The MMA’s logic

THE supreme council of the six-party Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal, after a meeting in Islamabad on July 27, has come out with the statement that the London and Sharm el Sheikh bombings were part of a “well-orchestrated conspiracy aimed at undermining the Islamic world”. The council, which condemned the attacks, said further that “Islam does not allow the killing of innocent people” and that the attacks were “deliberate attempts to malign Islam and Muslims”.

Unfortunately, this is yet another case of the pot calling the kettle black, and seems as incredible as the suggestion made by many in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that the Israelis or the Americans had actually carried them out, as part of a grand plan to launch a war against Islam. It would have been pleasantly surprising had the MMA supreme council chosen to take a more realistic look at what might be behind the attacks and realized that simply blaming the rest of the world for hatching conspiracies against Islam to malign its image would be akin to missing the point completely.

The implication in the supreme council’s remarks that such reprehensible acts could not possibly have been carried out by Muslims does not make any sense either. In fact, this specious argument has been used in the past as well, especially by many senior functionaries of the present government, each time a sectarian bombing took place in the country. The fact of the matter is that such attacks were carried out by Muslims driven by hate and venom against those whom they thought (or were brainwashed into believing) were kafirs.

Besides, even if the council’s statement is taken at face value, then what is the MMA trying to say? Is it suggesting that the British government or its domestic intelligence service, MI5, carried out the attacks, or perhaps the CIA or Mossad, to discredit Muslims by placing the blame on four Muslims? Or is it suggesting that the four bombers were not Muslim and of some other faith?

It’s a pity that the MMA council seems to have taken such a jaundiced view of the attacks, especially since some of the parties that make up the alliance do have some ability to influence public opinion on this matter. A realistic assessment of the causes underlying the attacks needed to be undertaken, not a cursory knee-jerk ‘the-whole-world-is-against-Muslims’ reaction. There is a substantial body of people in this country who adhere to a worldview that is in consonance to that held by those who lead the MMA. These people sympathize with, and perhaps even follow, the agenda of the religious parties. And though they might not have necessarily voted for the MMA, they will surely pay attention to what the religious alliance might have to say on matters as pressing as the London attacks. Regrettably, the MMA’s stand on the bombings leaves much to be desired. Not only has reality been ducked, overlooked and ignored, the rest of the world has been blamed for being involved in conspiracies against Islam.

One would also like to take issue with another aspect of the supreme council’s statement. The leaders are said to have been angered by a recent statement by Peshawar Corps Commander Lt-Gen Safdar Hussain, where he accused some religious parties of helping reorganize the Taliban, adding that what the corps commander had said was “irresponsible”. That being the case, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was arrested from the Rawalpindi home of a Jamaat-i-Islami activist. Both ‘S’ and ‘F’ factions of the JUI were known to have close links with the former Taliban regime, and is it so unrealistic to believe that perhaps, with the Taliban now regrouping in eastern and southern Afghanistan, they might be getting some help from their friends and sympathizers across the border? Simply calling Lt-Gen Safdar’s remarks ‘irresponsible’ is not really an effective rebuttal of his allegations.

New ‘Great Game’ defies US interests in Central Asia

TASHKENT: The United States has won assurances it can keep its base in Kyrgyzstan, but it may face new challenges as play resumes in the centuries-old “Great Game” for influence in strategic Central Asia.

In 2001, Washington won an earlier round when it secured tacit consent of former colonial ruler Russia and stationed troops in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan — once Moscow’s imperial backyard — to back its military operations in Afghanistan.

But Moscow is back in the game, now exploiting suspicion among the region’s veteran leaders that Washington — associated with a series of “velvet revolutions” in ex-Soviet countries — may be out to unseat them too.

“There is a lot of suspicion about US long-term intentions,” said a senior US diplomat. This diplomat added it was tied to the mistaken belief Washington was trying to stir up new revolutions in Central Asia.

At stake for Washington is influence in a region that is a narcotics crossroads, a vital launching pad for the US campaign to round up the remnants of the Taliban, and home to some of the world’s largest oil finds in the last few decades.

Displaying a new coolness to Washington, four of five of Central Asia’s ex-Soviet states issued a declaration in the Kazakh capital Astana earlier this month asking when the United States would withdraw its troops.

Visiting US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday Kyrgyzstan had agreed to let US troops stay. But the invitation was not open-ended while a second base in neighbouring Uzbekistan remains in doubt.

VELVET REVOLUTIONS: In the past 20 months, popular revolutions triggered by disputed elections have unseated long-serving leaders in ex-Soviet Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan.

In March, Kyrgyz veteran leader Askar Akayev fled to Russia amid violent protests sparked by flawed parliamentary elections. These “people’s revolutions” have unnerved Moscow struggling to keep control over its former colonies and sent jitters through Central Asia’s authoritarian rulers who brook no dissent.

Washington denies any role in instigating these revolutions. But it has not hidden its satisfaction — or its enthusiasm — for more of the same.

“Many countries think the Americans do not increase stability when they come to a region but increase instability,” Andranik Migranian, professor at the Moscow State International Affairs Institute, told Radio Rossiya.

“It’s not at Moscow or Beijing’s initiative that they are ... countering the United States. They are doing it on their own initiative,” he said.

NEW “GREAT GAME”?: Washington’s tug-of-war with Moscow for control over Central Asia brings back historic memories of the 19th century “Great Game” rivalry between the Russian and British empires. Beijing seems to be ready now to join the game, too.

Uzbekistan, under fire from the West and human rights bodies for indiscriminate use of force by troops who reportedly killed some 500 civilians in an uprising in the city of Andizhan, is now being embraced by Russia and China.

Following Washington’s demands to hold an independent inquiry into the May bloodshed, Uzbekistan reminded the United States that its stay at its air base was only temporary.

But Uzbek President Islam Karimov’s flirtation with Moscow and Beijing may turn out to be a short one. And the autocratic ruler may well weather Western criticism and mend its close ties with Washington soon, diplomats say.

“We see a new ‘Great Game’ unfolding after Astana,” said a Western diplomat working in Tashkent. “Obviously, the Uzbek leadership feels offended by Western criticism over Andizhan.”

“But should Karimov openly call America an enemy, his regime won’t last for long. The issue of possible economic sanctions against Karimov is on everybody’s lips now, and the Americans are clearly in possession of all this leverage.”

Kazakhstan, the region’s most economically advanced state, signed the Astana declaration. But it seems pragmatically to prefer seeing large Western investments rather than hear calls for US base withdrawals from its neighbours.

US interests in Kazakhstan include stakes held by ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips in consortia developing onshore and offshore oil riches.—Reuters

First Caliph’s exemplary role

ON the sad demise of Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) the vacuum caused was neither then, nor it could ever be conceived, to be filled in. He was the prophet and the last one. However to run the affairs of the nascent state founded by the Holy Prophet (SAW) and to continue the mission of propagating Islam a successor was indispensable.

There was no precedent or established mode for the occasion except the parochial tribal ways and the hereditary monarchy, in vogue, in the neighbouring countries Hazrat Abu Bakr was installed as Caliph in an unconventional, rather a novel and peerless manner, through general consciousness of the people in a democratic way.

The venerable Caliph was the lifelong and the most trusted companion of the Holy Prophet (SAW). He had unshakable confidence and unswerving faith in the words and deeds of the Holy Prophet (SAW). He was the only fellow traveller and the companion in the cave of Mount Thaur referred to in the Holy Quran on way to Madina at the time of Hijrat. He was deputed to lead the prayers in the grand mosque of Madina during the days when the Holy Prophet (SAW) himself could not lead the prayers being extremely weak due to sickness.

Even before accepting Islam he commanded great respect among the Makkans and was held in high esteem due to his unblemished character, unflinching courage and steadfastness. Being an elite he was also an honest businessman. At the time of embracing Islam, as mentioned by Ibn-Athir, he had an enormous amount which he generously spent for the cause of Islam.

He got franchised about seven slaves including Hazrat Bilal, the famed Muazzin of the grand mosque of the Holy Prophet, who were the prey of tyranny and persecution at the hands of their pagan masters. He paid the cost of the land where the Masjid-i- Nabavi was built. Not only that but on the occasion of preparation, for the battle of Tabuk, contributions towards sinews of war were being made by the devoted and sincere Muslims according to their means. Hazrat Abu Bakr volunteered all whatsoever he possessed.

He participated in all the battles along with the Holy Prophet (SAW). When Haj was made obligatory, he was sent as the Amir-i- Haj and it was on this occasion that declaration to purify Kaba from all idols and abominations was announced.

After his election as Caliph and receiving oath of allegiance, he declared his policy of governance which was based on equity and fair play: “O people! I have been made your Amir, but I am not the best amongst you. If I do right, help me, if I err, correct me.” It evidently shows his humility as head of the state. He accepted counselling, an aspect uncommon among the rulers.

Elaborating his views further, he advised, “Truthfulness is a sort of trust and falsehood is defalcation.” Manifesting his policy of justice he assured, “The weak amongst you will be strong before me, I will get his right restored and the strong in my eyes is weak and I will get from him the others’ dues and restore to the weak.”

Since the nascent state of Madina was yet in infancy but destined to bring a broad-based change in the time to come by spreading Islam, he also exhorted, “Not to abandon Jihad (not necessarily Qital; the scholars pen or preachers’ voice or wealthy men’s contributions are also a form of Jihad).

Winding up his address to honour the people who exercised their vote in his favour, he with the core of his heart uttered, “Obey me till I obey Allah and His Prophet (SAW) and if I disobey Allah and His Prophet (SAW) I shall have no right to claim your obedience.” Every word of his address vividly reflects his sincerity, austerity and political sagacity.

On assumption of office as Caliph he faced several formidable challenges both internal as well as external. During the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (SAW) almost whole of the Arabian peninsula had come under the sway of Islam right from al-Yaman and Uman in the extreme south to the border of Syria in the north but some of the tribes broke away from Madina due to tribal discord.

Consequently there arose a sort of uprising on the provocation of the self-styled false prophets. It was the most critical time and immediate focus on the alarming issue was absolutely necessary. But even more important in the view of Hazrat Abu Bakr was to dispatch the expedition towards Syria to fulfil the wishes of the Holy Prophet (SAW) without any loss of time. The orders for the dispatch of the expedition were actually given by the Holy Prophet (SAW) himself.

When Hazrat Abu Bakr assumed the office of the caliphate he fared rousing influence of the false prophets, the defiance of secessionists and impending threats of attack on Madina. In the wake of the emerging scenario he was advised not to send the expedition, but he did not yield to the advice and without least hesitation took the bold decision and asked Usamah to march.

He preached the war ethics of Islam fervently saying: ‘not to mutilate anybody; not to slay any child, aged or woman; not to cut date-palm or burn it, not to destroy any fruit-bearing tree or kill any of the flocks, herds of camel.’ Wanton destruction during war is as such strictly forbidden in Islam. The military power of the nascent state as such was established beyond doubt.

Overwhelming the secessionists, Hazrat Abu Bakr turned towards external enemies. Though it is quite manifest that expansion of newly conquered territories knew no bounds during the caliphate of the second pious Caliph, Hazrat Umar, but it had started right from the period of the first pious Caliph.

In day to day matters relating to state affairs, he took counsel from the companions of the Holy Prophet (SAW). During his caliphate Hazrat Umar was the Qazi, but reportedly not a single case came for hearing. Hazrat Usman was the scribe.

In his personal life he was very simple, gentle, generous, humble and an helping hand to the needy. After hijrat he took his abode at al-Sanh where he lived with his wife Habibah in a modest house and earned his livelihood through business. To devote full time to the state affairs he discontinued his business and shifted to Madina where for his subsistence he took a sort of stipend from the Bait-ul-Maal for which he advised on his death- bed to replenish after disposing of the piece of land owned by him.

After the reign of two years and three months he breathed his last on 22nd of Jamadi-us-Sani 13th A.H.