Tuesday 28 February 2017

Gurmehar Kaur-peace over war


Gurmehar Kaur's bold message of peace over war has rattled the coward patriot


ABVP should be ashamed over rape threat to #Kargil martyr's daughter Gurmehar Kaur in the #DU violence case. Shocking and disgusting! Viciousness with which BJP is hounding Gurmehar Kaur stems from the fact that she's taken away the only fig leaf they had: the soldier card, The BJP and ABVP are now scared of Gurmehar Kaur, because she is better educated than their leaders and has more guts than they do.

Social networking site Twitter on Monday turned into a battleground of words after cricketer Virendra Sehwag and actor Randeep Hooda apparently mocked Delhi University student Gurmehar Kaur who launched an online campaign against the ABVP after the February 22 violence in Delhi University's Ramjas College.

No association or organisation can threaten women with rape: Gurmehar Kaur, Delhi University student

The abuse of Gurmehar Kaur points to denigrated mindset of the self-proclaimed nationalists. Anyone supporting rape threats to Gurmehar Kaur just pause,take a deep breath & think-Is THIS what we wish to make of our nation we "LOVE"? I hope female leaders across the board, in India and across the world will stand up against ABVP and make our campuses safer for women. As a father of 2 daughters, I am proud of your firm stand, clear thoughts and inner strength. God bless you.

I stand against violence . I stand against WAR . I am with Gurmehar Kaur, India should be proud of daughters like Gurmehar Kaur.

 End of Story. Period




Gurmehar Kaur-peace over war

Friday 24 February 2017

Campaigning in UP touches low ebb

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/597921/campaigning-up-touches-low-ebb.html


Friday 24 February 2017


Campaigning in UP touches low ebb

Feb 24, 2017, DHNS

It is unfortunate that public discourse becomes the worst casualty when election campaigns move into the top gear. It is just over halfway through electioneering in Uttar Pradesh but the acrimonious and abusive exchange of barbs and epithets by the campaigners has so vitiated the atmosphere that the right issues that should engage the electorate have become clouded and unclear. The deterioration in the quality of campaigning increases from election to election, perhaps mirroring the fall in the quality of public life. If Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s reference to JD(U) leader Nitish Kumar’s DNA and Lalu Prasad’s description of BJP president Amit Shah as narbhakshi (man-eater) set some low standards in the 2015 Bihar elections, they have been exceeded in UP. It is not only poor and indecorous language but also the use of bad and improper ideas that has brought the standards down. It is a pity that the prime minister is leading from the front in this ignominious battle. 

The prime minister introduced a badly divisive and communal element into his party’s campaign when he said at Fatehpur that there should be electricity on Diwali too, not just on Ramzan and there should be more cremation grounds for Hindus, not just burial grounds for Muslims. He was accusing the Samajwadi Party government of Akhilesh Yadav of discrimination but he gave the impression that he was speaking for the Hindus. Modi can speak about just and even development of the country but to use religion and caste as counters in this context is to pit people against one another. It is an attempt to polarise the electorate on communal lines and is beneath the stature of the prime minister. Modi had resorted to insinuations and taunts against Muslims when he was the Gujarat chief minister but to make such statements even now shows that attitudes have not changed. The BJP’s manifesto and the poll themes of many of its leaders are communal and divisive, and the prime minister sharpened the communal campaign with his unedifying statement. 

Modi also went personal when he described the BSP as Behenji Sampatti Party. Low wordplays like SCAM (Samajwadi Party, Congress, Akhilesh and Mayawati) were used. Responses were equally poor, as seen by Akhilesh Yadav’s reference to the “donkeys of Gujarat” and Mayawati’s description of Modi as “Negative Dalit Man” and a statement that she “didn’t get married, nor deserted anyone after marrying.” When language and the idea conveyed through it are so debased and degraded, how can there be respect for public life and public personalities? They also reduce elections to slanging matches and low-level personal contests.

Thursday 23 February 2017

Amit Shah’s KASAB. Do UP voters deserve it?

Photo published for Get rid of KASAB: Amit Shah does a Narendra Modi in Uttar Pradesh rally

Amit Shah’s new acronym at Chauri Chaura rally "Kasab needs to go from #UttarPradesh" "SP-Cong-BSP #Kasab hain" This is coming from Amit Shah whose cadres are/were busy helping Kasab's entry in India thru ISI & RAW. Death of Irony, infact Irony died in a fake encounter. 

Amit Shah has forget that they have so many 'KASAB' in the office bearers in his party's Madhya Pradesh unit. Shah must Remember that Kasab was hanged by Congress led Government. 

Media portrayed Akhilesh Yadav #GujaratKeGadhe as "unmentionable comment" while it is silent at Amit Shah calling Opposition as KASAB. That's May be If KASAB stands for Congress, SP & BSP then GADHE stands for - Gujarat ke Amit & Damodardas He he he, or may be K-से Kamal  S-से sangh B-से BJP .
KaSaB with a new tone 
Ka - Kamal
SA - Sangh Pariwaar
B- BJP bhagao
KaSaB bhagao, Bharat bachao.


KASAB can also be = BJP, how?
Ka se Kukarmi
Sa se Saare
B se BJP waale 
So #KASAB = Mr Shah & Co.


BJP script writer must be hardcore acronym user #SCAM #Kasab. By the way the question is What sort of pleasure in such campaigning to whom & for whom! by AmitShah, Modi & BJP leaders! .Do UP voters deserve it?


Amit Shah’s KASAB. Do UP voters deserve it? http://jameelblr.blogspot.in/2017/02/amit-shahs-kasab-do-up-voters-deserve-it.html

Wednesday 22 February 2017

Jio will continue to offer free voice calls and national roaming post April 1

For existing customers, he announced that the current benefits will continue under a new tariff plan for another 12 months by payment of Rs 303 per month and a one-time joining fee of Rs 99.
 99.
Reliance Jio has crossed the 100 million customers mark in 170 days of launch, its chairman Mukesh Ambani said on Tuesday as he announced a slew of offers, including 20 per cent more data than any rival from April.
Reliance Jio, he said, will continue to offer free voice calls and national roaming post April 1, when its promotional free voice and data offer ends.
For existing customers, he announced that the current benefits will continue under a new tariff plan for another 12 months by payment of Rs 303 per month and a one-time joining fee of Rs 99.
"Jio launched its services on September 5 last year. Today, just 170 days later, Jio has crossed the 100 million customer mark on its 4G LTE, all-IP wireless broadband network," Ambani said in a speech broadcast live on the company's social media accounts.
His return to the telecom business after a decade with offer of free voice and cheap data plans has shaken the Indian telecom industry, forcing incumbents to consider mergers and match its tariff.
With its Happy New Year Offer, which was similar to its initial promotional offer of free voice and data to attract customers, coming to an end on March 31, Jio will start offering its tariff plans from April 1.
Ambani said all domestic calls to any network including STD and roaming will continue to be free.
For data, Jio will not only match the highest selling tariffs of each of the other leading Indian telecom operators but also provide 20 per more data in each of these plans, he said.
For the existing 100 million users, he announced a Jio Prime Membership programme wherein customers can enrol by paying one-time fee of Rs 99 and continue to get the existing benefits till March 2018 (rpt) 2018 at "a rock-bottom introductory price of only Rs 303 per month."
"For 170 days, Jio has added on average nearly 7 customers on its network every single second of every single day. This is an unprecedented level of acceptance for any technology company anywhere in the world," he said.
With 200 crore minutes of voice and video calls, more than 100 crore GB or 3.3 crore GB a day of data has been consumed on the Jio network, making India the number one country in the world for mobile data usage, he said.
Data usage on Jio almost matches the usage in US and nearly half more than all of China.
"A significant portion of this data is consumed as video and Jio carries nearly 5.5 crore hours of video daily on its network. This makes Jio one of the largest mobile video networks globally," he said.
Ambani said Jio has more than double the number of 4G base stations of all other Indian operators put together.
"And we are making our network better, faster and stronger with each passing day. In the coming months, we will more than double our data capacity and this means even better quality for our customers," he said, adding by end-2017, Jio network will be present in nearly all the cities, towns and villages of India, covering 99 per cent of population.

Saturday 18 February 2017

Human Rights in Islam & Prof. Hamidullah's work


We live in an age where, in many circles, the words “religion” and “human rights” are seen as opposing concepts. For many activists especially those working on women's rights concern, believe that organized faith or communities and their heads are invariably a big part of the problem, and only rarely, if ever, part of the solution. This view, however, vastly underestimates existing and potential points of collaboration.

At times the opinion prepared by individual or group against religion is the thought that these questions have not been addressed by various religious traditions. Where as if seen, the issue of Human rights is been always a consideration in religious context. The Islamic model of human rights in particular is striking in its rigor, its vision and its relevance to modern times.

Islam's contribution to human rights has always been appreciated; experts have scrutinized and had viewed Islam against the backdrop of world history as well as the realities of modern times. Social, racial, gender, and religious inequities continue to exist. Economic and social disparities have resulted in oppression of the lower classes; racial prejudices have been the cause of subjugation and enslavement of people with darker skin; women have been weighed down by chauvinistic attitudes, and pervasive attitudes of religious superiority have led to widespread persecution of people with different beliefs.

Human rights in Islam stem from two foundational principles: dignity and equality. Dignity is a fundamental right of every human being merely by virtue of his or her humanity. As Almighty (Allah in Arabic) states in the Quran, “We have honored the children of Adam and carried them by land and sea; We have provided good sustenance for them and favored them specially above many of those We have created” (17:70).

Regarding equality, Almighty clearly declares that in His sight, the only distinguishing factors between humans are righteousness and piety: “People, We created you all from a single man and a single woman, and made you into races and tribes so that you should recognize one another. In Almighty's eyes, the most honored of you are the ones most mindful of Him: Almighty is all knowing, all aware” ( Qur’an, 49:13).

The diversity of humanity into many races and ethnicities is a testament to Almighty's majesty and wisdom. Therefore, racial superiority and discrimination is prohibited in Islam and contradicts its essence. This concept is exemplified in the final sermon of Prophet  who proclaimed:
No Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab. Nor does a white man have any superiority over a black man or the black man any superiority over the white man. You are all the children of Adam, and Adam was created from clay.
Women's Rights
So many of the human rights violations are committed against women in this world. Under the laws of Islam, women have the right to own property and businesses, engage in financial transactions, vote, receive inheritance, obtain an education and participate in legal and political affairs. The fact that some Muslim societies do not always accord women all these liberties is an example of how human beings can fall short of fully implementing the Divine Will.
Both men and women have responsibilities towards their families and societies as is clear from the following verse: “The Believers, men and women, are protectors one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His mercy: for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise” (Qur’an, 9:71).

Amighty promises in the Holy Quran, “If any do deeds of righteousness – be they male or female – and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them” (Qur’an, 4:124).

The Birthrights of Life and Security
In Islam, life is a sacred trust from Almighty and the most basic right of a human being. No individual is permitted to take the life of another, unless it is for justice administered by a competent court following due process of law.
Almighty recognizes this right in the Quran, “Nor take life – which Allah has made sacred – except for just cause” (17:33). He also says, “…if anyone kills a person – unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land – it is as if he kills all mankind while if any saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind” (5:32).
Not only do human beings have the right not to be harmed, they have the right to be safeguarded from harm, physical or otherwise. For instance, under Islamic law, people are legally liable for not preventing a blind man from dying of a perilous fall, if they were in a position to save him.

Even during war, Islam enjoins that one deals with the enemy nobly on the battlefield. Enemy soldiers and prisoners of war are not to be tortured or mutilated under any circumstances. Islam has also drawn a clear line of distinction between combatants and non-combatants.

As far as the non-combatant population is concerned, such as women, children and the elderly, etc., the instructions of Prophet are as follows: “Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman” and “Do not kill the monks in monasteries.” Hence, non-combatants are guaranteed security of life even if their nation is at war with an Islamic state.

Freedom of Belief
Contrary to popular misconceptions, a genuine Islamic republic is obligated to not only permit but respect diversity. Thus, non-Muslims within an Islamic territory are allowed to worship in accordance with their religion. There are many examples of this historically.
When Muslims began ruling Palestine in 637 C.E., they invited the Jewish people to live in Jerusalem after 500 years of exile. In 1187 C.E., after retaking Palestine from the Crusaders, Muslims treated Christians with honor despite the brutality they had endured at the hands of the Crusaders. Christians were allowed to leave in peace or to stay in harmony.

While Spain was under Muslim rule, the city of Cordova was considered the intellectual center of Europe, where students went to study philosophy, science and medicine under Muslim, Jewish and Christian scholars. This rich and sophisticated society took a tolerant view towards other faiths, while peaceful coexistence was unheard of in the rest of Europe. British historian James Burke mentions in one of his book, The Day the Universe Changed, that thousands of Jews and Christians lived in safety and harmony with their Muslim overlords in Muslim Spain.

The Right to a Basic Standard of Life
A basic standard of life includes the minimum essentials necessary for survival, such as food, clothing, shelter and medical attention. Anyone deprived of these necessities is entitled to receive aid in order to meet their needs. It is the duty of every Muslim with adequate means to give from their wealth, in order to eradicate poverty from society.

Describing the righteous believers in the Quran, Almighty reminds that they are those who give a “rightful share of their wealth to the beggar and the deprived” (51:19). The Islamic state is also obligated to spend from its treasury to support the poor and disadvantaged.  

The Entitlement to Justice
Islam requires that Muslims possess upright character and deal justly with the entire human race, irrespective of their ethnicity, nationality, creed and whether they are a friend or foe.

Almighty says in the Quran, “You who believe, be steadfast in your devotion to Almighty and bear witness impartially: do not let hatred of others lead you away from justice, but adhere to justice, for that is closer to awareness of Almighty. Be mindful of Almighty: Almighty is well aware of all that you do” (5:8).

Reflecting on the concept of justice in Islam, Sarojini Naidu, the Nightingale of India, stated in a speech, “The sense of justice that Islam encompasses is one of the most wonderful ideals of Islam, because, as I read in the Qur'an, I find those dynamic principles of life, not mystic but practical ethics for the daily conduct of life suited to the whole world.”

Rights and Mutual Responsibility
From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that Islamic law has divinely mandated rights for individuals in their specific roles as spouse, parent, child, relative, neighbour, friend and even foe. In its distribution of rights and responsibilities, Islam has addressed the social, racial, gender, and sectarian issues plaguing our global society. Indeed, the model of rights and mutual responsibilities enshrined in Islam has a tremendous potential for individual and social reform in the world.

Islamic Law particularly which related to the Human Rights and Liberty was another important and interesting field to which Dr.  Hamidullah made significant contribution in the form of books and articles. His contributions got worldwide recognition by scholars and researchers. Their evaluation here underwould make the point more clear.

1. The First Written Constitution in the World (English):
Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah's work on the “Charter of madinah” should get a special reference since in his view, it was the first constitution of the world in which the principles of brotherhood, equality and freedom of action were defined in written form to play an active part in the political unit.”

Madinah Charter (Watha'iq-e-Madinah).prepared and promulgated by Prophet  (SAW) for the multi-religious citizens of the city state of Madinah in 622 A.D., is really a constitutional document of prime importance. Dr. Hamidullah has rightly designated it as the first written constitution in the world. Moreover, this is not only the first written constitution of the world but also revolutionary step in the sense that it was promulgated for a pluralistic society, giving equal rights to all those citizen of Madinah who agreed with the clauses of the Charter and pledged to adopt them in letter and spirit.

Dr. Hamidullah while Describing the conditions of Madinah, has given the factors which led to the preparation of the historic document. He says that the two Arab clans Aus and Khajraj were divided in twelve tribes and Banu Qainuqa, Banu Quraiza and Banu Nazir were divided in ten tribes. They were involved in conflicts since centuries. Some Arabs, having entered into alliance with some of Jews, had been on terms of hostility with other Arabs, who in their turn were similarly allied to some other Jews. The tribal rule prevailed in Madinah. Madina did not have a central authority as ever tribe used to solve their problems. On the other side,even before Hijra Prophet (S.A.W.) had tried to centralize the power of twelve Arab tribes by appointing their twelve persons as his naqibs (proclaimers) at Bait al- 'Aqbah.(Popularly known as Bait ul Uqba) during one of the Haj seasons. Through the efforts of twelve naqibs of Prophet (SAW), a considerable number of people accepted Islam. But Islam was yet a domestic affair there and had not attained any political status. Persons belonging to different religions used to live in the same house. Keeping in view these conditions, Prophet (SAW) had to carry out reform in Madinah by drafting the Charter. The Charter was drafted in view of the many important  requirements of the people of Madinah, some of them related to Human rights are :

1. Determination of rights of inhabitants of Madinah irrespective of their religions and also Muslims, both immigrants and the original citizens of Madinah
2. Residential arrangements for the immigrants of Makkah so as not to hinder the living conditions of the inhabitants of Madinah.
3. Agreement with non Muslims tribes especially Jews.
4. Organization of state administration and arrangements for defence of Madinah.

Analyzing the contents of the first part of the Chapter, Dr. Hamidullah stated that Madinah was the first independent state of Muslims which had a written constitution. The supreme authority of this state was Allah and the Prophet (SAW) was obeyed as His messenger. In this independent state, an Islamic political unit was formed and it consisted of migrants of Makkah and helpers of Madinah, and also those among the Non Muslims, who were willing to take part in protecting interests of Madinah as a whole, under the guidance of and in co-operation with this united body of Muslims of Makkah and Madinah.

Dr.  Hamidullah in his work states that, the second part of the work which is related to Jews deals with their rights and duties. The Jews were free to follow their prevailing customs in internal matters and socio-cultural activities. The Jews were political and social rights as held by the Muslims. The various allies of Jews called as mawali, batn, bitanah, were also given equal status with the original Jews. It was also stipulated that Jews would not be obliged to help Muslims if the latter were involved in any religious war.

The right to freedom of religious faith was declared in the Charter as 'The Jews following their own faith and Muslims following their own faith". In case the Jews take part in wars fought by Muslim bearing the expenses of war, they will be equally entitled to the booty. The judicial system provided that Jews be dealt with by their own laws and they could even approach Prophet (SAW) for adjudication. Prophet (SAW) used to adjudicate as per their own laws. With regard to the insurance, the blood money was to be paid by the tribe members and clients jointly.
Thus, in view of Dr.  Hamidullah, it was first constitution of the world in which the principles of brotherhood, equality and freedom of action were defined in written form to play an active part in the political unit, which are the founding stones of Human Rights in any cultured society. 

2.  Muslim Conduct of State (English):
The second work of Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah which deal with the subject of Human rights in Islam is his doctoral thesis in German entitled "Die Neutralitat in Islainischen Volkerrecht" (Neutrality in Islamic International law), which he submitted to Bonn University (Germany) as D.Phil, thesis and was awarded the degree of the same in 1933. The work was first of all, published from Zeilchrift Der Deutschen Morgenlandischess Gesellschaft (German) in 1935. After addition of new materials, it was published in several issues of Islamic Culture (Hyderabad) during 1941-42 in English under the title Muslim Conduct of State. The work was first printed in the book form by  Ashraf Publications, Lahore, in 1941. It became so much popular in the academic circles that more than half a dozen editions has appeared so far.

This book of Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah is the first systematic study of International law of Islam in English which defines the principles that regulate the relations of a Muslim state with non- Muslim states and their subjects. These problems arose with the expansion of Islamic state and establishment of contacts of Muslim states with other states and their subjects, especially those who were friendly with the Muslim states. It is well known that Muslim jurists have taken up this problem under the chapter "'Kitab al-Siyar" in their jurisdical works. This is very significant that Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah has discussed in detail the principles prescribed by the Shan'at for relationship with non-Muslim states in three well-known situations- peace, hostility and neutrality. The author further explains that initially, the word Siyar was related to the life of Prophet (SAW). But, Imam Abu Hanifah (702-772 AD) was the first who used the word Siyar with respect to the rules relating to the treaties and conduct of the Muslim state with other non Muslim states and its subjects, under Islamic international law.

Before discussing the evolution of Islamic international law, the work has thrown light on certain aspects of international law that was in operation in pre-Islamic period. Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah says that the laws of declaration of war, treatment of enemies and their property, prisoners of war, distributions of booty, rights of envoys etc. prevailed in Arabs before Islam.

Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah shows in this work that, the Muslims developed a science of international law and separating it from political science and general law and made it an independent subject. They wrote on the subject of Jihad (War) and Siyar (conduct in time of war and peace) in Arabic language. In this connection, the work mentions the name of several Muslim jurists including Zaid Ibn Ali, Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam  Hasan al-Shaibani (749-805 AD). Discussing the concept of peace the learned author dwelt at length the principles of sovereignty, independence, jurisdiction and diplomatic relations. With regard to the jurisdiction of international law, the work has discussed the rights of people of Islamic states vis a vis non Muslim states. According to the author Islamic law has given many rights to non-Muslim subjects in the capacity of Zimmi. They are exempted from Zakat and are not bound to render the defense services. They are to be governed by their own personal laws. As far as a Muslim in non-Muslim state is concerned, the work says that he can follow the Islamic law fulfilling the obligations of the governing slate. Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah has dwelt in detail the rights of war prisoners in his work.

3.  Introdution to Islam (English):
Another work of Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah in which a big portion relates to different aspects of Human rights, is Introduction to Islam in English. It is not a book of Islamic law but deals with many aspects of  Islamic law in brief. 

In this work Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah has clearly emphasized and discussed at length that Islam permits non-Muslim subjects of Islamic state to decide their cases in accordance with their own law, far from imposing Islamic law on everybody, Islam admits that every group Christian, Jewish, or other should have its own tribunals presided over by its own judges, in order to have its own laws applied in all branches of law, civil as well as criminal. If the parties to a dispute belong to different communities, a kind of private international law decides the conflict of laws.

Another contribution of Muslims which is given in the work is related to rights of humanity. The author says that Muslims were first in the world who gave the rights to humanity in definite shape in written form. The work also analyses the main contents of the Charter of Madinah (Watha 'iq-e-Madinah), which has been already discussed in detail in relation to his work-The First Written Constitution in the World.
In addition to the above matters, the work also discusses a number of socio-economic and political problems of modern period such as expenditure of Zakat. game of chance, status of non-Muslim in Muslim state  etc.

4.   Khuttbaat-e-Bahawalpur  (Lectures in urdu at Bahawalpur) :
The work as earlier stated is collection of Dr. Hamidullah's twelve lectures which he delivered at Bahawalpur University during 8th March to 20th March 1980 on different important aspects of Islamic Studies. The work contains four chapters on Fiqh-e-Islami and Islamic law namely Tarikh-e-Fiqh. Tarikh-e-Usiil-e-Fiqh wa Ijtehad, Islam'i Qanun Bain al-Mumalik and 'Ahd-e- Nabawimen Nizam-e-Tashri' wa 'Adliyah. The chapter of this work deals with the Islamic law which relates to the relationship between different nations of the world  and a Islamic state, of which Human Rights are an integral part.

Discussin Qanun Bain al-Mumalik, the Dr. Muhammad hamidullah, critically examines the working of International law in different countries in pre-Islamic period and then he comes to the conclusion that there was no international law in true sense of the word before Islam. It was actually one of the important contributions of Islam to the human civilization. The learned scholar observed that Greek international law suffered from a serious draw back that it was confined to a few people and ignored the rest of the world which was considered barbaric and was not, therefore, worthy of being treated in accordance with law.

On the other hand, the author pointed out that Islamic international law does not allow discrimination in dealing with non-Muslim states, it is equally applicable for all non-Muslim states. If international law is not confined to a few specific nations, then it originated with the advent of Islam and Muslims are perhaps the only nation in the world which can legitimately claim to possess a just international law as has been discussed earlier in detail.

5. Qanun Bain al-Mumalik ke Usul aur Naziren (Urdu):
The book, relating to the principles of international relations, was written, keeping in view of the requirements of L.L.B. students of Osmania University (Hyderabad). It is a general book on international law but at many places it compares the concept of international law of different communities with Islamic international law. The learned author has discussed in detail about the principles of relationship between two countries in the condition of war, peace and neutrality.

If any law has to get global importance with regards to the rights of people, it should be uniform and every citizen shall have equal rights. In this regard, the author pointed out that this aspect was taken into consideration only in Islamic law. Arab scholars compiled rules, customs and usages to formulate a developed system of Islamic law and in the 2nd Hijra this system developed into a concrete art or separate discipline which was called by them as Siyar.

With regard to the jurisdiction of the law of non-Muslims in Muslim states and vice versa, he says "since the ancient times, Islamic state had granted permission to non-state people to be dealt with by their personal laws. There are enough historical evidences to suggest that at least till 3rd century Hijra and later on. Muslims were also permitted to be tried by their respective civil and  criminal courts in states of China, Malabar and Turkistan etc. In China, the Muslims were adjudicated by Muslim jurist only, even if plaintiff was non-Muslim citizen of China. Such Jurist is called as Hunarman. Even European had been given such rights especially in the commercial centers of Egypt and Istanbul since long time.

Discussing the rights of prisoners of wars, the work says that Romans considered them as slaves and the Christians formulated more stringent regulation about them. Islam guaranteed them rights and exhorted its followers to treat them well. The prisoners of war can be liberated either gratuitously, or on ransom, or in exchange of Muslim prisoners in the lands of the enemy, at the discretion of the commander/ ruler. The prisoners will be provided all necessary facilities. They will be given religious freedom, all the arrangement will be done for the sick and injured prisoners. If any prisoner wants liberation on the commitment that he will not wage war against Muslims, he will be liberated. Their enslavement is permitted but this not obligatory.

Women Rights in Islam:
Status of women in islam can be best understood only when their status in the pre Islamic era is examined closely. 
Women in pre-Islamic era (Jahiliya) had almost no rights. They were not considered equal to men and were thus dictated under strict system. They were treated as objects and were constantly humiliated. They had a very little control over their marriages; they were also ineligible to inherit property. Before Islam there was no any concept that a woman can pass the freedom life as now she is passing. The Arab's of pre-Islamic era never treated their women as human. The women had no rights and no social status, if a man can afford he married as many women as he liked & he can deserted at any time whenever he wanted. Temporary marriages were very common. On the death of a man, his sons married their step-mother, or his brothers inherited his widows as though they were very chattels. No wonder that the women of the jahaliya period suffered terribly. They had no property, no rights to live as good women, no social respect nor honor, polygamy & even polyandry were rampant or very common. Islam brought about tremendous amelioration in their status.

Dr.Muhammad Hamidullah in his works has dwelt in detail in his works on the Rights provided by Islam to women. One such work of Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah is his English article “Muslim Woman”

In the preface of this article Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah says, “When studying the principal rights and obligations of women in Islam, it must be pointed out at the very outset, that in spite of a capacity of Muslim law to adapt itself and to develop according to circumstances, there will be no question that one will recognize the extreme liberty that a woman enjoys today both in fact and in practice. She enjoys this liberty in certain sections of social life, both in the capitalistic and the communistic West. Islam demands that a woman should remain a reasonable being. It does not expect her to become either an angel or a demon. "The golden means is the best of things," said Prophet . If one wants to compare or contrast her position in Islam with that in other civilizations or legal systems, one should take into consideration all the facts, and not merely isolated practices. In fact, in regard to certain aspects of morality, Islam is more rigid and more puritan than certain other systems of life in our times.”

Discussing the personal status of women in Islam, Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah has categorized the rights of women as a mother, as a wife and as a daughter and has also discussed the equality. In the capacity of a mother the learned author writes,  “The position of a mother is exalted in Islamic tradition. Prophet  has gone so far as to say: "Even Paradise lies underneath the feet of your mothers." Al-Bukhari reports: Somebody asked the Prophet which work pleases Almighty most? He replied "The service of worship at the appointed hour." And when it was continued: "And what afterwards?" the Prophet replied: "To be bounteous to your father and mother." The Qur'an refers to this often, and reminds man that he must always keep in mind the fact that it was his mother who had borne him in her womb, suffered much on his account and brought him up after making all kinds of sacrifices.”

As a wife the rights enjoyed by women are described by the learned author as described as under,
 “As regards the woman as wife, the saying of the Prophet is well known: "The best among you is the one who is bet towards his wife." In his memorable Farewell discourse, pronounced on the occasion of the Last Pilgrimage, the Prophet spoke of women at length, and said in particular: "Well then, people! Verily there are rights in favour of your women which are incumbent upon you, and there are rights in favour of you which are incumbent upon them. As to what is incumbent upon them in your regard, is that they should not let your beds be trampled by other than you, should not allow those to enter your houses whom you do not like without your authorization, and should not commit turpitude. If they do commit that, then Almighty has given you permission to reprimand them, to separate yourself from them in beds, and to strike them but not hard. If they abstain and obey you, then it is incumbent upon you to provide their food and dress in accordance with good custom. And I command you to treat women well, because they are like captives in your houses, possessing nothing for themselves, and you, on your part, take them as a deposit from Almighty, and permit yourselves the enjoyment of their persons by means of a word of Almighty. Have therefore the fear of Almighty with regard to women, and I Order you to treat them well. Attention! Have I communicated? O Almighty, be witness!"

In the capacity of a daughter, the rights bestowed by Islam are brought to light by Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah in the following words,
“ With regard to woman as daughter, the Islamic attitude can be guessed from the reproaches which the Qur'an makes against the pagan, pre-Islamic behaviour at the birth of daughters: "And they assign unto Almighty daughters - be He purified (from this)! - and unto themselves what they desires (i.e., sons); and when if one of them receiveth tidings of the birth of a female, his face remaineth darkened, and he is wroth inwardly. He hideth himself from the folk because of the evil of what whereof he hath tidings, (asking himself); Shall he keep it in contempt, or bury it beneath the dust? Verily evil is their judgment." [Qur'an 16:57-59].

The Qur'an reminds ceaselessly that Almighty has created all things in pairs, and for procreation both the sexes are equally indispensable, each one having its particular function. And it proclaims: ". . . unto men a fortune from that which they have earned, and unto women a fortune from that when they have earned." [Qur'an 4:32]
In a critical explanation Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah endorses the Equality of Women in Islam as, women in Islam are equal to man in certain respects and not so in certain others

To avoid redundancy, Nature has not willed perfect equality among the two sexes, but a complementary distribution of avocations and functions. For instance, it is not possible for a man to conceive a baby; similarly the natural attributes of men cannot be exercised by women. She has a more delicate physical constitution, her voice will be more melodious and less sonorous, and she will have a taste more in conformity with the need to conserve this delicacy. Men however are more robust and will have greater strength and are therefore more endowed to engage in the more painful parts of life. To each will be according to his or her requirements, both natural and reasonable.
 If there is a certain natural inequality between the two sexes, in many other aspects of life they resemble each other. Therefore their rights and obligations in those domains will also be similar.  This sums up, in a way, the Islamic teaching on woman: she is considered equal to men in certain respects but not so in certain others. This could be understood better in the description of her obligations and her rights which follows.

Conclusion:
In addition to the above works, Dr.  Hamidullah also contributed a large number of articles on Islamic law, Human Rights, Women Rights and International Relations. Some of them are, International Law in Islam (English), 'Islamic Notion of Conflict of Laws (English), Siyar ya Qanun Bain al-MumaIik (Urdu), 

The contents of these articles show the Muslim Conduct of State, Discussing the subject matter of Islamic law, the author points out that Islamic law is to be applied to non-Muslim or aliens too. Highlighting the opinion of Muslim jurists on strangers, his works mention that all non-Muslims, foreigners or residents of Muslim state constitute one nation and all Muslims are brothers and are considered one nation. So, Islamic law will be applied to all non-Muslim whichever they, residing in Muslim state or non-Muslim state.

It is also clarified by the author that the non-Muslim citizens {Zimmi) of Islamic state will be treated by their own law. Non-Muslim travelers who reside in Islamic state with the permission of government, they will be also treated according to their personal law. His works emphasized that there was no difference between superior and ordinary man in Islamic states. In Islamic law a ruler is considered under the jurisdiction and he is not free to do anything. Many examples are available from the Islamic history that the rulers were called in the courts if needed.

Discussing the concept of peace in his works Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah has dwelt at length the principles of sovereignty, independence, justice, equality and diplomatic relations as well as Individual and collective Rights of the different sections of Society. It is quite clear from above discussion that the works of Dr.  Hamidullah covers all important aspects of Human Rights in Islam. The works also critically examined the works of early jurists and their role in the development of Islamic laws related to Human Rights. Dr. Hamidullah also played a pioneer role to elaborate Watha'iq-e-Mad'inah. He rightly said that the Charter of Madinah was first written constitution of first Muslim independent state (Madinah) in the world in which every citizen of pluralistic society was given the rights. These rights also have been discussed by the author in detailed way. There are three conditions of mutual relation between different Communities- peace, hostility and neutrality. The works of Dr. Hamidullah on Islamic international law provides rules of Shariat to maintain the relations in these three conditions. Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah has also exhaustively discussed the Rights bestowed upon women in Islam in this works.

I conclude with two couplets one each of Persian and Urdu 

Ibadat bajuz khidmat-e-khalq neest ,Ba tasbih-o-sajjadah-o-dalq neest. Shaikh Saadi (1203-1292 AD)
(Without service of humanity,prayer means nothing It is not counting beads, sitting on the mat Or wearing tatters.)

Fakeer Rehke bhi Bandanawaz aisa tha, Kisi pe khul na saka uska raaz aisa tha. - Dr.Rahi Fidai
He bestowed Humanity in spite his austerity status, the secret which is unrevealed on any one. 



#HumanRights in #Islam & Prof. #Hamidullah 's work http://jameelblr.blogspot.in/2017/02/human-rights-in-islam-prof-hamidullahs.html

Friday 3 February 2017

United we stand

By Dr Mohammad Manzoor Alam
(click on the name to know more abut author)
I am returning to this column after a long while, in circumstances that are far from pleasant. Today, the Islamic world is a sad picture of disarray, anarchy and violence–internal as well as with others. From Afghanistan to Iraq, Saudi Arabia to Syria and Somalia, Turkey to Yemen, it is a story of violence all the way.

Everywhere, both sites of the conflict are Muslim and the victims are almost always innocent non-combatants, quite often women, children and the old. People have been forced to flee their homes, crossing borders in desperation with little food and water and insufficient clothing in severely cold climates. Till they get recognised as refugees in their new land they have to sleep in the open icy climes.

The refugees flooding Christian Europe are Muslims. Another, and possibly the most significant haven for these refugees, is Turkey, a preponderantly Muslim country. All the victims and perpetrators are Muslims. The shared values of Islam should have glued them together, but the differences of ethnicity, religious sect and subsect, differences over national claims and other variables are tearing Muslim societies apart. Islam was meant to unite Muslims as well as the entire humanity.

Every day we read reports of violence, see on our TV screens, busy cities in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen bombed with huge casualties. Both sides are Muslim. Only a few hours before writing this piece the media were flush with graphic reports of the destruction of the historic heritage city of Aleppo in Syria, one of the oldest and most developed centres of culture.

President Bashar Asad’s forces, supported by Iran and Russia, have leveled the city and conducted a massacre barely seen outside Hitler’s Germany. The massacre has been so huge that Paris switched off the lights of the great Eifel Tower in protest and mourning. The UN Security Council, Europe and the US took note, but did nothing to save Muslims from other Muslims. This is a great moment for Muslims of all kinds, sects, ethnicities, nationalities and races to deeply think over what is going on, where does Islam stand, and where have the Muslim failed. This is not merely a political failure, but a civilisational one also.

To begin with, Muslims have miserably failed to evolve a political system which offers everyone some space, freedom of opinion and choice and a system that happily welcomes and accommodates difference. There is rarely any organised system of peaceful transfer of power in the Muslim world. One of the many examples is the blood-soaked Syria where Hafez al-Asad ruled for decades and passed the reins to his son Bashar before dying. The son is there to rule for as long as the father did, even if Syria is destroyed in the process.

What the Muslim states as well as Muslim societies are suffering from comes from a lack of appreciation and tolerance of diversity. This is largely a political failure because the system of governance in Muslim world (ranging from monarchy to various degrees of dictatorship) has failed to ensure democratic respect for difference: difference of race, ethnicity, tribal affiliation, religions and religious sect. To avoid a complete civilisational breakdown the Muslim world must debate on and evolve a proper political system for those countries and societies and must come to terms with modern ideas of state and nationhood. Civilisation must be anchored in Islam. Yet, as Akbar S. Ahmed wisely points out Muslims have got to come to terms with the post-colonial paradigm, of democracy, state and nationhood. Ahmed notes that because Muslims have failed to come to terms with the post-colonial paradigm we see people like Saddam in Iraq and Asad in Syria who destroyed millions of their own countryman. There are others like them waiting for their turn to devastate their own lands and people.

Unity is not possible without a certain liberal stance, tolerance and willing acceptance of diversity. We have to remember that God made a diverse world, and diversity is the essential feature of existence in the world. God says in the Quran that if He so desired He would have made everyone a Muslim, but He made it a diverse world, so that different races, tribes and clans could distinguish and identify each other.

Both for the unity of the Ummah and for peace within it as well as peace with other faiths a liberal and tolerant attitude is essential. For unity in the Ummah one has to recognise (as does the post-modernist literary theory) that there can be several different readings of a single text (including the text of scripture) and all of them could be equally valid.

This explains why there are so many sects, sub-sects and sub-sub-sects within Islam. It is largely because of different interpretations (readings) of the Quran and the Prophet’s (PBUH) traditions. Hence, it is not desirable to insist that only one of them is right and all other interpretations and sects/sub-sects based on them are dubious. Such a rejectionist view can easily destroy unity. It is also against the Islamic credo that plurality of opinion in the Ummah is a blessing from God and worthy of cherishing.

The emphasis on an acceptance of diversity is finely exemplified in an incident in the life of the 13th century Muslim sufi poet Mewlana Jalaluddin Rumi. It was said that he did not believe in sectarian differences, to the extent that he accepted all the putative 72 sects of Islam as valid and equal to each other. There is the common belief in parts of the Muslim world that there will come a time when Muslims will be divided in 72 sects and only one of them will be right. Followers of all others will be consigned to hell.

When a hot-headed Muslim (there has never been a shortage of such fellows) came to learn of the sufi’s belief he confronted him: “Mewlana Jalauddin, I have heard that you tell people you accept all 72 sects as valid?” Mewlana Jalauddin Rumi said, “Yes, I do.” At that the man flew into a rage and began a flurry of expletives and choice abuses. The sufi listened to the abuses calmly. When the hot-headed man got tired and fell silent, Mewlana Rumi announced quietly: “And I accept fully this 73rd sect of yours.” Only such great men with their generous acceptance promote unity and avoid division in the Ummah and the world at large.

As long as we insist that our sect, sub-sect or sub-sub-sect is right and all others are doomed to hell, we will be promoting division and mutual hatred. An example from the subcontinent is illustrative. The Hanafi sub-sect of the Sunni sect is divided further into sub-sub-sects - Deobandis and Barelvis. Instead of cherishing their shared Hanafi doctrine they are at each other’s throats. Even within these two there are internal differences of emphasis. Differences can be ok, but hatred, division and violence are not. Both within Shia and Sunni sects there are sub-sects that are violently opposed to each other. There is a history of massive violence within sects and a long record of mutual suspicion and animosity.

India’s Muslim community is divided both vertically and horizontally. There is a distinct horizontal division in the name of masaalik, and there is a vertical division in the name of castes. Put together, they generate such animosity that their mutual ill-will transcends the capability of Islam to unite and heal.

The poet Iqbal wrote a hundred years ago which, in translation is “Divided you (Muslims) are in sects and castes/ Is it how people flourish in the world?” It is quite apparent that such mutual antagonism runs against the grain of Islam and brings disgrace to the Ummah. Enough is enough. Now let us close our ranks and follow God’s command: “Hold together (all of you) the rope of Allah and don’t create dissension in your ranks.” Muslims must pay heed to it.

They do not pay heed to the Prophet’s [PBUH] warning to Muslims not to unsheathe their swords against each other. Otherwise, the sword will never go back to the sheath. The sword that was unsheathed in the civil war between Sahabah (the Prophet’s (PBUH) companions has not gone back into the sheath. It must be sheathed now if our civilisation has to survive.
United we stand - 2

I am returning to this column within a week. The usual periodicity of this is once every month or so. The reason for this is the wide response to the last column under this title. The enthusiastic response to the article shows that Muslims are bothered about the widespread disunity in their ranks and they want to know the issues that divide us. This is also a good sign as knowing a problem brings us half way to resolving it.

By the way, understanding an issue requires clarity, which does not come easy to many of us. An example of this was a mail from one of our readers who suggested that the destruction of Aleppo (and much of Syria) is the handiwork of the French. This is not the case. The destruction has been wrought by Bashar Assad with the help of Iran and Russia, not France.

He wrote, rather unintelligibly, “The French general put his foot on Saladin’s grave and proclaimed”. It seems as if the French general did it during the destruction of Aleppo earlier this week, and hence France was responsible for the humiliation of the Muslim hero (Salahuddin Ayubi) and France was behind the destruction of Syria during nearly half a century of the illegal rule of the Asads (Bashar and Hafez). This understanding of a major tragedy in the Muslim world is not correct.

What this writer is referring to is an incident that is now almost a century old (the end of World War-I). After defeating the Ottoman caliphate (under which much of the Arab world, including today’s Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria and Palestine came), the French general marched in pomp to the grave of Salahuddin (Saladin) and proclaimed, “Saladin, we are here”. What the French general in his hubris did was motivated by racial memory and historical animosity. Saladin had driven European crusaders out of most of the Kingdom of Jerusalem nearly seven and a half century before the end of the World War-I, and the French general’s impudent behavior. Racial memory and historical antagonism are part of human life, but this does not have to determine all of our actions. We cannot live in the past, and cannot attribute all of today’s developments to the past.

As we said earlier, what is happening in Syria and most of the Muslim world indicates our inability to deal with our own affairs in a politically appropriate way. Coming back to Syria again (even though there are several like it) we have to remember that it was a certain kind of political environment that fostered the growth of the Asads, who destroyed their country. Even without the Asads and their partners in their crimes (Russia and Iran now) there has been sufficient internal hostility between tribes, ethnicities, sects and sub-sects to tear the country apart. Islam alone has not always been able to keep them united, because here we are not having a generic, undifferentiated, unified Islam, but several versions of it, practised by different sects, sub-sects, ethnicities and tribal groups.

In many cases, it is not the unified Ummah that is visible, but a constant fragmentation that is at work. It would be desirable for different kinds of Muslim communities worldwide to agree on a loose Ummatic consensus that accepts that across races, climates, continents and countries, ethnicities and tribes, political ideologies and cultural preferences Prophet Muhammad’s community is united in its amazing diversity as Allah wishes and in the love of the Prophet (PBUH).

This is the ideal (what should be), but not the real (what is). The effort has to continue through local, regional, national and international fora. However, to avoid a complete civilisational breakdown (towards which we are headed), we must never insist on a single, one size fits all Islam and try to enforce it across all cultures and climes. Cultural, ethnic and sectarian forces have frequently overwhelmed Islam’s capability to keep the Ummah united throughout Muslim history. Elaboration of this might need more space than this column provides. Suffice it to say that we must never try to enforce uniformity across the Ummah. Only diversity can keep it together in a symbolic bond. We must learn to live together separately, allowing everybody his or her space. In its great wisdom the holy Qur’an declares: “No compulsion in faith”.

To elaborate it further, nobody has the moral or legal right to eliminate all difference. No black person’s skin can be peeled like a banana to make him look like a white man (Salman Rushdie’s Moor’s musing), nor can a white man or woman’s skin be painted black. Likewise, the difference within and without Islam cannot be eliminated without permanently destroying peace. If we cannot accept the diversity within Islam, how can we live in peace with Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and others?

We have examples from other religions, societies and countries where people have accepted difference willingly and have agreed to live together separately in peace. An example from Germany is worth citing here. In the 19th century some leaders of the Christian church met Jewish leaders and told them, “We think you are in error and you think we are in error”. Then the Christian leaders said something to the effect: “We are free to have our ideas of each other. But, now onwards, let us decide to live with each other in peace”. That understanding led to the German Jews’ rise as equal citizens and the end of ghettos and everything they stood for. That understanding was destroyed by Hitler’s rise in the 30s of the 20th century.

However, after the defeat of Nazis and end of World War II, many Jews returned to live as equal citizens in Germany as they were living before Hitler. This is not an unblemished happy-ending story, but it shows people can (and should) try to live happily with others despite differences of faith, sect, race and ethnicity.

A more enduring and successful story comes from the secularisation of Europe, which was more fissiparous and driven by hatred between different Christian sects. The violence of Londonderry and Belfast which we read about in newspapers in our college days paled in significance compared to the violence and madness of 19th century Europe. Incidentally, the last viceroy of India, Lord Louis Mountbatten, was assassinated by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) that was behind much of the violence of Londonderry and Belfast of those days. Even that violence has simmered down.

Much of Europe deflated religious antagonism and sectarian violence among Christians by delinking state from church. That means no sect had the patronage of the state and all citizens were equal as the state had no religion of its own. This arrangement has held strongly for more than a century. It is interesting to note that Europe was secularised not to protect Muslims, Jews or Buddhists, but to protect Christians from Christians. The same arrangement has held the United States together from the beginning. Right from the coming of Pilgrims (the first European settlers in America) Christian sects came to America because there was no religious preference there, and hence no persecution. Can we devise some innovative schemes like that to save Muslims from Muslims and accommodate our diversity happily?

United we stand-3

The unity, prosperity and wellbeing of Muslims as individuals, groups and countries is so important that by the time we come to the end of an article we realise that far more has remained unsaid than what has been said. This is sure that the political order in most Muslim countries is not appropriate to their requirements, their worldly aspirations, their material growth, political freedom and spiritual fulfillment. There is something grossly amiss.

It is often debated as to what kind of a political order will suit the Ummah. To answer this satisfactorily, we will have to keep in mind that the Ummah does not consist of a single racial, national, ethnic or cultural group located in a single geographical area. It consists virtually of folk from all racial, ethnic, national and cultural groups spread over a vast and diverse terrain, globally.

To accommodate such diversity, Muslims all over the world will have to decide what kind of a political order will satisfy their needs. A section of Muslims (mostly Islamists) believe that Islam allows only one political system, that is caliphate. That, at best, is a debatable assertion. The fact remains that both caliphate and something resembling monarchy, was existing within years of the passing away of the Prophet (PBUH). The Prophet’s surviving companions and later ulema recognised the legitimacy of both Hazrat Ali’s caliphate and Hazrat Mu’awiya’s non-caliphal rule, which has been described by some as mamlikat (kingdom). This position holds even today among Sunni Muslims who cite the efficient and powerful rule of Hazrat Mu’awiya, which led to great expansion of Islam. In mainstream Sunni Islam both models of state are recognised from the time of the last rightly guided caliph, Hazrat Ali.

However, those who insist that the caliphate is the only legitimate model should keep in mind that Islam has flourished under every system of government, from caliphate to sultanate, emirate to imamate, different kinds of dictatorships to some imperfect, poor version of democracy. It is not basically a matter of the survival of Islam, but the well being of the people, because Islam (the deen of Allah) is capable of surviving in all kinds of conditions, but people cannot live happily under a bad government.

The fact remains that Islam has been resilient enough to survive and prosper in all times and climes, including in the wake of the rise of nationalism when national sovereignty does not allow supranational authority. That is, Kuwait cannot be ruled from Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia cannot be ruled from Turkey. Sovereign authority cannot come from outside the borders of the nation state, which is a primary feature of the earliest caliphate. Because the exclusive idea of nation was not there in the 7th century, the early four caliphates could rule different countries (sometimes precariously) from one place. In the age of nation state it is not possible, although a union like European Union is possible for the Gulf countries (GEC) or a larger grouping of Muslim states (OIC), but even a well-knit body like EU cannot fully replace national authority. Bodies like GEC, OIC and others don’t have even that much of coherence. Still, the OIC, with a rotating presidency, can have features of a loose, 21st century version of caliphate of sorts. Such things need a lot of innovation as well as clarity of purpose, all of which are scarce today in the Ummah.

The Muslim experience of caliphate has been extremely difficult. Three out of the four first caliphs, the “rightly guided” ones (Khulfa-e-Rashideen) were assassinated. To have a clear picture of the enormity of the situation, imagine the United States. This is like the assassination of 33 of the 45 US presidents. Could the US survive such a calamity? Could any nation state survive such a situation? With the assassination of the fourth caliph the institution of caliphate staggered and could rarely regain its pristine glory after that over the last 1400 years.

With the end of the Turkish Ottoman caliphate at the end of World War I the institution practically ended. The fears of Indian supporters of the Turkish caliphate, that with the end of this institution Islam’s survival would be endangered, did not come true. The fervent appeals to the British to save it were at best nonsensical because the British had no interest in saving it, and at worst futile, because the Turkish revolutionaries were determined to sack the Turkish king, who was also the caliph.

The most significant, however, is that the caliphate had not come to the Ottoman Turks in a recognised, legitimate manner. When the Ottomans captured Arab lands, the Ottoman king simply removed the Arab caliph and declared himself the caliph. The caliphate that ended at the end of World War I was acquired thus. Even when it was alive it had no authority or influence over Mughal India or Safavid Iran, and a lot of other lands.

The point here is that the idea of khilafat (caliphate) in the present context is a mere abstraction, with little substance. The problem still remains as to how the Muslim world should rule itself to ensure maximum representation of the people in corridors of power, how can the people get their fair share of the economic cake, how can they enjoy maximum social, economic and political freedom. At present most of the Muslim world is not getting it. People have a right to representation, to be masters of their own destiny. Most of the Muslim world is not getting any of it. All this has to be ensured for Muslim nations and societies to function smoothly. Badly governed states are their own worst enemies. People in such states and societies do not see themselves as one. Political reform is a must for the Muslim world on an urgent basis.

To understand some of the content of khilafat, one has to remember that in the Quran God calls the first man, Adam, His khalifa (caliph), which means “deputy”. God being the King of all creation, Adam was the vice-regent of God on earth. But the caliphs of caliphates are different. The first caliph, Hazrat Abu Bakr, was designated Khalifatur Rasulullah (the Prophet’s [PBUH] caliph, or deputy). Abu Bakr took over the reins of the nascent Islamic state on the death of the Prophet (PBUH). Hence, he was Khalifatur Rasulullah. When he died, Hazrat Omar took over as Khalifah Khalifatur Rasulullah (the deputy of the Prophet’s [PBUH] deputy). In short, khalifah. However, Omar chose the title Ameerul Momineen (the chief of believers). This was a more reasonable choice as the caliph next to him would be called Khalifah Khalifah Khalifatur Rasulullah. And this title would go on protracting.

A point to be noted here by the proponents of khilafat in India is that this country was never ruled by a caliphate at any point in its history, much less by the Ottomans. During all the centuries of caliphates this country was ruled by sovereign rulers without the overlordship of a caliphate at any time. Even during the 600 years of the Ottoman caliphate Delhi had the Turko-Mongols (Mughals), and before them Turks ruled it without any guidance from, or overlordship of, the Ottomans, who were removed by Turks themselves as Arab lands abolished their rule, often with the help of the British. Keeping all this in mind we can guess how unrealistic the recurring movement for khilafat in India has been, especially the one that peaked in the 90s.

Without making a definitive choice of a particular form of government for the Muslim world one has to assert that the forms of government under which the Muslim world has been ruled since World War I have served them poorly, oppressed the people, denied them representation and often worked in the interests of Western powers rather than the interests of their own people. Such unrepresentative governments must be done away with at the earliest.

Mulukiyat (kingship) came early in Islam. Ameer Mu’awiyah, who was the founder of the Umaiyad kingdom, was the governor of Syria when the third caliph Hazrat Osman, married consecutively to two daughters of the Prophet (PBUH), was assassinated by self-claimed supporters of Hazrat Ali, cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet (PBUH). The assassins were roaming freely in Medina, the capital till then, during Ali’s caliphate. Ali called governor Mu’awiyah from Damascus to Medina. Mu’awiyah, a kinsman of Osman (the assassinated caliph), demanded that he would come to Medina only after assassins of Osman were caught and punished and Medina was cleared of rebels.

He rightly feared that he would be assassinated like his kinsman if he went to Medina. He refused to go there till his conditions were met, which were never met. Instead, Ali was assassinated by his own supporters. Thus ended the life of the fourth (and last) rightly guided caliph as Mu’awiyah was ruling independently in Syria. The Umaiyad kingdom took Islam to great victories and its expansion. Mu’awiyah was a companion of the Prophet (PBUH) and many of the surviving companions as well as the Prophet’s wives supported the Umaiyad kingdom. Sunni ulema of following generations have vouchsafed for the legitimacy of kingdom as much as caliphate as equally appropriate for governance in Islam. That shows Islam does not exclusively insist on a single form of government.

There are people in the Muslim world who still want to establish a caliphate (not being sure where). There are extremists among them who use objectionable language for the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) who were with Mu’awiyah. One such person was Hazrat Mughira who was one of the most revered ten companions (Ashrah mubashshirah) who were proclaimed by God in their lives as residents of paradise, (jannah). The point to consider is whether Muslims should go by God’s vindication of these men or the condemnation of today’s lovers of caliphate. Are these men wiser than God?

Advocates of caliphate today (like ISIS) ignore the basic principle that “politics is the art of the possible.” One such arm-chair political thinker from the Arab world writes self-righteously that democracy is bad and only khilafat is acceptable. He goes on to declare that a khalifah has to be an Arab. (What about the 600 years of Turkish caliphate? Was it illigimate because it was not Arab?) Then he insists that he should be a Qureish. Horror of horrors! Two people should contend for the caliphate and a panel of four persons should select one of them (like Abu Bakr) and cut the head of the second one. How great? He does not say what the supporters of the slain aspirant will do to the caliph and the people around them. The Shia-Sunni schism originated from there: Muslims drew their swords on each other and the sword never went back into the sheath, and the schism never healed.

For peace and unity we need an appropriate political order, which allows choice, representation, equal opportunity, peaceful (periodic) transfer of power, not mutual mass annihilation as we have been witnessing over the centuries.

United we stand - 4
A Century of Setbacks





Now that we are in the fourth week of the first month of January 2017, we look back at the last century (1917-2017) as lost years for the Ummah, for which it has truly been a century of setbacks. Rarely any major goals that the Ummah set for itself has been achieved, except decolonisation of Muslim lands in the wake of the two World Wars. Even this came about as a result of the destruction of the European countries that had colonised Africa, Asia and Latin America (the latter was largely decolonised earlier). The two wars between the colonisers devastated them and loosened their grip over the colonised lands, not the efforts of Mahdi, Omar Mukhtar and Grand Mufti Husseini.

However, no sooner than the Muslim lands were vacated, the European powers tightened their grasp on these lands by appointing their chosen men as rulers of these notionally free countries. With the defeat of Germany and its ally, the Ottoman Caliphate, British agents provoked an Arab revolt in the countries that the Ottomans ruled. The Turkish troops, badly beaten in Arab lands, went back to Turkey, that is, troops that survived the British-assisted Arab onslaught. That was the first manifestation of Arab nationalism, its victory and the defeat of the caliphate, an Ummatic institution. The Ummatic concept was discarded and a European concept, nationalism, chosen by the Arabs. However, the Arabs were soon betrayed by the British, who taught Arab Muslims the idea of nationalism in the first place. 

In the year 1917 the World War I ended. British Parliament made the infamous Balfour Declaration proposing to divide Palestine in two parts: one for the Jews, the second for the Arabs. After the defeat of the Ottoman Turks, Palestine (along with other lands) had come under the British. Palestine was a British “protectorate.” Since the Balfour Declaration the Arab world has not seen a day of peace. At one point the Saudi King Abdul Aziz bin Saud had cautioned Winston Churchill that division of Palestine to create a Jewish state would destroy peace for ever. However, Churchill ignored the sane counsel and the results are there for all of us to see.

A century of setbacks for Palestinians, Arab Muslims and the Muslim Ummah is completed this year. For some Palestinians, however, a century of their setbacks was completed in 2000 because they count the beginning of their sorrows from late 1890s, from the World Zionist Congress, when the surreptitious buying of Arab lands began. That means our troubles have roots that go back deeper in time. 

It is educative to look back at our largely futile efforts of the last 100 years that often brought us false dawns (Subh-e-Kazib) for a few moments of jubilation before the fearsome darkness of night enclosed the Ummah once again. Looking at the decline of the Ummah and the dominance of Western colonial powers over the Muslim lands ulema and thinkers had begun to conclude by the middle of the 19th century that the Western dominance had come because of some fundamental weaknesses in the Muslim societies and countries. But, what had caused those weaknesses? Some thought that Muslims had fallen behind because they had abandoned Islam, which was the cause of their rise in the first place. Men like Shah Waliullah Dehlavi and Mohammad bin Abdul Wahab Najadi pleaded a return to Islam way back in the 18th century. Both were disciples of an aalim in Madinah Munawwarah together before Shah Waliullah came back to Delhi. Shah Saheb was a fierce opponent of Western colonial dominance. 

After the middle of the 19th century two distinct types of revivalist responses began in Muslim lands, based on two distinctly different diagnoses of the malaise. The Muslim leaders exposed to Western education and culture asserted that the Muslim backwardness in scientific and technological knowledge had resulted in their defeat and loss of freedom to European colonisers. Hence their salvation lay in acquisition of Western science and technology. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the founder of Aligarh Muslim University, was a prime example in what are today India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. His idea was cooperation, not conflict, with the British overlords for Muslims to be able to learn their science and technology from them. 

The opposite view, that of struggle against the British, was held by the ulema who were around in the 1857 uprising against the British. The founder of Darul Uloom Deoband, Maulana Qasim Nanautawi, represented this view. Maulana Nanautawi had fought against British troops in the uprising of 1857 at Shamli in western Uttar Pradesh. Internationally, one of the early, and among the best known “Islamists”, Jamaluddin Afghani, supported the line of struggle and denounced Sir Syed’s pacifism. However, Sir Syed chose peace and reconstruction rather than agitation, turmoil and further slide into chaos and destruction. More than a century and a half later Sir Syed has been proven right even though the opposite camp too has made its contribution to revival of Islam and the struggle for India’s independence. Earlier, these two streams were placed opposite each other, but they largely came together in 1912 when the direct disciple of Maulana Nanautawi, Maulana Mahmood Hasan, visited AMU and initiated the Jamia Millia movement (along with other leaders). Jamia Millia Islamia (New Delhi) began as a counterpoint to AMU, a British loyalist institution. Jamia, which is a full-fledged university today, began as the “lusty child of freedom movement” in Nehru’s word. It was the darling of Gandhi, Hakim Ajmal Khan, Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Zakir Husein and other freedom fighters.

In India, and globally, several streams of Muslim thought and action have come together like Darul Uloom, AMU and Jamia as several others have drifted apart. The idea is to seek common ground on which we stand together, rather than blow our differences beyond proportion and drive ourselves apart. It is interesting to note that a major stream in Islam began internationally during the time of Sir Syed and Maulana Nanautawi, as represented by Jamaluddin Afghani, Mohammad Abduh and his disciple, Rashid Rida. This stream was less focused on theology, madaris, sufi hospices (khanqahs) and what is today understood as traditional Islam. The West knew it as “political Islam,” or Islamism (also, Islamicism). This stream has been politically and militarily targeted by the West and pro-West regimes lately. This was not always the case. At the height of the Cold War, this group was backed by the West and pro-West regimes as a bulwark against the spread of the influence of communism and Soviet Union. A leading figure of the Islamist persuasion in the Sub-continent with deep influence on Arab leaders like Syed Qutb, Maulana Abul Ala Mawdudi, was ordered by President Ayub Khan of Pakistan to be hanged. On the request of the Saudi King Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, US President Lyndon Baines Johnson intervened with Khan to let him off. Neither the Americans nor the Saudis are kindly disposed towards Islamists today. After the Soviet Union was chased out of Afghanistan, all Islamists - militant and peaceful - were targeted by the West and pro-West regimes. That phase continues till date. The West and pro-West regimes are far less hostile to the traditional Islam of pious ulema and most schools of sufism. 

It is important to note that the Arab world has experimented with different “isms” without much success. They have not succeeded in even getting a Palestinian state as envisaged by the Balfour Declaration, or the United Nations. 

Instead, almost on a daily basis, the Israelis have been capturing Palestinian lands since the last seven decades. The continuous building of Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands has been a major roadblock to peace. Even the last ten US presidents have officially opposed (and unofficially backed) the building of these settlements. The UN has always opposed the building of such settlements, without effect.

It is interesting to see how over the last seven decades no Arab movement has ever been able to make any dent in the Western-Israeli dominance over West Asia and beyond. The most powerful movement to emerge after Mohammad Abduh and Rashid Rida’s Islamist movement was that of Arab nationalism, which was secular in character, socialist in pretension and a strong counterpoint to the idea of Ummah, which emphasises Islam as a rallying force, not region or race, nation or ethnicity. 

The rise of Arab nationalism and Arab socialism got a new boost with the dethroning of King Farouk of Egypt in a military coup by Gamal Abdel Nasser and his group of army officers. Farouk was a Western stooge of Albanian origin. The generation of Islamist leaders after the pioneering generation of Abduh and Rida, Syed Qutb, Hasan al-Bannah and others, initially supported Nasser and his colleagues. However, when they wanted their own leader to be the Murshid-e-Aala (religious guide) of the regime they were sidelined. When they tried to assert themselves they were imprisoned and, later, executed. Thus the top Islamist leadership of the Arab world was decapitated and their organisation, Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan-al-Muslimeen), was shunned by the Arab nationalist leadership.

The Arab world came heavily under the influence of the secular, socialist Arab nationalism when, in 1955, Britain, France and Israel invaded the Suez Canal. They were sternly chided by the US President Dwight Eisenhower and ordered to leave. Meanwhile, the Egyptian forces were engaging with the invaders. This gave the impression to the Arabs that Nasser, the new saviour of the Arabs, had driven them out. That this was not the case was proven in 1967 when Israeli forces routed the combined Arab forces and captured Jerusalem (from Jordan), Sinai (from Egypt), West Bank and Gaza strip (from Jordan) and Golan Heights and Sheba Farms (from Syria). With these captured lands Israel grew four times bigger in size compared to its original area. 

With this defeat Arab nationalism lost face, but soon a new generation of Arab leaders, inspired by Nasser’s image, came up: Hafez al-Assad in Syria, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Anwar Sadat in Egypt, Jaffer al-Numeri in Sudan, Benali in Tunisia, besides Ahmad bin Billah in Algeria and some smaller figures in Arabic-speaking lands. Virtually all of them failed and brought great disaster on their countries. This almost buried Arab nationalism and Arab socialism forever. 

Political Islam, too, did greater harm than good. Egypt was politically divided because of it. Some of the extremist Islamists were executed. Others like al-Zawahiri and Omar the blind were exiled. Because of these groups hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed in civil war in post-Soviet Uzbekistan and the government abolished newly announced Islamic freedoms. In Afghanistan, CIA and Pakistan’s ISI trained the Taliban in madrasahs on Af-Pak border. The Taliban chased away and killed an entire generation of Afghanistan’s Islamic fighters, the Mujahideen. Later the West destroyed the Taliban themselves, with ISI help. The caliphate of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) killed thousands of Muslims before Khalifa Baghdadi was killed and the “caliphate” largely disintegrated. Before that, the one-eyed Taliban leader, Mullah Omar had declared himself caliph by reportedly appearing in public in the Prophet’s (PBUH) gown. 

Now is the moment for the Ummah to decide what it should do with itself, which course to take, which to avoid. We have seen far too many false dawns, run after far too many false messiahs. In this series of four articles I have pointed briefly at several issues that can be discussed in detail to clarify where we stand today and where we should be headed in days ahead