WESTERN scholars are engaged in a study of the proposition that Islamic theology, its sacred scripture and the sayings of its Prophet (peace be upon him) sanction or, at least, do not discourage merciless acts of violence in Darul Harb (Land of Hostilities), falling outside the boundaries of Darul Islam (Land of Peace).

The London ‘Economist’ and ‘Time’ magazine have recently devoted much space to this subject.

While trying to reach the truth, based on the teachings of the Quran and the sayings of the Prophet, it needs to be made clear at the outset that ‘political Islam’, or the actions of Muslim conquerors in the past and also the events connected with the present-day struggle of the oppressed Muslim communities in the Middle East, Russia, South Asia and the Philippines to fight back non-Muslim suzerainty in their respective homelands should not be taken as the consequence of their being believers in Islam.

If that was so, then what about the colonial conquerors and empire builders that marched from every nook and corner of Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries and carried out mass killings and large-scale plunder of militarily weaker peoples of Asia and Africa? The answer is simple. They did not enjoy the sanction of Christian theology which is known for enjoining humility; service of humanity, charity etc.

Now, we will examine briefly how preposterous is the notion that the Quran and Hadith preach wanton militancy and discourage clemency, kindness and mercy.

The Quran tells us that “God breathed some of His spirit in man” right at the primeval stage of his creation (15:29). From this, our learned exegesists have deduced that human beings possess, inherently, the traces of Divine attributes. This inference finds a very firm support from a reliable, non-controversial Hadith that the holy Prophet once explained through a parable that Almighty Allah divided ‘mercy’ (Rahmat) into a hundred parts, retained ninety nine parts with Himself and allowed the hundredth fraction to trickle down to earth, and whatever act of mercy one sees in earthly creatures stems entirely from this part that trickled below from the high heavens, so much so that an animal is careful enough that its hooves do not hurt its new born offspring.

The very opening Surah of the Quran introduces its readers to the two most dominant attributes of beneficence and mercy predicated to the Creator—Sustainer of the universe who is Beneficent (Al-Rahman) and Merciful (Al-Rahim). The latter attribute occurs repeatedly on innumerable occasions in the holy Book, far more than the attribute of Al-Rahman. In fact, Allah says Himself: “My mercy embraces all things” (7:156). He also says that He sent His last Prophet “not but as a mercy for all the peoples of the world” (21:107).

Prophet of God who recognised the attributes of the Creator not like philosophers through inductive and deductive logic, nor like the mystics through meditation and trance (‘muraqiba’) but by direct personal experience as each of them was in communion with the Almighty, receiving messages, instructions and guidance from Him. They have used, invariably; the intensely superlative expression of ‘Arhamur Rahimin’ — the most merciful of all who show mercy — in respect of Allah. Here are some of the relevant quotations from the Quran:

Prophet Moses prayed to God; “Thou art the most merciful of all who show mercy” (7:151). Prophet Jacob said to his sons; “God is better at guarding, as He is the most merciful of those who show mercy” (12:64). Prophet Joseph said to his brothers about God’s forgiveness: “as He is the most merciful of those who show mercy” (12:92).

The Quran is replete with exhortations for mercy and forgiveness towards those who repent. The most glaring instance of granting pardon to offenders who choose to seek forgiveness is that of the three Madinite believers who were ostracised, with the Holy Prophet’s assent because of a serious misdeed, but were forgiven, through a revelation, when they repented earnestly and, in the words of the Quran, “they thought there was no refuge from Allah except turning (in repentance) towards Him who relents because He is merciful” (9:117).

The Prophet, it is narrated, described how happy Allah feels when someone turns to Him in repentance His happiness being greater than that of a traveller in a desert whose camel, laden with provisions and water, suddenly runs amok and goes astray, but some time later returns to him submissively.

Prophet Shoaib, a non-Hebrew prophet who does not find a place in the Bible, said to his people, according to the Quran: “Ask pardon of your Lord and then turn to Him in repentance, my Lord is merciful and loving” (11:90). Here also, to describe the depth of Allah’s love for those human beings who turn to Him., the holy Prophet is reported to have referred to that woman whose child had been left behind when she was made prisoner of a war, and her extreme anxiety for her lost child and then her spontaneous joy and intense happiness when her child was brought to her by the men who were escorting the captives.

According to the Quran, God is not far off and distant from His creation. He is in their midst, eager to help those who turn to Him and ready to respond to those who pray to Him when in difficulty or in distress. Prophet Saleh, an Arabian prophet sent to the tribe of Thamud, advised his people to “ask forgiveness from Allah and turn to Him in repentance, as He is quite near and is responsive” (11:61). Also, God does not hasten to punish the offenders. Had he been in a hurry, the Quran says; “their respite would have already expired” (10:11). Allah is not unaware of what the wicked do but, according to the Quran, “He only gives them respite” (14-42).

The foregoing is only a glimpse of how and in what manner Islam’s Scripture depicts God and how His Prophets, including the last of them, the Prophet of Islam, described the Divine Being — the most merciful, the most loving, the most helpful, the most eager to respond to the cry of humans in distress and most reluctant to punish the guilty for his/her faults, procrastinating and postponing the retribution till the unpredictable Day of Judgment.

If the people who uphold the Islamic faith, believe in the Quran as the word of God and in Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the final Messenger of God, become desperate and ready to take others’ lives by staking their own, impatient to avenge the wrong done to them, and not inclined to grant respite to their opponents then the fault lies not in the Scripture by which they swear but in their attitude and also the powers that be that condemn their actions but justify the injustices being perpetrated by them.

THERE are strong indications that the United States’ strategic interest in the South Asian region, as a consequence of the reordering of its foreign policy priorities after 9/11, could turn out to be a key factor in the strengthening of New Delhi‘s relations with Washington.

The growing proximity between India and the US is beginning to manifest itself in various spheres of their interaction. It is also obvious that India, through a skilful handling of the opportunities available in the post-9/11 scenario, is beginning to be seen as a co-sharer of America’s strategic goals for the region.

Although New Delhi did not succeed in its objective of getting the US and its western partners to equate Pakistan’s alleged role in the Kashmiri freedom fighters’ armed struggle with that of Al Qaeda in respect of various acts of international terrorism, the US has continued to try to gain New Delhi’s support in the efforts to pull the chestnuts out of the fire in Afghanistan — and even Iraq. While Pakistan continues to be seen as indispensable to the success of the US plan to rid Afghanistan of the remnants of Taliban and Al Qaeda, New Delhi’s potential for helping the Karzai government to stabilize its position is also duly recognized.

In the decades before the Soviet military intrusion into Afghanistan, India traditionally exercised considerable influence in the social and economic life of the Afghan people. It is conceivable that the Americans would want New Delhi’s past linkage with the rulers in Kabul to be restored, since they have not been able to overcome their suspicions about Pakistan’s sympathy for and linkage with the Taliban. Moreover, in view of the American and western governments’ concern for Afghanistan’s reconstruction, Pakistan may not be regarded as being able to compete against India’s resources and reservoir of technical knowhow.

Washington‘s confidence in India’s technological competence is evident from reports that after about two years of intensive negotiations, the US and India are close to signing a high technology pact which, inter alia, would enable India to gain access to American knowhow in the field of Information Technology, defence, space and allied sciences. Such knowhow has been denied to India in the past and even otherwise is rarely available to the developing countries. At one stage it was expected that the negotiations for the signing of the pact would be completed before Prime Minister Vajpayee met President Bush last September. However, this did not happen because of some last-minute “lingering differences” between the US and Indian negotiators.

In its issue dated November 24, the influential Indian journal, ‘India Today‘, carried a detailed report on the subject. According to the report, negotiations for the deal started with high-level US-India talks in 1998 but it has taken almost two years of “steady whittling down of US objections” to bring the matter to the final stage.

Perhaps what the Indians were looking for was “dual-use” technology as a “litmus test” of the improvement in the ties with the US. From the tone of the ‘India Today‘ report, it appears that the Indians have got what they wanted.

The latest round of the negotiations began on Sept 12 when US deputy national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, and US under- secretary of commerce, Kenneth Juster, came to New Delhi and had a meeting with India’s national security adviser, Brajesh Mishra. The brief given to the Americans was “to finalize negotiations on an agreement covering the high-value sectors of civilian nuclear energy, space, missile and high-technology commerce.”

It has been suggested that the deal would have been finalized much earlier “but for the fact that “a Pakistan-shy US government postponed the signing almost at the eleventh hour” and India wondered whether “the Pakistan veto” would apply to Indo-US relations for ever.

However, the US officials were quick to assure the Indians that it would not happen. The present position appears to be that though the agreement is now finalized in principle, it has not yet formally been signed. According to the Indian foreign secretary, Kanwal Sibal, the agreement provides “co-production rather than technology transfer but India has some reservation about this formulation.

According to him, an institutional mistrust between the Indian and US bureaucracies going back to the days “when US denials of technology to India were routine” also has to be overcome.

It is only realistic to suggest that since the US-India agreement covers sensitive areas of technology with implications for India’s military capability, it could be a matter of concern to Pakistan. Since the Americans have held protracted and thorough negotiations with the Indian experts, it may be presumed that such implications would have been duly considered. The Americans might have already quietly reassured Pakistan about the agreement through diplomatic channels.

Washington’s persisting effort to see India and Pakistan come to a negotiating table for the resolution of their outstanding disputes would rule out the possibility of the US- Indian agreement having any negative implications for Pakistan.

It would of course be necessary that the US state department takes Pakistan into confidence and provides a tangible basis to confirm that Pakistan’s security is not being jeopardized. Considering that the details of the US-India agreement have been published in a widely circulated Indian journal there is presumably nothing clandestine about the whole business. Particularly because ‘India Today‘ has expressed the view that the high-tech agreement “promises something much better — Indo- US joint development of a missile defence system.”

The Americans are expected to be well aware that the negotiations between Pakistan and India for evolving a basis for a happy co-existence are at a crucial stage and a number of steps have been taken by both sides to create an environment for normalizaion of relations. Nothing should therefore happen to jeopardize the process.

Despite the existence of a hardline lobby, the popular feeling in Pakistan is strongly in favour of the resumption of travel links as already agreed and the easing of tensions with India through the series of the proposed confidence-building measures. The Indian prime minister has in principle agreed to visit Pakistan in early January to attend the Saarc summit and hold talks with the Pakistan prime minister. This seemed unlikely to happen until quite recently.