensures financial settlement with an eye to the welfare of the woman and her children, advises registration of marriages and forbids forceful marriages.

The new code also rejects talaq through SMS, e-mail, phone and video conferencing. Talaq on provocation will not be considered either.

According to it, talaq to be valid should be spread over three months to give the couple ample time to reconsider the issue. "We are not scared of the mullah, but the Allah," said Shaista Amber, chairperson of the AIMWPLB. "The mullahs will never come to the rescue of destitute women. Why should the Muslim woman be scared to seek khhula when this right has been provided to her by the Allah?"

The new Nikahnama has a 17-point Hidayatnama (guidlines for marriage under the Shariat law for bride and groom) and an 8-point section on the process of talaq. The Hidayatnama declares that any forceful nikah is not acceptable. Forceful dowry has also been forbidden. Amber said the new "Shariat Nikahnama" was very different from the model Nikahnama of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB).

"The model Nikahnama had not taken care of the women's rights as per the Koran. The new Nikahnama maintains the equilibrium," she said. While the model Nikahnama is in Urdu, Shariat Nikahnama is available both in Hindi and Urdu so it reaches more people. Ms. Amber said it had been prepared in Urdu and Hindi so that the common people could understand the “rights and responsibilities of the husband and wife.” She said it had “three forms of which one is for registration of the ‘nikah’ at the Registrar of Marriages. The other two are for the Qazi, who solemnises the marriage, and for the bride and the groom.”

"The woman has full authority to seek khhula under Shariat law, from her husband if the husband harasses her and her children," said Amber.

She claimed that the “Shariat nikahnama” was better in many ways as “its language is easy and it contains the rights of women.” “In the old ‘nikahnama,’ there is no provision for address verification; registration of marriages has not been made compulsory and the rights of women have not been clearly laid down. Besides, it is in Urdu and everyone cannot understand it properly,” Ms. Amber said.

The woman must approach the Darul Kaza (a Shariat court) for seeking divorce under khhula. In case of talaq, all gifts received during the marriage and afterwards will be the property of the bride. In absence of a divorce, the Nikahnama says any woman can go for separation if the husband is missing for four years, has an illicit relationship with another woman or refused to disclose HIV status before or after marriage. Besides, issues like not providing food, clothes and other essentials will also be counted as grounds for separation. In case of separation, the woman has the right to mehar.

To avoid controversy, the new Nikahnama also rules that three forms should be filled in during nikah - one each for the marriage bureau, the bride and groom and the quazi. Muslim women had criticised the model Nikahnama of the AIMPLB, released in 2005, saying it failed to address the contentious issue of "triple talaq".

Unveiling the new Muslim Marriage Act drafted by a 30-member executive body, AIMWPLB chairperson Shaista Amber told a news conference in Lucknow, U. P. that it was an improvement on other ‘nikahnamas’ and “its authenticity cannot be challenged” as every provision was in accordance with the Shariat and it quoted the Koran. She said it would mitigate the “agonies and sufferings of women” arising out of divorce and gives more rights to the wife.

Senior AIMPLB member Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangimahali termed the new nikahnama useless and irrelevant. He said “already there is a nikahnama issued by the AIMPLB, there is no room for another one.” He said the old one was as per the Koran and Shariat and was in practice. On the compulsory registration of the Muslim marriages, he told PTI that the Board had already made it clear that it would support this only when some conditions were fulfilled. “We have said marriages should not be held invalid in the absence of registration. Besides, the ulema solemnising the marriages could be given the powers of the registrar of marriages for the purpose of registration,” Maulana Firangimahali said.

It certainly is time to take a stand against the obscurantists among Muslims

It certainly is time to take a stand against the obscurantists among Muslims

In orthodox Islamic theology, the Ex-Muslims of Britain should have as much right to renounce religion or convert to other religions as those from other religions have to convert to Islam. Quranic injunction – La Ikraha fid Deen (There can be no compulsion in religion) - is absolute and admits of no ifs and buts. The obscurantists who consider it wrong are of course another matter. The vast majority of Muslims have to learn to deal with the obscurantists among them before they destroy their religion.

It’s sad and shameful for us Muslims that ex-Muslims have to make such a song and dance about merely exercising their human right, given to them as much by Islam as by other laws of choosing or denying a religion. That they have a legitimate reason for even being afraid of being attacked or worse does not reflect well on either the sanity or the Islamic commitment of the Muslim community. Head of the Council of Ex-Muslims in Britain Maryam Namazie’s article in The Times, London, is being reproduced below as it deserves as wide readership as possible, even though I do not agree with her that It’s time to take a stand against Islam and Sharia. But it certainly is time to understand Islam and Sharia better and take an uncompromising stand against the obscurantists among Muslims.

Also included in this post is Pakistani scholar Pervez Hoodbhoy’s article in the Times of India in which he justifiably questions the rationalisation of suicide bombings by Deobandi ulema. He writes: “In January 2008, 30 leading Deobandi religious scholars, while declaring suicide attacks haram", rationalised these as a mere reaction to the government's wrong policies in the tribal areas. They concluded: “A peaceful demand for implementing Shariah was not only rejected but the government was also not willing to give ear to any reasoning based on Qur'an and Sunna in support of the sharia demand. Apparently, these circumstances led some minds to the frustration that manifested itself in suicide attacks".

“What message are these ulema sending?

“That Pakistanis should surrender to Islamic extremists and adopt the sharia to avoid being attacked? This amounts to encouragement and incitement. Why do Pakistanis suddenly lose their voice when it comes to suicide bombings? First, the bomber — even if he kills pious Muslims or even those in the act of prayer — kills in the name of Islam. Therefore, people mute their criticism lest they be regarded as irreligious or even blasphemous.” Please see the full text below.

Sultan Shahin

It’s time to take a stand against Islam and Sharia

The Times, UK

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article3530256.ece

Maryam Namazie, head of the Council of Ex-Muslims in Britain, says that rights are for individuals, not religions or beliefs

Picture this, says Maryam Namazie: "A child is swathed in cloth from head to toe every day. Everything but her face and hands are covered for fear that a man might find her attractive. At school she learns that she is worth less than a boy. She is not allowed to dance or swim or feel the sun on her skin or the wind in her hair. This is clearly unacceptable, yet it is accepted when it is done in the name of religion."

Namazie is the founder of the Council of Ex-Muslims in Britain (CEMB) which started life in the middle of last year. On Monday – in celebration of the centenary of International Women's Day -- she spoke at a conference on Political Islam and Women's Rights, and launched a campaign against Sharia.

Iranian Muslim by birth, Namazie, 41, is friendly and softly spoken. But she does not mince her words. It takes nerve to start an organisation for people who have rejected Islam. In Islamic law, apostasy is punishable by death. Namazie receives periodic threats, usually on her mobile phone:

"One said, 'You are going to be decapitated'...I went to the police. They were very attentive at first because they thought it might be linked to the attempted bombings in Glasgow . But when they realised it wasn't, they never bothered contacting me again." Doesn't she worry about her safety?

"Yes, I do, frequently. I worry about whether I will live, especially now I am a mother. If I see someone looking at me strangely, I wonder." Why doesn't she use a pseudonym? "They can find out who you are anyway. And the point of the Council of Ex-Muslims is to stand up and be counted." She

doesn't really like the label ex-Muslim and would prefer not to frame her identity in religious terms but, she says, it is like gays "coming out"

30 years ago: something has to become public if you are to break taboos. The CEMB has more than 100 members with inquiries from people who do not dare to join. "Some have horrendous stories but do not put them on the website because they are afraid."

Namazie's grandfather was a mullah and her father was brought up a strict Muslim. Both of her parents (now living in America) remain Muslim.

When Namazie told her father about the launch of the CEMB, she remembers that he said: "Oh no, Grandpa is going to be turning in his grave." "So I told him that what I am doing benefits Muslims, too, because if you live in a secular society, you can be a Muslim, a Sikh, a Christian or an atheist and be treated equally." Namazie's opposition to state religion is informed by her own experience. She was 12 when the Iranian revolution "was hijacked by the Ayatollahs" and her country became the Islamic Republic of Iran.

"I had never worn the veil and was at a mixed school. Suddenly a strange man appeared in the playground. He was bearded and had been sent to

separate the sexes -- but we ran circles round him." She can still picture, too, the face of "the Hezbollah" who stopped her in the street because her head was uncovered. "I was 12 or 13. It was really scary." Worse happened to others: "There were beatings and acid was thrown in women's faces, and there were executions on television every day," she says. Then her school was closed "for Islamicisation".

Namazie and her mother left for India. They lived in a B&B in Delhi and Namazie attended the British School while her father and three-year-old sister remained in Tehran. This was meant to be a temporary measure, but soon her father –a journalist -- decided that they all had to leave.

The family spent a year in Bournemouth before travelling to the US where, when Namazie was 17, they were granted residency.

At university, she joined the United Nations Development Programme and went to work with Ethiopian refugees in Sudan. "Six months after I arrived Sudan became an Islamic state. I was, like, this is following me around!" Along with others, Namazie started an unofficial human rights organisation, gathering information on the government. The Sudanese security service called her in for questioning. "I wasn't very respectful and the UN guy who came with me said, 'No wonder your parents took you out of Iran'. The Sudanese guy threatened me, saying, 'you don't know what will happen to you. You might have a motorbike accident or something'." The UN quietly put her on a plane home.

This was a turning point, shifting her from non-practising Muslim to atheist. Two decades on, she is devoting her life to opposing religious power. She is in the midst of organising the first international conference of Ex-Muslims, to be held in London on October 10. And she is about to launch a "no Sharia" campaign.

She must have been shocked, I suggest, when the Archbishop of Canterbury said the introduction of some Sharia in Britain was unavoidable. No, she

says; she wasn't even surprised. "It was quite apt, although he didn't expect the reaction he got. It was an attack on secularism really. It is, in a sense, to his benefit if there are Muslim schools and Sharia. It makes it less likely that

anyone will oppose Christian schools and the privileged place of religion in society."

She is adamant, though, that no form of Sharia should be allowed here. "It is fundamentally discriminatory and misogynist," she says and is dismissive of the idea that people would be able to choose between Sharia and civil jurisdiction. Women could be railroaded into a Sharia court, she says. "This would hit people who need the protection of British law more than anyone else."

She believes that we are confused about the meaning of human rights. "Rights are for individuals, not for religions or beliefs. 'Every human is equal' does not mean that every belief is equal." Islamists portray themselves as victims, she says, and policymakers have bought into this Namazie says that the Muslim Council of Britain should not be seen as representative of British Muslims --but would nonetheless welcome any opportunities to debate with it. "Ex-Muslims are in a good position to challenge political Islam," she says. "We must not let little girls or anyone else lose their human rights. We can't tolerate the intolerable for any reason – including religion."

Council of Ex-Muslims in Britain

www.ex-muslim.org.uk

exmuslimcouncil@googlemail.com; 07719-166731;

http://www.maryamnamazie.com

Pervez Hoodbhoy on human suicide bombs

Pervez Hoodbhoy on human suicide bombs in the Times of India, 12 Mar 2008,

They Only Know How To Kill

ISLAMABAD: A drone is a semi-autonomous, self-propelled system controlled by an external intelligence. Suitably equipped handlers guide it towards an assigned target. The MQ-1B General Dynamics Predator, connected to high-flying US military surveillance satellites, differs from the low-tech mullah-trained human drone produced in Pakistani madrassas. But they share a common characteristic. Neither asks why they must kill.

Drones, machine and human, have drenched Pakistan with the blood of innocents. In 2006, a bevy of MQ-1Bs hovering over Damadola launched a barrage of 10 Hellfire missiles, costing $60,000 apiece, at the village below. They blew up 18 local people, including five women and five children. The blame was put on faulty local intelligence. The same year, a Hellfire missile hit a madrassa in Bajaur killing between 80 and 85 people, mostly students. Pervez Musharraf's credibility stood so low that few believed his claim that those killed were training to become Al-Qaida militants. Indeed, while these space-age weapons have occasionally eliminated a few Al-Qaida men, such as Abu Laith al-Libi in January 2008, the more usual outcome has been flattened houses, dead and maimed children, and a growing tribal population that seeks revenge against Pakistan and the US.

The indigenous human drone, equipped with an explosive vest surrounded with ball bearings and nails, has left a far bloodier trail. Six suicide attacks in 2006 turned into 62 in 2007. According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, at least 1,523 civilians were killed in terror-related violence last year. Those praying in mosques or at funerals have been no safer than others at political rallies. Beards, and prayer marks on foreheads, are no protection either.

This drone does not need to know why and who he must kill. Only how. A spine-chilling suicide bomber training video illustrates this. It is one of the several videos that freely circulate in Pakistan's tribal areas, watched by a population hostile to Pakistan's armed forces. About 30 masked fighters are filmed in this video, training in some barren, mountainous area. One fighter, randomly selected by their leader, proceeds to climb a huge rock, perhaps 100 feet high. He reaches the highest point, and then stands motionless. His arms are outstretched as though on a diving board, awaiting the signal from below. Subsequently, without hesitation, and without closing his eyes, he launches himself onto the ground below.

The camera cuts to the still body lying on the blood-soaked ground. It then slowly pans over the faces of the other masked fighters. Their eyes betray no emotion. A second signal from the leader, and they trot military-style to the body, dig a shallow grave, toss their dead comrade into it, and cover it up. They then march over the grave several times, chanting Quranic verses. Why sacrifice a human life for a few minutes of footage? English subtitles make obvious that this is for propaganda. The message: this group's fighters have overcome the fear of death, and have willingly surrendered to the group leader their individual powers to reason and decide.

While the murder of innocents by the MQ-1B has led to much condemnation in Pakistan, the far greater carnage left by suicide bombers has provoked only mild criticism. A few editorials, mostly in English language newspapers, have been forthright but there have been no street protests.

On the other hand, implicit justifications abound. In January 2008, 30 leading Deobandi religious scholars, while declaring suicide attacks “haram", rationalised these as a mere reaction to the government's wrong policies in the tribal areas. They concluded: “A peaceful demand for implementing Shariah was not only rejected but the government was also not willing to give ear to any reasoning based on Qur'an and Sunna in support of the sharia demand. Apparently, these circumstances led some minds to the frustration that manifested itself in suicide attacks".

What message are these ulema sending?

That Pakistanis should surrender to Islamic extremists and adopt the sharia to avoid being attacked? This amounts to encouragement and incitement. Why do Pakistanis suddenly lose their voice when it comes to suicide bombings? First, the bomber — even if he kills pious Muslims or even those in the act of prayer — kills in the name of Islam. Therefore, people mute their criticism lest they be regarded as irreligious or even blasphemous.

Second, many believe that suicide attacks will disappear if Pakistan withdraws from a war against terror that is not Pakistan's but America's. But most of the dead and wounded are perfectly ordinary people. They had nothing to do with American or Pakistani forces. Even if America retreats — which is unlikely — Pakistan is now unable to escape the terrible consequences of a weapon developed to bleed India and to secure Afghanistan for “strategic depth".

Unfortunately, few Pakistanis accept that more and more crazed mullahs have created cults around themselves and seized control over the minds of worshippers. An enabling environment of poverty, deprivation, lack of justice and extreme differences of wealth is perfect for demagogues.

As the mullah's indoctrination gains strength, the power to reason weakens. The world of the follower becomes increasingly divided into absolute good and absolute evil. Doubt is replaced by certainty, moral sensibilities are blunted, the sensation of pain to oneself and others disappears, and the metamorphosis from human to drone becomes complete. The writer teaches at Quaid-e-Azam University.

Islam is an evolving religion

Islam is an evolving religion

By SULTAN SHAHIN

My URL: myspace.com/sultanshahin

I happened to use the phrase ‘evolution of Islam’ in one of my article sometimes ago. This “raised the blood-pressure”, (as one of my callers put it), of several people. This is sad because many of those who took the trouble of calling to remonstrate with me were highly educated Muslims. Successful professionals though they were, none of them was prepared to cool down and think for a moment.

Evolution may be anathema to many Muslims, but Islam is indeed an evolving religion. It is indeed much easier for a Muslim to evolve with the changing times than for other religions, though all of them have been trying to cope with demands of modernity in their own way and at their own pace. This is so because Islam has prescribed a clear methodology for adapting to the needs of changing times.

One of the basic postulates of Islam is that it is the Eternal Deen (Sanatan Dharma). Prophet Mohammad comes at the end of a long list of prophets, according to one tradition, 124,000 of them. The Holy Quran says that all of these prophets of God who came to all corners of earth brought with them revelations of God apparently according to the needs of their times and according to the ability of the human beings to understand these instructions. If this doesn’t make Islam evolutionary, what else would?

Then the Holy Quran and Hadith (Sayings of the Prophet) give us a clear methodology of evolution. As no more prophets are to come bringing revelations from God, we are given certain devices like Ijtihad, Ijma and Qeyas to continue to adapt to the demands of changing times. We need not go here into details of how these instruments are supposed to work. The important fact is that despite persistent and virulent attacks on these Quranic institutions by certain so-called Ulema-e-Deen (scholars of Islam), Islam has continued to evolve.

Take, for instance, the question of slavery. It was an integral part of the social structure at the time of Prophet Mohammad. The Holy Quran did all it could to discourage the practice, but it didn’t ban it. Yet, there is not one Muslim nation that allows slavery and perhaps not a single Muslim individual who would demand that the system of slavery should continue. This is quite in keeping with the spirit of the Quran, but it does violate the letter of the Quran. If you don’t have a market for slaves, how would a devout Muslim buy one to free him or her in order to earn merit in the eyes of God as he has been asked to do in the Holy Book?

Take another example. Muslims in India, the ulema and politicians at any rate, have continued to chant for the last 50 years: No change in Muslim Personal Law. But these people are careful to confine their demands to Muslim family laws, and do not demand to be treated according to the Muslim criminal laws and methods of punishment. I very much doubt if there would be many takers for a Muslim Personal Law that included its methods of punishment. (Sangh Pariwar, please note: the best way of ensuring a large number of ‘home-coming’ shuddhi ceremonies would be to promulgate former Pakistan Prime Minster Mr. Nawaz Sharif’s Shariat Laws in this country, only for Muslims, naturally!)

The obscurantists have left no stone unturned to keep Islamic practices mired in backwardness. There is no new technology, for instance, that has not been opposed tooth and nail. Take loud-speaker. When it first came on the scene, the ulema were appalled at the idea of the word of God, the verses of the Holy Quran passing through the dirty wire made of mere copper and then come out of this speaker many times louder than the original sound. After all, the Quran had been sent on earth to be read only by the human voice box. This was blasphemy. It is quite amusing really to see the Mullas guarding zealously, or should it be jealously, their right to call the faithful for Nimaz on the loudspeaker. They are insensitive enough even to disturb non-Muslims’ sleep, provoking them to legitimately abuse Islamic practices, while trying to awaken the potential roza-dars in the month of fasting, Ramazan.

Radio and Television have met the same fate -- violent opposition, followed by its intensely possessive adoption.

The only medium that continues to face opposition till today is film. And yet I know some Mullas who have watched and appreciated the film on Islam, The Message, made with the help of Libyan finance. They realise it is a powerful medium and it will be no surprise at all if they soon make it mandatory in Muslim countries to use this medium for the purposes of Tabligh, the spread of Islam, and become producers and directors and actors themselves. With initial hesitation and opposition, they have now accepted internet too, at least for purposes of propagation of Islam.

Thus, Islam has changed and evolved almost imperceptibly. Most Muslims are not even aware of this evolution. They may still consider all talk of change as blasphemy. This is partly because of the hold the No-changer Ulema have over them, and partly because even the educated and intelligent among them do not pause to think, even though the Holy Quran asks them umpteen times to do so.

Pakistan Elections: New crossroads

By Sultan Shahin

From asianaffairs, London -March 2008

The Pakistan electorate’s hopes are centred around peace and prosperity and not about politicians settling personal scores, comments Sultan Shahin

This is indeed a defining moment for Pakistan. It now has an opportunity for making a systemic shift to liberal democracy and go back to its roots of all-inclusive Sufi Islam. The voters across Pakistan have explicitly rejected both military dictatorship and extremist Islam. But the moment of opportunity will not last very long; it will perhaps be shorter than on other occasions. The ball is now in the politicians’ court. Will they act with their characteristic recklessness or be guided by the wisdom they seem to have acquired in the years of wandering in the wilderness?
Initial indications are good. A systemic shift requires a national government. The nation-wide consensus that has emerged in favour of moderate, liberal, plural, democratic rule needs to be harnessed for the phenomenal changes required to bring about long-term stability required in Pakistan. In concrete terms it means that PPP (Pakistan People’s Party), PML (N) (Pakistan Muslim League, Nawaz), MQM (Mottahida Qaumi Movement), ANP (Awami National Party), PML (Q) (PML, Quaid), should all be part of governance. This will create a political mess. But it is only through ‘the noise and chaos of democracy’, to employ the evocative phrase of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto which he used with reference to Indian democracy, that Pakistan too can acquire stability and prosperity. It is heartening, therefore, to see all political leaders engaging in discussions with one another and discussing the possibilities of coming together and forming a government of national consensus.
The first test of their wisdom would be the priorities fixed by such a government: particular questions like getting rid of the now-civilian President Pervez Musharraf and the restoration of the Chief Justice and the pre-PCO (Provisional Constitution Order) judges, as Nawaz Sharif would have it, or the general problems of religious extremism, poverty alleviation, provincial autonomy, independence of judiciary, sovereignty of parliament and freedom of media, etc., as ANP leader Asfandayar Wali would have it. Guided by Sharif’s grievances against President Musharraf, and probably a hint of good old vendetta, the government would get mired in endless internecine wars and the country would be destabilised at a time when it is already very troubled and facing enormous challenges. Wali’s priorities are more to the point and set in a larger perspective. Not that the particular questions of Musharraf’s continuation as President or the judges’ restoration are not important. But the country expects to move forward at a great speed from now on in solving its long-term systemic problems and several difficult decisions need to be taken in quite a hurry before that can happen.
It is unlikely that the military and American supporters of President Musharraf will allow him to be impeached. He is the face of the Pakistan Army and unless his continuation starts threatening its corporate interests, he is unlikely to lose its backing, though it may go along with his powers being substantially reduced. Even if he is replaced, the post will have to be given to somebody who has the backing of the military and the US administration. That reality of Pakistani politics cannot be wished away soon. It would be easiest for the West to put pressure on PPP leader Asif Zardari, the acclaimed Mr 10 per cent. He has cases of massive corruption against him in European courts. Even Pakistani courts can revive the cases against him. In fact, if parliament does bring in judicial independence, it should be among the first of their tasks to revive the cases against Zardari and Sharif and order investigation into the corruption allegations against them. Popular mandates do not absolve politicians of their past wrongdoing. After all, Musharraf is not wrong when he claims that at the time he took power, the country was on the brink of being declared a failed state after several years of democratic governance under Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, the slain leader of the PPP.
It is doubtful, however, that President Musharraf, if he survives politically and whether his wings are clipped or not, would be so foolish as to start interfering in governance right away. He or his replacement will bide his time and wait for the politicians to again make the same mistakes, run the economy aground, unleash a reign of corruption and sleaze, incompetence and mismanagement. They would do well to remember that every time the Pakistani electorate has been given a fair chance it has voted out the incumbent government, whether it had been democratically elected or was backed by the military. They may have braved the threat of violence and fear of massive rigging to go out and boot out the military-backed regime, but they had also welcomed with great fervour and hope General Musharraf deposing the democratically elected government of Sharif and taking power in his own hands. This shows that there is already a background of distrust against politicians in Pakistan, both those elected in free and fair elections and those brought unfairly by the military in rigged polls. But as they have no alternative, they keep changing the same horses.
This gives the politicians little space for manoeuvring and even less time to succeed. They just have to deliver. And quickly. The electorate at the moment has great hopes. These hopes are not centred around the removal of Musharraf or reinstatement of judges. They want peace and prosperity. The outgoing government has not taken tough economic decisions for some time. The first thing any government will have to do is to take measures that will fuel inflation and bring hardship to people. If this is coupled with mismanagement and corruption, the people may start losing patience quickly.
Islamic extremists have suffered grievously in this election. The public has shown where it stands on this question. Now it is time for self-styled liberals to show guts, something they have not done since the formation of Pakistan. The PPP, for instance, has a mandate to hand over A.Q. Khan to the US or IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) for questioning, Dawood Ibrahim and others of his ilk to India, and allow the US and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) forces to enter Pakistan’s tribal territory in pursuit of terrorists without having to take permission of the government in every instance. Their assassinated leader had made these pre-poll promises. The new government has a mandate for fighting the jihadi militia. By keeping their supporters out of power the people have provided the government with an opportunity to do so without hindrance.
Above all, they have a mandate for improving ties with India. They can improve relations to a degree that the military loses much of its raison d’être, and hence its clout and ability to threaten the democratic apparatus. Improvement of relations with India also will have the support of the military; indeed President Musharraf had gone to great lengths to achieve a breakthrough in this regard. The project did not succeed to the expected degree. One of the reasons was that his government was not perceived as having a popular mandate and so foreign governments had to be a little wary in dealing with it and entering into far-reaching agreements. Now the situation is much better and the new government will have much goodwill in India and credibility with the Indian government as well as the people.
Only these and other such hard decisions taken rather quickly before the window of opportunity closes will bring about a systemic shift in Pakistan politics and lead to the establishment of a healthy liberal democratic set-up that no undemocratic force will be able to interfere with.

http://asianaffairs.com/march2008/pakistan.html

or: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog&pop=1&indicate=1

For other Sultan Shahin blogs go to:

myspace.com/sultanshahin

The Making of Islamist Suicide Bombers

Is suicide compatible with Islamic teachings? The question has been debated endlessly for the last several years. The clear consensus of Islamic scholars now is that it is not. And yet extremist groups continue to use human bombs as their weapon of choice in several parts of the Muslim world. How do they manage to entice Muslims into committing such a heinous crime against humanity? The question has haunted the world ever since Muslims started using this tactic following the success of this brutal method of killing demonstrated by the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka in early 1990s.

I had the opportunity to study the phenomenon when I was researching the methodology the Pakistan Army used to motivate soldiers to commit what amounted to mass suicide in Kargil? I wrote extensively on the subject then and would like to share with my readers here some of the things I discovered.

To begin with I asked myself what books would one choose to carry while embarking on a suicide mission? Kargil was one such mission for the Pakistani soldiers. Had India not allowed them safe passage under the political compulsions of that pre-election period, they would have all got killed sooner or later. They must have known this. You cannot trifle with a major military power like India without being prepared to face its fatal consequences.

How were they motivated to commit what amounts to a mass suicide? This question is particularly relevant as they were Muslims and in Islam suicide is considered a heinous crime. Most Muslims would know that Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) refused to offer funeral prayers for just two Muslims — one who had been convicted of embezzlement of zakat (charity) funds and another who had committed suicide, though under genuinely extenuating circumstances. Indeed the Prophet had specified in the case of Amir Ibn al-Akwa who had sustained several wounds in the battle of Khyber that even if someone commits suicide to relieve himself of acute pain, his destination would still be the fires of hell.

The answer lies with the books recovered from the bunkers of dead Pakistani soldiers in Kargil. Some of these are on predictable lines — copies of Holy Quran with translation in Urdu, biographies of the Prophet, books of prayers for all occasions, Iqbal's evocative poetry and so on. These would be part of an average Muslim's travelling gear, particularly if he is embarking on what could turn out to be his last journey. But what surprised me was that they had all been published by Al-Maktaba al-Sulfia of Lahore, the publication house of Ahl-e-Sunnat wal-Jamaat, a small but particularly virulent sect which believes that all Muslims who do not belong to this sect should be done to death. It is not possible that all the soldiers of the Northern Areas Light Infantry and other sections of Pakistan Army who embarked on this suicidal venture belonged to this sect. I can only presume that these books were supplied by the Army itself.

This makes this study even more meaningful. It tells us not only about the mental make-up of the people we dealt with at Kargil but also of those we are dealing with in Kashmir, indeed even in other parts of India today. For these books were evidently part of the motivational literature Pakistan Army was using to indoctrinate its soldiers and other recruits for their suicidal missions in Kashmir.

The most popular among these books was Maut ka Manzar (The Scene of Death) by Abdur Razzaq Bhutralwi, the Imam of a mosque in Islamabad and a teacher in a Rawalpindi madrasa run by the Ahle-Sunnat wal-Jamaat sect. A 400-page book in small print, it is an eminently readable companion for those preparing to die. Some of the chapters are entitled: What is Death?, Kinds of Death, Death provides Comfort, The Place of Death is Fixed, No One Denies Death, No Escape From Death, How Death Invites you to the Appointed Place, One Goes There Happily, One Should Prepare for Death, Death is Better than Mischief, Love of this World and Fear of Death is Cowardice, Places where it is Permitted to long for Death, and so on. You get the drift. What a morbid place Kargil must have been with hundreds of people reading this book for months!

Maulana Bhutralwi is particularly suited for motivating suicidal operations. While he describes an ordinary death as an extremely painful experience, he likens martyrdom with the sting of an ant or a mosquito bite. He describes the meaning of life and death in the first chapter in these words: "Life means martyrdom which offers us a life better than the life in this world and death means worldly life which is a contemptible form of life in comparison with the life of martyrdom". So life means death and death means life. Alice's wonderland, I thought then, must have been situated between Islamabad and Rawalpindi — the route the Maulana traverses every morning between 7:00 and 8:00 to be able to reach his madrasa, Jama Rizwia, even before his pupils arrive.

But surely this won't be enough to motivate soldiers for such foolhardy ventures as Kargil. So they were given pamphlets of various Jehadi organisations telling them that the Kashmir campaign is even more sacred in the eyes of God than the campaigns at Badr or Uhud that the Prophet himself waged. How does one go about proving something as outrageous as this? The Holy Quran is immutable. It is so well-preserved that no one has been able to change even a coma or a vowel over the last 14 centuries. But interpolation is possible in the Sayings of the Prophet, the sacred Hadees. So Harkat-e-Jehad-e-Islami begins its brochure with an essay entitled "The importance of Jehad against India". It quotes Hazrat Abu Huraira as saying that "the Prophet promised me that if you die fighting Jehad against India, you would become Afzalul Shuhada, i.e., the greatest among all martyrs, and if you come back alive you will be assured of a place in Heaven no matter what else you do."

It is this concoction that is now being propagated by all Jehadi leaders like Maulana Masood Azhar or Hafiz Saeed in their fiery motivational speeches. There was no question of a Jehad being waged in the Prophet's time against far-flung India when the Arab world itself and its neighbourhood was full of enemies of Islam. From the very early days India has welcomed Islam and continues to be a haven for Islamists of all hue and colour. None of the thousands of rajas and maharajas who had to deal with Islam ever obstructed the propagation of this new ideology. India is one of the few non-Muslim majority countries that allows Muslims to conduct their life in accordance with Islamic personal laws. India is the biggest centre of Islamic literature in the world even after the Partition when Muslim-majority areas broke away to form Pakistan. No wonder, the Prophet said he had received a cool breeze from India. Allama Iqbal describes it beautifully:

Meer-e-Arab ko aaee thandi hawa jahan se;

Mera watan wohi hai, mera watan wohi hai.

There are only two references to India in the authoritative Hadees literature, i.e. Bukhari and Muslim. Both say more or less the same thing. Hazrat Umm-e-Qais bint-e-Mahsan says: "A woman came to the Prophet with her sick child. She was pressing the child's throat from two sides. The Prophet said: 'Why are you pressing the child's throat, increasing his pain. Use Indian incense (Ood-e-Hindi). It cures seven diseases including pleurisy." (Bukhari 7.616 and 7.596)

The concoctions and fabrications, however, go on. Jehad is big business. Mullahs will stop at nothing to provide cannon-fodder to the militant organisations originally spawned by Pakistan Army who may have now become a law unto themselves and are according to some recent reports engaging in Jehad against the will of their former military mentors. Indeed in some cases they are fighting the Pakistan Army and Pakistan Establishment itself.

While Jehad is being largely waged in the Middle East and Pakistan-Afghanistan region, we in India cannot remain indifferent to the dangers of extremist brainswashing. Jehadi promotional literature is circulating in India as well. It is for the Muslims to beware of people who think nothing of putting false words in the mouth of the Prophet himself. It is for our ulema to tell us if suicide is the same as martyrdom. Is life indeed death and death life in Islam? It clearly is not. But we need to keep repeating this and letting our youth know the real facts until the present phase of extremist madness has subsided.

No obscurantists, please!

The Muslim community is at a crossroads. Has been there for some time, standing confused, not knowing which road to take. Some Muslims, of course, have no such confusion. They think they know what Islam is all about, how their lives are to be ordered, where the world is going and what is their role in it. Actually, they don't think so, they know this and believe in it. These are the people of certainly, unthinking certainty. They have a stock answer to every question: this is what the Prophet did (peace be upon him) 1400 years ago and this is what we should do today. There is no confusion in their minds over whether we even know exactly what the Prophet did, why and under precisely what circumstances. And, of course, there is no confusion in their minds over whether we can even live today in every respect the way Muslims lived 1400 years ago. Nor about whether this is what the Prophet expected of us, whether Islam does actually ordain that we remain stuck in a lifestyle of 6th century AD when the world moves on to the 21st or the 31st.

This is not my constituency. Certainty, unthinking certainty, whether in the mind of a Bush or in the mind of a bin-Laden is dangerous, leads to disastrous consequences. This page is not for the obscurantists, the unthinking dangerous know-all obscurantists, who have brought Islam and Muslims to such disrepute.

I would like to attract some people who are prepared to think afresh, who have unresolved questions in their minds, who may be confused about the direction they should take, who may even be considering changing their names so that they do not sound so authentically Muslim and thus invite trouble, even though they would like to continue to remain Muslim and follow its Spirit. I would like to sit down and brainstorm with Muslims who read news stories of scientific and technological, political and economic developments and wonder what it means to be a Muslim in this day and age. People who wonder what are the practices they can continue to follow and what they can't and whether this would be in accordance with the Spirit of Islam to do so.