Several aspects of Dua

IF you love your child intensely and he begs you to give him something, will you give it to him without any reservations? The answer is not always in the affirmative. If, for example your child asks you to give him a glittering burning coal or if he wants to drink the sizzling hot coffee from your cup, will you fulfil his wish?

Certainly not, because you know that it is not good for the child. If you really love your child, you will find a good alternative and give that to your child instead of the burning coal or sizzling hot coffee. Take another example: if your dearest 14 year old son loves to ride a motorcycle and begs you to buy him one, you will certainly delay giving it to him till he turns at least 18. This deferment again is based on your knowledge that it is dangerous for your son to ride a motor cycle before attaining the age of 18. Similar is the case with our supplications to Almighty Allah.

According to an agreed Hadith of our Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Whenever we raise our hands to ask something from Allah, our supplication is granted in three ways. It is either granted as requested, or not granted as requested, but it is granted in some other form (considered better for us by Allah Almighty) or it is postponed to some future date (considered more appropriate for us by the Almighty Allah).

It is extremely important for us to understand the above fact, so that we do not get disappointed if our prayers are not granted instantly and exactly as we had asked.The most common weakness of man is that he takes note of his prayers or wishes which have not been granted instantly, but never acknowledges the blessings showered upon him by the Almighty, as a substitute for various supplications from time to time.

The very origin of mankind on earth is based on the supplication of Adam to Allah, after he made the mistake of eating the forbidden fruit in paradise. Ayaat 35 to 38 of Surah Al-Baqarah say. “We said: O Adam! you and your wife live peacefully in this paradise and eat the bountiful things therein from wherever you wish; but do not approach the specified tree or else you will cause harm and transgression (to your own self). Then Shaitan caused them both to waver in this (affair) and made them slip from the (Garden) and got them out of the state (of felicity) in which they had been ... Then learnt Adam from his Rabb, words of inspiration (and repented), and Allah turned towards him in favour. Indeed, He is oft-returning, most merciful”.

Ayat 186 of Surah Al-Baqarah says, “When My servants ask you concerning Me. I am indeed close (to them): I listen to the prayer of every supplicant when he calls on Me: Let them also, with a will, listen to My call, and believe in Me: that they may walk in the right way”.

Ayat 17 of Surah An-Nisa says, “Allah accepts the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and repent soon afterwards; to them will Allah turn in mercy: for Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom”. The very next Ayat of the same Surah clarifies that doors of repentance are closed when the time of death approaches. “Allah does not turn to those (by accepting repentance) who continue to indulge in bad acts until they are confronted by death, then the person says, “No, I repent”. Nor (is repentance accepted) from those people who die as disbelievers. For such people, we have prepared a painful punishment”.

We must understand that Allah is most beneficent and merciful towards those who repent on their wrong deeds and ask forgiveness, except those who equate others with Allah. Ayat 116 of Surah Al-Nisa says, “this is a certainty that Allah will not forgive those who commit shirk (equating others with Him). He will forgive others, who He wishes. Anyone who equates other gods with Allah is lost, he has stayed far, far from (the path)”.

In Avat 54, Surah Al-Anaam, Allah Almighty has promised mercy and forgiveness for those who sincerely repent after committing an evil deed and mend their ways. “Your Rabb has inscribed for Himself (the rule of) mercy: Verily, if any of you did evil in ignorance, and thereafter repented, and amended (his conduct), for them He is oft-forgiving most merciful.”

It is indeed important to note that the doors of forgiveness are open for even those who have committed most serious crimes, if they sincerely repent and bring a genuine change in their life and conduct. One should therefore never lose hope as Allah Almighty has promised to shove mercy to those who sincerely repent and wish to return to Him.

In Ayat 68 of Surah Al-Furqan. Allah has specially condemned three things: (1) false worship which is crime against Allah (2) the taking of life (except when justified by law), which is a crime against our fellow creatures and (3) fornication (Zina), which is a crime against our self-respect, against ourselves. About a person who commits the above acts, Ayat 69 says, “But the penalty on the day of judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy”.

The very next Ayaat 70 and 71 qualify the previous Ayat in these words, “unless he repents, believes and does righteous deeds (before his death approaches), for Allah will change the evil of such persons into good, and Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful. Any whoever repents and does good, has truly turned to Allah, with an (acceptable) conversion.” In other words, a person’s return to Allah will be his true repentance.

We must remember that this life is not the end of all things and we are to have its fulfilment in the hereafter. We therefore need to pray to Allah who is the Lord of this world and the hereafter. He has promised that He will hear us, forgive us, guide us, and make our path smooth. Ayat 60 of Surah Ghafir (Momm) reads, “And your Rabb says: call on me; I will answer your (prayer): but those who are too arrogant to serve me will surely find themselves in Hell — in humiliation”.

Hazrat Anas has quoted the Holy Prophet Muhammad as saying, “Allah gets annoyed with those who do not ask from Him (the best of this world and the world hereafter).” Another Hadith of holy Prophet says, “Whatever distress and pain or difficulty or worry is suffered by a true believer in this world, even though it may be a thorn prick, then Allah makes it a source of pardoning some of his faults and wrong deeds in the hereafter.”

Allah’s attributes of mercy and forgiveness are unlimited and they come into action even without our asking. Our supplications and prayers help us to bring minds and wills as offerings to Him. This is necessary to frame our own psychological preparedness. We must offer ourselves unreservedly as we are: it is His mercy and grace that will cleanse us. If we try, out of love for Allah, to guard against evil, our striving is all that He asks for.

Ayat 32 of Surah An-Najm reads, “Those who avoid great sins and shameful deeds, only (falling into) small faults, verily your Rabb is ample in forgiveness”. To fear Allah actually means to love Him so intensely that you fear to do anything which is against His will. You do it because you realize Him intensely in your hearts, though you do not see Him with your eyes.

Ayat 12 of Surah Al-Mulk promises, “As for those who fear their Rabb unseen, for them is forgiveness and a great reward”. Ayat 7 of Surah Al-Ankaboot again affirms that doors of forgiveness are open to all men and women, irrespective of their past deeds, “Those who believe and work righteous deeds, from them shall We blot out all evil (that may be in them), and We shall reward them according to the best of their deeds”.

In Ayat 35 of Surah Al-Zumar Allah Almighty further promises to pardon even the worst deeds of those who truly repent and sincerely reform their life before death approaches. “So that Allah will turn off from them (even) the worst in their deeds and give them their reward according to the best of what they have done”.

From the above we conclude as under: supplication (Dua) forms the most important part of our worship to Almighty Allah. He listens to all our supplications and rewards us according to His Plan, but no supplication goes unrewarded. The doors of repentance are open to all and close only when the death becomes imminent. Even the most serious mistakes can be forgiven by the Almighty, if a person repents sincerely and reforms his life by turning to Allah before the death approaches.

The writer is a retired commander of Pakistan navy.

The Mumbai bomb blasts

THE two bomb blasts in Mumbai last Monday, promptly condemned by Pakistan, could have an unsettling effect on relations between India and Pakistan which have only lately given a tentative hope for return to normality. The extremists on the other side of the border appear determined to link the blasts to Pakistan.

Although the first reports from India categorically said that it was not clear who was responsible for the outrage, the Indian deputy prime minister, Lal Krishna Advani, lost no time in suggesting that the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) could be behind the blasts. He also contended that SIMI had been acting in conjunction with the Lashkar-i-Tayyaba based in Kashmir. He did not substantiate his statements nor bothered to quote any source of his information.

The India government put a ban on SIMI last year after accusing it of fomenting sectarian trouble. The Mumbai city police chief also maintained that the blasts had been carried out by a “radical Islamic” group but named no particular organization. According to a report carried by Dubai’s Khaleej Times, the Indian intelligence agencies had given advance warning of such a terrorist attack in Mumbai in addition to a number of other Indian cities.

The foreign office in Islamabad has categorically denied the charge against Pakistan pointing out that Mr Advani’s allegations run counter to the recent conciliatory steps initiated by the prime ministers of Pakistan and India to improve relations between the two neighbours. Mr Advani himself does not seem to realize that his allegations coincide with the negotiations between the two countries to establish aviation links.

A five-member delegation of Indian officials arrived in Islamabad the same day when the Indian deputy prime minister made his unsubstantiated statement linking the Mumbai blasts with Pakistan. He could have been expected to show patience and wait for his national security guards (NSG) and anti-terror squad to carry out their investigations into the blasts and the nature of explosives used before making any judgment.

However, it is hoped that the course of the negotiations over re-establishing the aviation links between India and Pakistan would not be affected by Mr Advani’s baseless and ill-timed observations.

In any case, in the last eight months Mumbai has been rocked by indigenously made bombs at least half a dozen times. So far there is so reason to believe that the latest blasts could be anything different.

The Mumbai underworld with its nexus between smugglers, black-marketeers and unscrupulous financiers of cheap cinema movies is notorious for its crime record. However now the Mumbai police authorities appear to be establishing a link between the blasts in the metropolis with the “terrorist outfits” allegedly based in Pakistan. A former deputy chief minister of Mumbai has strongly criticized the local intelligence agencies for their “massive failure” to anticipate the blasts.

Mr Advani and his other fundamentalist colleagues in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) should realize the consequences of their statements not only for the efforts for normalization of relations between India and Pakistan but also for the Muslims of India.

There have been suggestions in Mumbai that the blasts could have been an act of revenge by the extremist Muslims for the massacre of thousands of Muslims in the neighbouring state of Gujarat last year. It is common knowledge that the Hindutva leader Narendra Modi, who was chief minister of Gujarat (and continues to hold the same office) has since shed a great deal of his voter support and his admirers may want to spread animus against the Muslims ahead of the next elections.

Rumours have been spread in Mumbai that the main victims of last Monday’s blasts were Gujarati-speaking Hindus. A former federal cabinet minister and general secretary of BJP has appealed to the President of India to impose president’s rule in Maharshtra.

It is generally known that the BJP and its coalition partners who are at present in power at the centre may not be returned to power after the elections due next year. It is a most cynical strategy to attempt to create a constituency for them by demonising the Muslim minority.

However, with the rise of Hindu fundamentalism in India in recent years, the people are more often than not made to believe that in the communal riots in India Muslims have been the real aggressors.

A retired Hindu high ranking officer of the Indian Police service Vibhuti Narain Rai, who served in the riot affected district of Ghaziabad, in a newspaper article went on record to say that “it is not only that more Muslims are killed in almost every riot, but in more than half of them, 90 per cent of those killed are Muslims. Government statistics show that in almost every major (communal) riot three-fourths of the killed are Muslims and 75 per cent of the property destroyed belongs to Muslims. And that is not all. The number of Muslims among those arrested in the riots is unbelievably high.”

It is common knowledge that fanatical organizations such as Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Shiv Sena in India and (the defunct) Lashkar Tayyaba in Pakistan have promoted the killing of those who do not happen to share their faith.

It is not inconceivable that some unscrupulous elements in under-cover intelligence agencies may also preach the killing of those of alien faiths.

One can only hope that Pakistan will not be deterred and continue to strive for normalization of relations with India as this is a sine qua non for the security not only of the Pakistanis but also of millions of Muslims in India.

Pakistan cannot turn its back on the fate of the Indian Muslims, a large number of whom were committed to the struggle which led to the creation of Pakistan in 1947 something that is a factor in their predicament today.

Muslim democracy in Turkey

It goes against all the stereotypes about Turkey. Talk to the party secretary of the traditionally secular Republican People’s Party in a small south coast town and she sounds old-fashioned and anti-democratic with her talk of the Turkish army as the ‘last resort’ against the threat of Islamic reaction.

Talk to an allegedly Islamist MP from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) in a conservative central Anatolian city, and he comes across as a modern democratic politician advocating genuine freedom of religion. Islamists trying to make their country more democratic? What is going on here?

“What we are seeing are the demands of the European Union and pro-Islamic groups in Turkey overlapping for the first time in Turkish history, with Islamic groups finding in the West an ally that can protect them against the excesses of the Kemalist state,” said Dr Ihsan Dagi of Middle East Technical University in Ankara in March, and this month he was proved right. Last week the Turkish president ratified legal changes that drastically reduced the power of the army in Turkish politics.

Under the old rules, the civilian cabinet had to meet the Turkish General Staff once a month in the National Security Council to discuss an agenda drawn up by the general who controlled the NSC’s secretariat — and democratically elected Turkish governments ignored instructions issued by the NSC at their peril. Two governments dominated by Islamic parties have been removed by the army in the past fifteen years. In future, however, the chief secretary will be a civilian deputy prime minister, and he will decide when the NSC meets.

For the army to accept this from Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan, a man who was once jailed for allegedly inciting Muslims to violence against the secular state, implies a sea-change in Turkish politics. It also has a wider significance for the Muslim world, for Turkey is the oldest Muslim democracy, and ‘Kemalist’ democracy in Turkey (named after the founder of the Turkish republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk) has always rested on the principle of a rigid exclusion of religiously-oriented parties from politics.

Ataturk saved Turkey from partition and European colonial rule after the First World War, but he believed that it must become modern, democratic and ‘Western’ in order to survive and prosper in the long term. He also believed that the traditional Islamic institutions of the dying Ottoman empire would resist all that because they would lose their power, and he was doubtless right about the situation in 1923. So he declared a republic, abolished the Islamic caliphate, banned Islamic forms of dress, and introduced a constitution that rigorously separated mosque and state.

The mass of the Muslim faithful in Turkey abhorred these changes, but the educated minority and the army were with him, so he won. Unfortunately, this transitional struggle congealed into a permanent confrontation between ‘Islamists’and moderrnisers in Turkey that has had a profoundly negative influence on the evolution of democracy in other Muslim states. In Turkey, the so-called ‘Kemalist’ principles, including an intolerant army-backed ‘secularism’, have been the basis of the Turkish state from that day to this. What is breaking the deadlock now is the EU on one hand, and the AK Party on the other.

Turkey has been trying to get into the European Union for a long time, but only recently has it really looked possible. Entry talks start late next year, but first Turkey must pass a human rights review.—Copyright

China, South Asia in a unipolar world

AS the global and regional situation evolves under the pervasive influence of the 9/11 events seminars and colloquia are tending to look at the prospects of President Bush’s re-election. The US role will remain pre-eminent, but scholars and analysts believe that the limitations of military power are already manifesting themselves, as Washington appears to have become bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The world focus has shifted to Asia, and China’s role is being assessed, notably in terms of its impact on the neighbours, that include the major regions of the continent. China’s stance is subdued, even modest, as it remains preoccupied with its economic agenda that leads it to cultivate cooperative relations with all countries, and to eschew any confrontation.

In its pragmatic approach, it seeks a harmonious relationship with all major powers, and the US remains in the lead as a partner in trade and technology transfer. The trade surplus with the US has exceeded $ 35 billion annually in recent years. Ever since the Republican Party has had a majority in the Congress, during President Clinton’s first term, its relationship with China has tended to lay stress on containment, since China retains the communist ideology in its domestic domain.

Though the cold war ended in 1989, and China has openly abandoned any kind of ideological confrontation with the West, many US scholars remain concerned that after achieving its modernization goals, Beijing may become a rival for influence, notably in the developing world. Clinton had begun in 1993 with a vision of China replacing the Soviet Union as a threat to US pre-eminence. He ended up by developing a “strategic partnership” with China, with shared concerns on non-proliferation and terrorism.

President Bush, surrounded by advisers advocating total world hegemony, also began by looking at China as a “strategic competitor” rather than a partner. Though the relationship was transformed, after China joined the US in the coalition against terrorism, following 9/11, certain fundamental divergences have appeared. China, which had begun showing concern over the unipolar world order, after 1989, supported those countries that favoured a multipolar order, including Russia and France.

This is one of the aims of the Shanghai cooperation organization launched by China, with Russian support. China also opposed the ballistic missile defence initiative launched by Bush in May 2001, and has serious reservations over the Bush doctrine adopted after 9/11.

The US attack on Iraq in March 2003 on the basis of the Bush doctrine also saw China support those powers that opposed UN endorsement of “pre-emption” in this case, including Russia, France, and Germany. The Chinese opposition was mild and Beijing was clearly anxious to avoid an open confrontation with Washington, as developmental goals remain China’s priority. In fact, China used its diplomatic clout with North Korea to facilitate negotiations designed to keep the Korean peninsula nuclear-free, a goal China shares with the US.

Despite this significant initiative that Washington has welcomed, differences of principle with the US over such issues as Taiwan, and its policy of “encircling” China, have not gone away. Even as China pursues its policy of building cooperative relations with all neighbours, including India and Pakistan, it cannot remain oblivious of their policies that specifically impact its own security and interests.

China’ policies towards South Asia, and particularly its two main powers, India and Pakistan, do take into account their respective concerns and interests. Although a “triangular relationship” had evolved during the cold war years, when Pakistan was closer to China and the US, while India developed a nexus with Moscow, contemporary trends do have to be studied within the new dynamics flowing from US unilateralism.

Despite the transformation of China since 1978 and the many changes of leadership since the founding of the People’s Republic, certain basic characteristics of its foreign policy have not changed. China follows the five principles of peaceful coexistence, also known as Panchsheel, that include sovereign equality, non-interference into internal affairs, and mutuality of benefit.

Since 1978, when the ideological preoccupations of the Mao era were replaced by economic goals of improving the life of the people, modernization of agriculture, industry, science and technology and defence have become the top priorities. China seeks to rise to the level of a developed country over half a century. China follows a policy of opening to the outside world, and of resolving all disputes peacefully, to cater to the fundamental objective of development. However, national interest and sovereignty determine the other two preoccupations, which are national reunification and countering US policy of encirclement.

Even as China plays down political disputes, clearly setting them aside to develop economic relations for its development goals, it has some fundamental security concerns. The US strategic goals under President Bush, his BMD initiative and the Bush doctrine all impact

China. His Taiwan policy which is projected under theatre Missile Defence that runs counter to the policy of reunification, and the stationing of the US forces in Afghanistan and Central Asia are all seen as a part of the encirclement. China is also surrounded by conflicts, such as those in Afghanistan and Korea.

China’s South Asia policy has assumed a higher profile in the post-9/11 scenario. The priority for developing economic cooperation is being maintained and relations with India and Pakistan remain the pillars of its relationship in the region, since they have become nuclear powers and the US is also putting pressure on the region for the containment of China. However, the impression that China’s relations with these countries are at par, specially with mounting Sino-Indian trade, is not justified by the realities on the ground.

Popular perception in Pakistan naturally takes into account the recent visit of Prime Minister Vajpayee to China, and the rapid growth of trade between China and India. However when the totality of China’s bilateral relations with the two major South Asian neighbours is placed against its national concerns as well as the US goals in the region, a very different perspective emerges.

Taking up Sino-Pakistan relations, they have evolved in a positive direction since 1963, when they signed a boundary agreement, and Pakistan stood by China when it was under pressure by both the superpowers and India. By extending PIA service to China, Pakistan provided the only international link to China.

On its part, China also provided vital political and military support to Pakistan, notably during the 1965 conflict with India. Since then, both countries consider each other as reliable friends, and their relationship has been perceived as a model of friendship between countries with different social systems.

Sino-Indian relations have had a chequered history. After a good beginning, differences over their boundary led to a conflict in 1962, provoked by India’s forward policy. The divergence during the cold war years, when India was aligned with the Soviet Union, has been brought out. Efforts at normalization began in the 1980s, but India’s tough stance over the boundary, ambivalence over Tibet and Taiwan, and growing strategic cooperation with the US have become a source of deep concern for China.

India is participating in joint patrolling with the US Navy in the Indian Ocean, and has even participated in exercises in the South China Sea. US interest in building up Indian military capability is reflected in the sale of Arrow anti-missile system and the offer of F-16 Fighter Aircraft to New Delhi, whereas Pakistan’s request for the same aircraft was not met.

Whereas China is keen to build good-neighbourly relations with India, the latter appears to have the support of the US in its designs to dominate the Indian Ocean. As China proceeds to develop its western region, for which the closest outlets are either through Pakistan to the Arabian Sea, or through Myanmar (Burma), India appears to question China’s natural interest in utilizing sea-lanes of the Indian Ocean for energy and trade. Its strategic cooperation with the US could create problems for Chinese access to these transit routes.

These factors put China’s relations with Pakistan and India on different footings, even though China’s long-term goals are to develop good-neighbourly relations with both of them. However India looks at China as more of a rival for the leadership of Asia. China is likely to persist in playing down differences with India, and to develop mutually beneficial cooperation with the leading power of South Asia wherever possible.

However two considerations would prevail in China’s policies towards South Asia. One is that improvement of relations with India will not be sought at the expense of its time-tested relations with Pakistan. The other is that China’s basic goal would be to encourage peace, stability and cooperation in South Asia. In this context China will always encourage a peaceful settlement of Indo-Pakistan disputes through dialogue.

The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan.