The New Nation - Internet Edition

The ethical triangle

Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq

The Quran has not been revealed because people will believe without due diligence and then believe in it and show their reverence by printing it in the form of a decorative artwork, and then wrapping in velvet fabric would place it in an unreachable shelf close to the roof, and occasionally recite without understanding the meaning to search the key to heaven. The real purpose of recitation is to read, learn, and understand that should lead to implementation of the teachings of the Quran in our full spectrum of life.

The time that is especially important for us to intimately understand the above-mentioned connection is the month of fasting. It is to materialize and practice the divine guidance we need Taqwa. Yet, most of us are either not aware or caring about the link between fasting and Taqwa. Even many of among us who are conscious of this connection neglect our responsibility to recognize and accept Taqwa as the foundation of building our entire life in light of the Quran. Those who understand the triangular connection can also easily understand the consequence of ignorance about and negligence toward this connection.

In the context of the breakdown of moral and ethical fabric of the contemporary Muslim society, it is important for us to recognize that the solution is intimately related to the functional link between Taqwa and our moral and practical values. There is no hope for our true liberation, both at the individual and the collective level, until we can bridge the gap between our words and action and solve our problem of lack of integrity of purpose and behavior. We need a fundamental overhaul of our values. It is not that we as Muslims are not familiar with such values. However, a great deal of ignorance and misunderstanding exists in regard to the proper place of such values in our life.

It is also a basic failure of those among us who are educated and/or scholars, especially from the religious viewpoint, to present this importance of the value and ethical system to our masses. This is evidenced by the fact that one can observe the contents and focus of the Jumuah Khutbah (Friday Prayer Sermon) where so much is mentioned about prayer and other aspects of Islam, but in my life I haven't heard one Friday sermon emphasizing the importance literacy or developing good relationship with everyone including non-Muslims.

Let us ignore the case of those who are secular (in some cases, anti-religion). Ignorance of or negligence toward religion in general on their part is understandable. In different societies there are many types of people who are secular or even anti-religion. Even in our Muslim societies, there are "secular Muslims" - that is, essentially "anti-religion Muslims." It is such a ridiculous as well as pathetic situation. But we will deal with this aspect on another occasion.

The reality is that secularism, atheism, agnosticism, nationalism, socialism, or capitalism does not give us such as an effective, balanced, comprehensive, and coherent framework of moral and ethical standard that in aggregate is beneficial for us. One can't escape in this context the question that how in the world then the Muslim societies are so messed up. Some may also raise the question, what then is the secret of the dazzling success of the West? Is their ethical foundation and moral values ineffective or useless? We have to analyze these questions at two levels.

At one level we have to deal with those who either are not fanatical against a central role of religion in human life or do not have a strong position on this issue one way or another. They generally have a different perspective about religion. Then there are those who would like to see religion as central to human life, among whom Muslims are supposed to be included. The discussion at the first level is important, but its scope is different. Our focus in this article is the second group of people.

Those who identify themselves as Muslims have a well-defined set of ideals and principles as well as a framework of moral and ethical standard. There is no need for or room of blind faith in Islam. Islam doesn't recognize or dignify blind faith and that is why it educates us in no ambiguous terms that to believe in Islam means that we should embrace Islam based on knowledge and understand and in its totality - that is, its philosophy, vision, values and laws. And if we do accept Islam, we should make a sincere and committed effort to organize our entire life according to Islam. We may have doubts or vacillation about it. Islam fully recognizes our liberty and invites us to the same effect to work toward removing such doubts or vacillation. If such doubts or vacillation cannot be overcome or resolved, why should we accept Islam? What is really then the need to believe in Islam? What is the reason or benefit of such faith and identity? What is the meaning and value of being a Muslim with such doubt, hesitation or ambivalence?

Therefore, we need to be clear and honest to ourselves that those who have such ambivalence about Islam neither they will benefit from Islam, nor will they benefit the Muslims or humanity at large. Let us now briefly discuss the case of those who sincerely believe in Islam.

What is the reason behind the moral breakdown of our society, the majority of which are intimately identified with Islam. What is the explanation of the fragility and decadence of such society?

Whatever views we hold about the Western societies and whether we have any interest or not in engaging ourselves in a comparative analysis, there is a clear criteria for us as Muslims to evaluate our problems, and that criteria is Islam.

Let us ask ourselves a few more pertinent questions? Why has our society become so unstable? Is there any solution of this in Islam? As Muslims are we facilitators or hindrance in this situation? What is the reason behind widespread poverty, deprivation, exploitation and oppression in our society? Is Islam a failure in this case; or, do we have these problems due to Islam; or, is it that it is because of us these problems persist? Why corruption, bribery and violent conflict so rampant in our society? Should we place the blame for these as well on Islam? Should we ignore our worldly problems and cherish our success in the life hereafter by attributing these problems to destiny?

Why the control and authority in our societies in the hands of individuals, parties, or groups that have absolutely no integrity? Is Islam's teaching unambiguous in these regards? Why the precious infants in various parts of the Muslim world have to die prematurely due to malnutrition or diseases? Why do we still bear the curse of illiteracy? In the context of all these, what really is the power and benefit of our Iman (belief), Amal (action), and Taqwa (God-consciousness)? Does Islam then teach us to abandon this world in favor the life hereafter? Do we really expect to represent Islam to the humanity while we are humiliated, subjugated, dependent, or problem-ridden on one hand, and a laughing stock of the world as we seek the aid, recognition, and status from the West? Let us ignore others, but is there really any effective answer from the vast number of pious Muslims - who devoutly perform prayer and fasting - to all these problems?

Only God knows as to which month of Ramadan will be the last one in our life. Yet, if we are to deal with the problems mentioned above, it is vitally important that we understand Taqwa's triangular connection based on the month of Ramadan, fasting, and the Quran as the guidance. This connection should help us understand and motivate better that Taqwa, Ramadan, and the Quran are not for a ritual-oriented life, but a value-based, action-oriented life for us, which is also for the betterment of the humanity. Let us welcome this blessed month of Ramadan with that spirit and awareness, and channel this Aakhirah-bound life to the desired direction by enhancing our Taqwa that would help us build a dynamic Islamic life.

(Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq is an associate professor of economics and finance at Upper Iowa University)

Community cohesion and extremism

Anealla Safdar

One would never imagine that such a seemingly sociable and, some might say, tepid topic like community cohesion, defined by the Government as the "attempt to build communities" could spark such snappy debate. But, that is what happens when you put Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears, Conservative Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action Shadow Minister, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi and Liberal Democrat Shadow Secretary for Communities and Local Government, Andrew Stunell, in the same room with around 100 young Muslims.

November 28, saw the second monthly session of its kind, where three members from each major political party meet with young Muslims in the House of Commons. Community cohesion, preventing extremism, the Government's relationship with Islam and empowering communities were on the agenda of this month's dialogue, with Barrister Fatima Kurji Jumabhoy chairing the debate.

Blears kicked the meeting off with a subject that British Muslims are all too familiar with. "I think that extremism is an issue that isn't simply for the Muslim community, it's an issue for the whole of the country," she said, "The truth is that we are facing a significant threat from terrorism." The way in which that 'threat' could be dampened must be a careful and delicate one, agreed the Government officials.

Blears admitted that the term 'community cohesion', one of the proposed remedies to extremism, was an instance of typical political jargon. So, she unpicked it for the audience. "I think it's about a sense of belonging, it's about a sense of belief, what you believe in. Nobody has a duty to assimilate themselves [but] I do think we need to understand how each other lives."

On October 7 2007, Blears announced that £50 million would be invested into cohesion promotion and tackling community tensions. This was an increase from £2m in 2007/08.

The roots of extremism, however, are deep and while funding for community action might be a positive step, audience members were keen to press the panel on the ways in which terrorism is targeted. "Every faith group has a positive duty to make their youth better, it's about enhancing communities," said Warsi, but agreed with other panel members that mosques, while sometimes being responsible for propagating extremist ideas, were not totally to blame.

Universities, on the other hand, where young people are politicised by just about anything, were seen as key locations where terrorism could be bred. "People express all sorts of views at universities. I look back to the days when I was at university, and when somebody said there was march on, you didn't really ask what the march was about, you just went…because you thought that was thing you had to do at university," said Warsi.

Stunell described himself as an 'active Christian' and sympathised strongly with the way in which the Muslim community was being treated by putting himself in the position of Muslims.

"What would be most likely to radicalise me? It would be a clampdown at university on Christian students," he said. Stunell expressed the view that extremism would not be tackled by targeting mosques and Muslim university students, or by stopping and searching those who 'looked' Muslim. "I just want the same test to be applied to every community, and to every faith group and in every situation," he said. He pointed out that up until now, the IRA has killed more people in the UK than any 'Muslim' extremist has, "yet we avoided the demonisation which is so easily tumbled into by public policy and then of course led on to that by the media."

The audience was also keen to discuss foreign policy, 'state terrorism' and the part they play in influencing extremism in the UK. Blears failed to give one audience member a definition for 'state terrorism' on the grounds that she didn't know what it was, but later, when pushed to talk about foreign policy, said: "I do not accept simply that foreign policy is the cause of al-Qa'ida terrorism across the world".

Both of the other party members said they did not support the so called 'War on Terror'. "I would not say that [foreign policy] legitimised what they did, but clearly it has had a powerful impact on them, and it's had a powerful impact on a wider circle of people," said Stunell. "Some of those situations which have provoked that response ought to have been done differently," he added. Warsi urged Muslims not to use their faith in taking political stances, suggesting instead that they use a reasoned approach like she did over the war in Iraq. "My viewpoint about the war in Iraq had…probably very little to do with my faith. If anything, it was more to do with the fact that I am a lawyer and I had concerns about it from a legal perspective." Warsi, herself a young Muslim woman, seemed to regain some of the confidence lost after her controversial comments concerning the BNP's 'legitimate' views on immigration were made public. Stunell's empathy and the way in which he insisted Muslims must not be demonised or alienated surely won the Liberal Democrats a few potential voters.

But Blears, despite her pledge to inject millions of pounds into 'community cohesion', found it difficult, as any other Labour representative would, to discuss terrorism without being questioned over her party's hugely unpopular political decision to invade Iraq.

About freedom of religion in Turkey

Talip Küçükcan

Freedom of religion and worship is one of the fundamental human rights that everyone should enjoy regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality and religious preference. The right to believe in a particular religion and practice its rituals are recognised is by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights. The 1981 UN Declaration on Religious Tolerance and Non-Discrimination and 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam also underline the significance of freedom of religion for a plural world and urge states and societies to respect and protect these basic rights.

Given the universal status of freedom of religion and freedom of worship, how can we make sense of what is happening in Turkey where wearing a headscarf is banned in universities and a number of attacks took place targeting non-Muslims? Turkey has a unique character when compared to other states with a majority Muslim population. First, it is a secular state and religion is not a source of legislation. Second, Turkey has a democracy which was nurtured for decades despite military interventions and there is a strong will to protect and strengthen the rule of law in the country. Turkey succeeded in establishing a political culture that facilitated the co-existence of a secular state, democracy and religion in society.

Since the mid-1980s Turkey has been moving forward with some ups-and-downs with regards to the provision and protection of civil liberties. Recent developments and current political will strongly indicate that there would be no U-turn in terms of democratisation, balancing civil-military relations and improving human rights, including freedom of religion, in Turkey. A free market economy, liberal policies, access to education, the rise of the new middle class and globalisation have all led to many changes in Turkish society, including a reform in the culture of political governance. Therefore, questions around freedom of religion and restrictions on particular religious activities and practices in Turkey should be discussed in a broader context rather than in the context of unfortunate attacks on priests in Trabzon and Malatya.

Questions about freedom of religion are related to the interpretation and application of secularism and secular policies in Turkey. It should be underlined that the way secularism is interpreted and applied by the state elite in Turkey since the establishment of the Republic has been more restrictive than many European countries. One can argue that Turkey pursued a much stricter secularisation project than even that of France, which is known as one of the most secular states in Europe. As a result of such a secularisation process that is imposed from above in the name modernisation and westernisation, the state in Turkey followed a policy of restriction on religion, as the ban on headscarves illustrates well.

Expression of religion and religiosity is not allowed in the public sphere in Turkey because it is interpreted and defined as a domain of the state rather than that of various social, political and religious actors who to make legitimate claims. Hard line secularists conceive religion and religious groups as a threat to the fundamental principles of the secular state. In the name of protecting secularism against the "imagined enemies", the public domain is strictly closed to religion. Such an attitude has been inculcated in schools and public institutions since the establishment of the Republic. In a sense, a phobia has emerged as far as religion-state relations in Turkish society are concerned, mostly garnered by the elite.

In recent years however, there have been positive changes stimulated by Turkey's EU membership voyage and the country's integration into the regional and global international community. Overall, "Turkish Islam" or the religiosity as developed in Turkey does not lead to radical and extremists demands. Those who would like to have a state based on religious laws are only a fraction of society. The overwhelming majority of the public supports the separation of state and religion and would like to see the strengthening of democracy in the country. There are many reasons to be optimistic that Turkey would do more to lift any restrictions on religious liberty. In this attempt, Europe should be on Turkey's side by integrating the country into the EU. Leaving Turkey out, would only serve the interests of those who resist expansion of civil liberties in the country.

As pointed out earlier, one needs to look at the past as well as the current context to make any assessment of freedom of religion and its enemies in Turkey. Many put the blame for these attacks on a new ultra nationalism that is said to be emerging in Turkey. We need to make a conceptual clarification as far as nationalism in concerned. The concept of nationalism has many negative associations in Europe such as racism, discrimination and more dramatically ethnic cleansing which was witnessed in the 1990s. As for Turkey, broadly speaking, there are two types of nationalism. One of them can be described as "patriotism", which does not carry any negative feelings or hatred towards "others" on the basis of religious, ethnic and linguistic differences. To some degree, Islam is also part of such patriotism because a saying of Prophet Muhammad (p) is frequently cited to support such type of nationalism. The Prophet is reported to have said: "Loving one's own land/county is part of his/her belief."

The second type of nationalism is devoid of any religious or spiritual content. This type of nationalism (ulusalcilik) propagates that the Turkish state is under threat and the country is on the verge of disintegration. Whoever is presented as a threat in this context may become a target for a tiny minority whose brains are washed by such an ideology. Given the nature of events and their perpetrators in Trabzon and Malatya, one can not to easily argue that the attackers had religious motivations. They seem to have had a mindset which is shaped by the concept of an "imagined threat" to state and society.

At this juncture one should also address the Turkish press which is sometimes given the burden of responsibility. It would not be fair to put all the press in the same category, yet, it is true that some publish news, articles and comments that may incite hatred. However, one cannot really see an obvious religious reason behind such publications. The media had been part of the "centre" elite in Turkey for many years. In recent decades however, the "periphery" is moving toward to centre. This social change is troubling the centre. The elite who enjoyed the privileges of the center is now resorting to scare-mongering propaganda and describing religious groups and movements as a threat to the country's regime: the role of the media is limited to creating an atmosphere of fear.

One of the reasons to be optimistic about the future of religious freedom in Turkey is the fact that freedom of religion is very important for the EU which is negotiating with Turkey about their full membership. By applying to become a full member of the EU, Turkey has already committed itself to harmonise its laws with that of Europe and internalise European values including democracy, human rights and freedom of religion. The EU accession process inspired a strong will in Turkey to lift any restrictions on religious liberty. Yet, there is still room for improvement. Given its restrictive interpretation and perception of secularism, Turkey should look at various European models as far as state-religion relations are concerned.

Europe has responsibility for the continuation of the hijab ban. The majority of Turks were disappointed when the ECHR decided that the headscarf ban in Turkey was not a violation of freedom of religion. Yet, on the other hand, the same EU is asking for more reforms in Turkey to provide and protect religious liberty. Currently, the Government is working on a new draft constitution. It seems that there is a large scale consensus that freedom of religion should be more strongly inserted in the constitution and a protective mechanism should be established. If Europe stops giving mixed messages, it would be much easier for the Turkish government to launch reforms that the public would readily support.

Talip Kucukcan is Associate Professor of Sociology, SETA Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research

(Source: Muslim News, London)

Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad ruler or bad history?

Dr. Habib Siddiqui

Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857 CE, probably no one has received as much condemnation from Western and Hindu writers as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated against them in awarding high administrative positions, and who interfered in their religious matters. This view has been heavily promoted in the government approved textbooks in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947). These are fabrications against one of the best rulers of India who was pious, scholarly, saintly, unbiased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent, and far-sighted.

Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years. Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti-Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions." During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?

Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus were favored. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had fourteen Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court. (Ref: Mughal Government) But this fact is somewhat less known.

Some of the Hindu historians have accused Aurangzeb of demolishing Hindu Temples. How factual is this accusation against a man, who has been known to be a saintly man, a strict adherent of Islam? The Qur'an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (surah al-Baqarah 2:256). The surah al-Kafirun clearly states: "To you is your religion and to me is mine." It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of Islam of his caliber, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things that are contrary to the dictates of the Qur'an.

Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History) used in Bengal for the 5th and 6th graders states: "If Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates for use as Temple sites and support thereof in Benares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant."

A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north of Chitrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the Emperor himself. The proof of Aurangzeb's land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same textbook reads: "During the fifty year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities." (p. 138) Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb's fifty year reign and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way. Now let us deal with Aurangzeb's imposition of the jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated this. Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb's jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to point out that jizya is nothing more than a war tax which was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the defense of the country. That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country. This tax was not collected from women, and neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens. For payment of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim government to protect the life, property and wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the government failed to protect its citizens, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned.

It should be pointed out here that zakat (2.5% of savings) and 'ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab). They also paid sadaqah, fitrah, and khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims. Further to Auranzeb's credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usually mentioned. In his book Mughal Administration, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb's reign in power, nearly sixty-five types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of fifty million rupees from the state treasury.

While some Hindu historians are retracting the lies, the textbooks and historic accounts in Western countries have yet to admit their error and set the record straight.

(Taken from al-Balagh)