Dignity of labour in Islam

ISLAM raised the position of man among other creations by declaring him the vicegerent of God (Al Baqarah:30). This implies a fundamental unity and universal brotherhood of mankind ensuring the social equality and dignity of all human beings, white or black, high or low, lord or common, patrician or plebeian. Islam goes a step ahead by treating life itself a unity proceeding from Divine oneness. It does not compel man to renounce the world, but envisages a complete coordination of the spiritual and mundane aspects of human life.

Islam teaches us to pray: “...O Lord! Give us in this world that which is good and in the Hereafter that which is good...” (Al Baqarah:201) Islam however, demands that from this world only as much should be taken as is necessary for the journey to the next world. In order that man may realize this perfection, the world should exist in an organized state. This, in turn, depends on various occupations and professions, manual work being one of them, which has been held in high esteem.

Prophet Muhammad (SAW) urged: “Never has any one eaten better food than what he has eaten with the labour of his own hands and Dawood, the Prophet of God, used to eat out of the labour of his own hands.” He was a blacksmith by profession and earned his livelihood by making coat of males (Al Anbiya:80). Suleman (A.S.) knew the craft of making objects from brass (Saba:12 & 13), Adam (A.S.) was a farmer, Nuh (A.S.) a carpenter, Idrees (A.S.) a tailor while Musa (A.S.) a shepherd.

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) did business, but he set personal examples of upholding the dignity of labour. He performed a number of tasks that are today considered humble. The ‘King’ of Arabia, and in fact of the entire universe, he would kindle a fire, sweep the floor, milk goats, patch his clothes, mend his shoes and help in household chores. That is why Carlyle regarded him as “the greatest man” and yet the “greatest worker” of the world. His love for manual labour is evident from one of his Traditions. Once when Jabir (R.A.) shook hands with him, he (the Prophet) noted some scars and roughness on his (Jabir’s) palm. He enquired about it. Jabir explained that he was a farrier (one who makes and fits horseshoes). Listening to this, the Prophet kissed his hand.

Labour is of different types according to need and nature of work. A mason who lays the bricks exerts labour and so does a carpenter, a tailor, a tiller, a washerman, a factory worker, a cobbler, and so on. Similarly, those who engage themselves in mental work also put in labour. The Messenger of God (SAW) was once asked about the wages of writing the Book. He said: “There is so harm. They are painters, and eat from the earnings of their own hands.” On another occasion a believer requested the prophet to inform him which earning was the purest. He replied: “The earning of a man with his own hands and every honest transaction.”

Employers have been given the rules of conduct in their day- to-day affairs with the employees. The latter have to be treated justly and kindly (Al Qasas:27). The wages should be reasonable — commensurate with time, skills, and the labour involved. Wages have to be settled at the time of employment and paid “before the sweat of the workman dries up” (promptly). Employees are not to be burdened with excessive workload beyond their capability as Shoaib (A.S.) said while employing Musa (A.S.), “...I intend not to place you under difficulty. Allah willing, you will find me one of the righteous” (Al Qasas:27). In the words of the holy Prophet (SAW), “A worker is a friend of God.”

The basic feature of the socio-economic system of Islam is that it has to operate in a broad ethical framework in which a set of do’s and dont’s determines the norms of economic behaviour and the priorities for production. Satisfaction of material wants is not an end in itself; one also works for discharging one’s obligations towards the community at large. Islam makes it incumbent upon its followers to engage in activities, which contribute to the collective weal of the society. The means of earning should be legitimate because, as the Prophet (SAW) cautioned, “Neither prayer is accepted without purification nor charity out of what is acquired unlawfully.”

Surely, Almighty Allah is “the best of all sustainers” (Al Jammu’ah:11) but man is supposed to struggle for seeking his sustenance from God. The Quran exhorts that even after the grand weekly assembly of Friday the believers shall scatter and go about their routine work: “Then, when the (Jamu’ah) prayer is finished, you may disperse through the land and seek the bounty of Allah (by working, etc.) and remember Allah much that you may be successful.” (Al Jamu’ah:10).

By equating sustenance with “God’s bounty” Islam has exalted human efforts for meeting worldly needs on the one hand and denounced beggary, on the other. The Prophet is reported to have said, “It is better for one of you to take a rope, bring a load of firewood on his back and sell it, thereby preserving his self respect, than that he should beg from people; whether they give him anything or refuse him.” Be it a material or a spiritual pursuit, man gets in keeping with his strivings as the Quran ordains: “And that man can have nothing but what he strives for.” (An Najm:39).

The Quran lays down two most essential pre-requisites for a workman i.e. his physical fitness and trustworthiness. This is evident from the conversation between Shoaib (A.S.) and one of his daughters who while recommending to his father to employ Musa (A.S.) said, “... O my father! hire him! Verily the best of man for you to employ is the strong and trust worthy (Al Qasas: 26).

Islam thus stresses on a harmonious labour-management relationship. This is achieved by inculcating in both, the employer and employee individual consciousness of unavoidable accountability before all-knowing God. Islam does take into account their mutual rights, but places a greater emphasis on duties. The underlying idea is to ensure that if duties are fulfilled devoutly, self-interests and with them, the conflicts would be automatically obviated. No doubt, a well-fed, well- trained, healthy and contented work force provides a firm foundation for faster and sustained economic growth. But then, workers’ demeanour — their devotion, dedication, loyalty, conscientiousness, sense of responsibility and, above all, sense of belonging — has equal importance in the over-all economic progress of a country.

In sum, Islam makes a case for the protection of the rights of the people as opposed to the interests of the individual in all dealings of business, commerce, and industry. To be specific, Islam maintains the most equitable balance between the good of the community and the good of the individual. It is opposed to the gain of the few at the expense of the many.

Iraq: illusion and reality

THE shooting by American troops of 13 Iraqis participating in a rally marking the birth anniversary of the ousted president, Saddam Hussein, on Tuesday in the town of Fallujah near Baghdad does not come as a surprise.

While the Americans, encamped in a school where the shooting took place, claim that they fired in self-defence, eyewitness accounts clearly establish that the Iraqi processionists in no way threatened the Americans. There were children among the Iraqis killed in cold-blood.

What may have provoked the Americans were the Iraqi flags and portraits of Saddam Hussein which many of the processionists carried. Besides, the incident in Fallujah was by no means an isolated one. A procession of Shias proceeding to Najaf shortly after the US-led coalition occupied Baghdad turned violent when it came across American troops, reflecting the sense of hostility that most Iraqis feel about the presence of alien troops on their soil.

Reports sources say that the American troops are encountering hostilities from Iraqis in many parts of the country. American forces occupying an airbase in the capital of Diyala province last week repeatedly come under automatic weapons fire. As an AFP dispatch has put it, the fighting in Diyala, a province stretching from the Iranian border to the outskirts of Baghdad, highlights the problem of resistance facing the US forces as they “focus on stabilization” after the defeat of the main Iraqi formations.

A senior officer of the US army’s 4th infantry division operating in the area admitted that the situation in the province was confused and they were under orders to engage any armed forces they encountered in the area and not “wait for them to shoot at us”. The result has been a series of sporadic encounters. US army sources have also acknowledged that Iraqi armed elements include remnants of the Iraqi army, Shia paramilitaries and local clans.

Apparently, the coalition forces did not anticipate the presence of the armed Iranian opposition group Mujahideen-i-Khalq (MEK) and the Badr Brigade — the military wing of the anti- Saddam Shia movement — in sensitive border areas. Though somewhat apprehensive of the presence of these elements, the US forces found it prudent to enter into a truce with them and allowed them to keep their arms. Contrary to American claims of am welcome by the Iraqi people, large sections of Iraqis are obviously hostile to the alien presence in their midst. All this is likely to make things difficult for the occupation forces.

An added source of concern is the large number of unexploded ordnance and landmines all over northern Iraq which pose a threat to their free movement. According to reports, the unexploded munition has killed more people since the end of the war than the casualties in the war itself. A specialist working for a UK-based mines advisory group operating in Iraq has said that in the territory close to the Kurdish self-rule area, as many as 80 people have been killed and more than 500 injured in the two weeks since the cessation of hostilities. “Across Iraq”, he says, “the detritus of war is killing, maiming and scarring for life adults and, most tragically, children.”

By announcing his decision to set up an interim government in Baghdad following a conference of about 250 prominent Iraqis belonging to diverse political and ethnic groups, retired US general Jay Garner, post-war administrator of Iraq, hopes to create the illusion that the war-ravaged country is returning to normal. In reality he is only deluding himself and his patrons and supporters. He continues to be faced with numerous pockets of armed resistance. In Baghdad, he felt obliged to reinforce the US military presence with the dispatch of additional forces from outside. In Mosul, one of the largest cities in northern Iraq, American troops came under heavy fire earlier this week and had to send helicopter gunships into action to control the situation.

In Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s home town, American troops broke up impromptu street parties to celebrate the ousted Iraqi president’s birthday on Monday. According to reports, dozens of die-hard Saddam loyalists danced and sang “of their passion” for the former leader. With helicopters circling overhead, American troops searched vehicles at checkpoints and barbed wire barricades.

Tikrit residents firmly believe that Saddam Hussein is still alive and will one day return to power.

Handpicked delegates from amongst Iraqi exiles living abroad attending a conference convened by Gen Jay Garner have demanded that since the US-British forces had accomplished their mission, they should leave the country as soon as possible and that they now wanted to manage their affairs themselves. The overall impression is that the transition to an interim government in Iraq “will be far from easy.” There are serious differences, even among the handpicked anti-Saddam Iraqi exiles, over the composition and basic responsibilities of a transitional regime.

There is a great deal of scepticism about Jay Garner’s ability to steer Iraq to the goal of a democratic polity. Afghanistan cannot of course be regarded as an appropriate model. The Loya Jirga, which was convened to choose Afghanistan’s interim government, was in line with the country’s age-old tradition which is honoured by most Afghans. There was another factor, too, which helped the initiation of Afghanistan’s transitional process after the Taliban’s ouster: the presence of ex-King Zahir Shah, who continues to be something of a father figure for the Afghans and whose physical presence lent some weight to the installation of Hamid Karzai as the interim president. There is no parallel figure to play a similar role in the case of Iraq’s critical transition.

Jay Garner’s credentials too are by no means impeccable or non-controversial. According to an assessment made by two eminent human rights activists, Medea Benjamin and Jason Mark, he was installed by the Bush administration, without a review by the US Congress, and without UN approval, or even without consultation with the British government. He is on contract with the Pentagon (not the State Department) and reports directly to US commander Gen. Tommy Franks. Benjamin and Mark say that Garner is “a former general and a buddy of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld... He is in fact a weapons maker and an arms dealer”.

Benjamin and Mark also maintain that Jay Garner’s appointment will “raise suspicions throughout the Arab world because of his involvement with powerful US groups that support Israel. He once signed a statement of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) “praising Israel for its handling of Palestinian intifada”.

Dealing with North Korea

NORTH Korea’s latest message to the United States was not quite as provocative, or as per-plexing, as it may have seemed.

US officials first told reporters that during a break in a meeting in Beijing last week, Pyongyang’s representative abruptly informed the head of the American delegation that his country possessed nuclear weapons and might sell them or provide a “physical demonstration”, depending on the US response.

Though the United States has suspected for a decade that the North might have one or two nuclear weapons, the announcement was portrayed as belligerent and embarrassing to China, which hosted and joined the talks. Chinese officials acknowledged they were shocked; but a senior official told foreign ambassadors that North Korea coupled its latest revelation with a broad offer to abandon its weapons programmes and exports in exchange for US security guarantees and economic concessions.

In that sense the North was merely repeating the message it delivered during its last meeting with a US envoy eight months ago, when it boasted of an emerging nuclear capability but offered to trade it away. In both cases the Bush administration chose to emphasize the alarming threat while playing down the offer of a deal. Yet any judgment about how to proceed needs to take both signals into account.

As described by the Chinese official, the proposal from dictator Kim Jong Il sounds a lot like what he has been suggesting since his negotiations with the Clinton administration: that is, a willingness to give up weapons programmes in exchange for Washington’s agreement to accept and subsidize his criminal regime. President Bush has rightly refused to consider this blackmail; substantial economic and political concessions to North Korea should be made not for weapons, but only for a broader choice by Mr Kim to open and reform his country.

The administration used the talks to repeat its position that North Korea must dismantle its arms programmes before concessions in other areas can be discussed; and it may be that China, which holds enormous economic leverage with Pyongyang, will now be more willing to pressure Mr Kim to comply. Still, by choosing — correctly, in our view — to test the possibility of dialogue with North Korea, Mr Bush has embraced a course that ultimately would require some kind of negotiated settlement.

There is, in fact, a crude logic to North Korea’s public statements. It says it regards itself as a likely next target of American military might — not an unreasonable perception given its place on Mr Bush’s “axis of evil” — and sees its only defence as a nuclear arsenal, or, failing that, a “change of attitude” and accompanying guarantee of nonaggression from the United States. If that’s the case, disarmament without any US assurances would look unacceptably dangerous to Mr Kim. If negotiations are to succeed, the Bush administration will have to give up the goal of regime change and be willing to offer Pyongyang some sort of guarantees — while perhaps holding up concrete economic concessions until after weapons programmes are stopped and linking those to internal reforms. The Bush administration is clearly loath to abandon regime change as a goal; but the strategies that would produce it — war, or an embargo meant to induce a North Korean collapse — are not acceptable to key allies and must be a last resort. The White House says it has not decided whether the talks will continue; before they do, Mr Bush must accept the necessity of offering a solution to Mr Kim. — The Washington Post

The outlook beyond Iraq

THOUGH President Bush has not formally claimed victory, the occupation of Iraq is complete. The pro-consul named by Washington, Gen. Jay Garner, has taken over the task of running the country. Saddam Hussein, who once faithfully served US interests in the region and inflicted an eight-year war on Iran at its bidding, has disappeared amid rumours of a secret deal.

Washington’s main concern, apart from establishing firm military control, is to find the weapons of mass destruction that were used as the justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Going by the threats and warnings from Washington, there are apprehensions that Syria and Iran may be targeted next.

‘Regime change’ has been something of an anticlimax. There was no organized significant military resistance in the capital. However, the size of the US forces that moved into the fabled city was not equal to the challenge that surfaced in the form of looting and plundering by rampaging mobs in the wake of the fall of Baghdad. In the midst of it all, the occupation forces seemed helpless to provide law and order, what to speak of basic needs such as water and electricity. The US high command was taken by surprise by the speed with which the civic machinery broke down. Initially, stray incidents of suicide bombing made the troops wary of any contact with Iraqi civilians even after groups of them had joined in toppling the statues of Saddam Hussein.

Incidentally, though US official spokespersons tried to explain away the burst of an expression of pent-up feelings of a people ‘liberated’ from the tyranny of an oppressive dictatorship, the very idea of regime change has a hollow ring to it, since the change in government was brought about by military invasion. The occupiers were slow to show any concern for the well-being of the Iraqis with pockets of resistance attracting massive strikes causing high civilian casualties. It was see the invaders as liberators who had come with the promise of democracy and a better life. Almost a week of mayhem had to pass before serious efforts were made to raise a police force and to find the engineers to restore electricity.

The process of reconstruction is off to a slow and uncertain start. Indeed, the manner in which things are being handled suggests that the process, to be financed from Iraqi oil, is more akin to dividing up the spoils of war. The world’s television screens continue to be dominated by two themes pertaining to Iraq: the misery of its people who lack water, electricity and medical care for thousands of injured civilians, and the rising demand by the people for the occupation forces to withdraw. The multitudes that were supposed to hail the ‘liberation’ of the country were nowhere to be seen. The complexity of the problems that will have to be faced in the post-war period is slowly beginning to be seen as fat contracts are being awarded to favoured US firms for the task of reconstruction.

There is the inevitable resentment over the military occupation, so that demonstrations demanding the withdrawal of the invaders started simultaneously with the agitation over lack of civic amenities. With the Baath government overthrown, religious leaders have become ascendant, and sectarian shades are gaining stridency, given years of Sunni domination.

The ethnic-sectarian map of Iraq contains ingredients of strife and instability. The south is predominantly inhabited by Shias who constitute almost 60 per cent of the Iraqi population. Following the defeat of the Saddam regime, they are now practising religious rites that had been forbidden under the Baath dictatorship. The activism shown by the Shia majority will create serious problems for the occupying powers on many counts. They are likely to have an affinity for Shia-dominated Iran. As Saddam had suppressed their revolt in 1991, any assertion of their democratic rights would translate either into a Shia-majority government in Baghdad, or into a close relationship with Iran. Either way increased Shia activism will not be acceptable either to the Americans or to the predominantly Sunni sheikhdoms of the Gulf.

Demographically, the rest of Iraq is even more challenging for those who have assumed power in Baghdad. The northern part that is centred on Mosul accounts for 20 per cent of the Iraqi population, and is mainly Kurd, though there is a substantial Turkomen minority having close links with Turkey. The Kurds, whose population is estimated to be over 25 million are spread over five countries: Turkey, Iran. Iraq, Syria and Armenia. The victorious allies in World War I had thought of carving a Kurdish state but chose to draw frontiers that have split the Kurds into several segments of a disadvantaged minority, the largest, numbering nearly 13 million, being in Turkey.

There are around five million Kurds in both Iran and Iraq. After the defeat of Iraq in 1991, the maintenance of no-fly zones in north and south Iraq by the US and UK air forces had enabled the Kurds in Iraq to acquire almost complete autonomy and to build up a fairly prosperous economy. However, Turkey has strongly opposed any progress towards Kurdish self-rule since that would threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey, whose south-east is predominantly Kurdish. Furthermore, Turkey claims the right to safeguard the rights of the Turkish minority in the Kurdish dominated north of Iraq. Much as it might suit the US (and Israel) to detach the Kurdish north of Iraq, which would include the rich oilfield around Kirkuk, such a move would have explosive consequences for Turkey, and create worries also for Iran and Syria. However, the US strategic and economic interests would almost certainly encourage Washington to safeguard the autonomy of the Kurdish area and to give it direct control of Mosul and Kirkuk, which Saddam Hussein had detached by settling a large number of Iraqi Arabs there.

With the Shia south certain to seek greater autonomy, if not a predominant voice in Baghdad, and the Kurdish north already enjoying autonomy, the central part of Iraq around Baghdad will have the biggest need for reconstruction, while lacking the oil wealth found in the north and south. How the US will deal with these conflicting interests and contradictions in the context of a democratic future for Iraq will largely be determined by its regional and international goals.

Though Gen. Garner has spoken of a short occupation, President Bush told an American-Arab audience that a two-year occupation was likely while Defence Secretary Rumsfeld, now touring the region, talks of the US staying long enough to establish democratic institutions. He has also voiced the US resolve to prosecute an “unconventional war” against terrorism on a long-term basis.

Several factors would influence the decision on the duration of the US presence in the region. A major goal would be to establish control over oil in Iraq that possesses the second highest reserves in the world. By substantially increasing Iraqi oil output, a reduction could be achieved in the price of oil that would boost the US economy, now in state of recession. Washington would turn the display of its military might in Iraq to greater political advantage by pressuring Syria, Iran and possibly other countries to fall in line with the US in countering fundamentalism, and creating a favourable environment for Israel. It is somewhat premature to say whether the US’s “maximalist” agenda will be implemented, through regime change in Syria and Iran, or that it might be restrained by the growing opposition in the world to its imperial agenda.

How the US orders its priorities and goals after the occupation of Iraq will be followed closely by a world that is becoming alarmed over the new imperialism rooted in the Bush doctrine of unilateralism. One hopes that responsible opinion in the US would see the perils inherent in a world run through sheer might and exert a restraining influence on Washington.

The writer is a retired ambassador

Finding WMDs

Nothing irked the Bush administration more than the cat-and-mouse game Saddam Hussein played with UN weapons inspectors for 12 years in Iraq. But now that troops have toppled Saddam, allied military teams searching for evidence of illegal biological, chemical or nuclear weapons aren’t having much better luck than the hapless UN sleuths.

Clearly getting antsy, the administration has tripled the number of scientists and engineers searching for weapons to about 1,500 — and, incidentally, begun to lower expectations about what it may, or may not, discover in coming weeks and months.

Many experts still believe the allies will discover huge stores of the prohibited chemical and biological weapons Saddam’s regime admitted to having once possessed but claimed to have destroyed after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

If they don’t, the United States will face an embarrassing credibility gap.— The Washington Post