Belief in the 'Hereafter'

Belief in God and in the Day of Judgment and noble deeds are the three prerequisites of reward from the Lord - immunity from any kind of fear and all kinds of sorrow (Quran 2:62 & 5:69). Thus, belief in the Hereafter is second only to belief in God.

According to Muslim theologians, belief in the life hereafter rests on five articles of faith: (1) human beings are a responsible species and, thus, accountable to the Creator for all actions - good, bad and indifferent; (2) The present world is ephemeral, destined to end with a few bangs on the 'last day' known only to the Creator; (3) another universe will come into being in place of the present one and the entire race of mankind that had once lived on the earth from the inception of human life till its end will be recreated and assembled at one place for accountability of every individual soul, in a transparent, fairest and most judicious manner.

(4) Those adjudged as good will be ushered in a delightful, pleasurable and permanent resort called Heaven and those adjudged as bad will find themselves in a place of torment, called Hell; (5) acquisition of luxuries or inability to acquire them in earthly life is, in the final analysis, not the criterion of real success or failure.

Belief in resurrection and accountability predates the Abrahamic faiths that originated in the land of the Syriac Semites, the land known as the 'cradle of civilization'. The ancient Egyptians, having no association with the Semitic people, buried their dead monarchs in huge pyramids with all their precious jewels and other belongings to be used by them after resurrection.

The ancient Greeks believed in an underworld called Hades, the abode of the dead as well as a dark purgatory. The Zoroastrians of Persia who were of Aryan stock held similar beliefs of reward and retribution as the Semitic people had. The South Asians believed in transmigration of soul, an unending chain of birth and rebirths till attainment of Salvation or Mukti.

Coming to Abrahamic faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - the Jews believed in Heaven and Hell with the stipulation that, being God's chosen people, they will suffer the torment of Hell for a limited period ranging from three days to a few months.

Christianity's Book of Revelations, included in its New Testament, contains a graphic description, in symbolic language, how six angels will blow the trumpet, one after another, signalling the destruction of the universe and finally the seventh angel's trumpet heralding the completion of "God's secret plan" and proclamation of power being dedicated to the Messiah, and so on.

The way the Quran presents the idea of the Hereafter is entirely different from the mythological approach of other faiths. It argues the main points that arise in one's mind as to why the life hereafter is necessary, who the sceptics are, who are inclined to disbelieve resurrection for reckoning and accountability and on what grounds they reject this idea.

The Quran offers three cogent reasons for life hereafter: (1) Those who realize, after pondering over the creation of galaxies after galaxies, all studded with planets and stars gliding safely on their defined orbits without deviation, that this complex universe was not created in vain but with a purpose - [3.190] (2) Such rational human beings also have no doubt that the Being that produced the existing creation can re-produce it for satisfying the purpose of creation, i.e., judging the performance of the best of His creations - the human kind - [10-4]; (3) life hereafter is necessary "to explain to mankind as to wherein they differed among themselves and to show to the unbelievers that they were liars" - [16:39].

Similarly, the Book categorises the main objectors of Hereafter. One is the group of those who opine, "without sound knowledge and on mere guess work" that "there is nothing beyond our life of this world - we die and we live and nothing destroys us except Time" (45:24). The second group comprises those who consider resurrection of the dead as a scientific impossibility, saying "who will revive those bones when they have rotted away?" (36.78).

The answer to both the groups of 'intellectuals' who are inclined towards incredulity is provided in words meaning that such persons do not ponder over their own creation or have forgotten the fact of their own creation "from a drop of seed" and yet graduating into "open opponents" of the Creator.

As to who will resuscitate the rotted bones, the doubter should be told that "He will revive them (the bones) who produced them in the first instance." (36: 77-79). There is no effort to dictate from a high pedestal but to furnish argument against a wrong notion and flawed impression.

Muslim mystics (Sufis) and those who are disposed to be swayed by their reasoning, mostly based on their muraqiba or contemplation in search of hidden truth, visualize three abodes, not two - the present world and the world hereafter.

They interpose an abode called Barzakh (which begins from the grave till doomsday) between the present world and the Hereafter. They base their judgment on two verses of the Quran: One is in regard to the last wish of repentant agnostics in the throes of death to be given a respite and sent back to earth so that they could then do right kind of deeds. God's answer to their last moment prayer is, "Nay behind them is a barrier ('barzakh') until the day when they are raised." (23:99-100).

So, there is a buffer zone between earthly life and eternal life after resurrection. The second verse from which the mystics derive support is God's words: "We know them (the hypocrites and agnostics) and we will chastise them twice thereafter they will be relegated to the painful doom" (9:101).

This two-time chastisement before 'painful doom' meaning torment in Hell after the Day of Judgment, suggests chastisement in the earthly life and in the buffer zone after death and before resurrection.

They further suggest that in this world physical body is prominent while the soul is hidden and whatever pleasure or pain affects the soul is through the medium of the body. In the second abode (Barzakh) the pleasure and pain will be experienced by the soul directly, the body being non-existent.

In the third and final abode, the world after the Day of Judgment, both the soul and the body will become prominent, but the body will be quite different from this world's physical mould; they will be in accordance with the nature of deeds performed by every soul during life on earth.

Wolfowitz & his strange remarks

Within about a fortnight of the US president declaring that Pakistan was "cooperating with the US in the global war on terrorism," Paul Wolfowitz, US deputy defence secretary, sharply indicted Islamabad for turning a blind eye to the renewed US-led drive to hunt down Muslim extremists on Afghanistan's border area.

In an interview published by Hong Kong's Far Eastern Economic Review he bluntly stated that Pakistan was failing to crush the Taliban, something that was "testing Washington's patience." In his reported statement Wolfowitz also attempted to make a fine distinction between the Al Qaeda and the Taliban implying that while Pakistan was cooperative in the hunt for Al Qaeda cadres it was dragging its feet where the Taliban remnants were concerned.

What had even a touch of blackmail about it was Wolfowitz's reference to the recent disclosures about A.Q. Khan's perceived involvement in nuclear non-proliferation.

He said that the international community's acceptance of the act of pardon granted by President Gen Pervez Musharraf was a "kind of IOU" and in return for that there had to be (on Pakistan's part) "a full accounting of everything." In this context Wolfowitz spoke of the possibility of Washington increasing its demands "in return for downplaying A.Q. Khan's scandal."

The observations by Wolfowitz came as a shock to Pakistan and the subsequent clarification issued by US administration did not quite abate the hurt they had caused. In fact, the clarification did not quite deny what Wolfowitz had reportedly said.

In any case the clarification was attributed to Michael Krepon of the Washington-based Stimson Centre but was meant to reflect the US administration's concern at Pakistan's possible reaction to the publication of the deputy defence secretary's views.

The clarification affirmed that there had been "better cooperation" on Pakistan's part but Washington expected Islamabad to do even better. It also implied that in spite of Dr A.Q. Khan's "admission", no nuclear-related sanctions had been planned against Pakistan. Somewhat mystifyingly it added that "it (the disclosure of proliferation) continues to be a bit of an issue." Ambassadors Robert Oakley and William Milam, both South Asian experts, endorsed the views expressed in the clarification.

Not surprisingly, Foreign Minister Mahmood Kasuri promptly rejected the charges against Pakistan contained in Wolfowitz's statement and said that if the remarks had at all been made they were "inappropriate and unacceptable." The matter would presumably be further clarified when the US secretary of state Colin Powell has had his meetings with President Gen Pervez Musharraf and Pakistani officials during his visit.

Unfortunately, Washington sometimes tends to have a rather myopic approach to problems arising out of its foreign policy and their implications for its allies. From the outset Pakistan has without coming under any outside pressure been cooperative in the US-led war against terror.

The US assistant secretary for South Asian affairs, Ms Christina Rocca, in her testimony before the US senate foreign relations committee only the other day declared that the US recognized Pakistan as a "crucial ally" in the international war against terror and jointly with the US had helped to strengthen border security vis-a-vis Afghanistan. She specifically acknowledged Pakistan's cooperation in apprehending Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives and in unearthing the A.Q. Khan's "proliferation network".

In the same statement she announced economic and defence aid to Pakistan amounting to $600 million. She also indicated that the process of rapprochement between Pakistan and India had been launched with the US's active involvement as part of its Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP). However, disregarding what Ms Rocca had said before the US senate foreign relations committee, Mr Wolfowitz chose to say what he reportedly did in his interview to the Hong Kong weekly.

The Americans appear to be much disappointed for not being able to establish their operational bases in Pakistan's tribal belt (or in Quetta) for their 'renewed drive' to crush Taliban since Islamabad does not want any foreign military forces to operate from its soil. The Pakistani establishment would want all such operations to be conducted by its own forces and the foreign (in this case, American) forces not to spill over into Pakistani territory.

The American administration has lately stepped up its operations in Afghanistan out of its anxiety to capture Osama bin Laden by whatever means possible before the presidential election due later this year. Reports carried by the western Press suggest that according to American intelligence Osama bin Laden could be in a sanctuary within about a hundred miles from Pakistan.

A special task force (Task Force 121) comprising CIA operatives and specially trained military detachments under the command of Admiral William McRaven has been deployed to hunt down Osama bin Laden.

McRaven was in command of the US military contingent which captured President Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Americans apparently believe that their chances of success would vastly improve if they were to operate from bases inside Pakistan. So far Islamabad has been firmly against any such activity.

The US media, possibly out of a sense of frustration, has even expressed concern about what they call President Musharraf's "reliability" in the war against terrorism. The New York Times in an editorial has said that even though the US administration has "rewarded" the General and Pakistan for their part in the war against terror, "Pakistan has been unable to secure its borders against a resurgent Taliban..." The Washington Times has been even more critical and, inter alia, said that (President Musharraf's) deal with the MMA "to legitimise his continuance in office until 2007 and his rewriting of the Constitution... has been at the price of further empowering a movement that seeks Taliban-style rule for both Pakistan and neighbouring Afghanistan."

Washington should be expected to be aware of the complex situation confronting Gen Pervez Musharraf as a result of his involvement in the US-led war against terror. The American establishment including the so-called experts who advise the US state department on its South Asian policy frequently grumble about Pakistan's "failure" to contain religious extremism.

Several previous governments in Pakistan have encouraged the conservatism and the legacy cannot be eliminated overnight. The general has a commitment to moderation and liberalism and in the years to come Pakistan could hope to be a more open society. There is already an expanding middle class which favours liberalization.

The Americans should also not expect the conservatism prevailing in the tribal belt on Afghan border to disappear easily. The different ethnic groups (e.g. Pakhtun and non-Pakhtun) in the tribal area have their own laws and customs and it is only with economic reform and education that these customs and laws can be replaced with the laws of the country and that would take time.

The outsiders, specially the Americans as they are present in the area, have to understand that for centuries a strong religious and cultural nexus has existed between the different tribes of the Pakistani tribal belt and their counterparts inside Afghanistan.

A large section of the tribal population is traditionally conservative, strongly supportive of a Taliban-style of governance. It is unrealistic for the West to expect that President Pervez Musharraf can, in no time, bring about dramatic changes in the complexion and perceptions of the population there.