THE Muslim world is facing many internal and external challenges. Sectarianism is one of them. Sectarianism may be characterised by dogmatism and inflexibility. In a narrow sense it denotes zeal for, or attachment to a particular sect.

Likewise, it connotes an excessively zealous and doctrinaire narrow-mindedness that would quickly judge and condemn those who disagree. However, in a broader sense, it refers to the historical process by which all the divisions in major world religions have come about.

In a general way, sectarianism is usually used as a pejorative term to describe division, intolerance and violence based on religion. Wherever religious sectarians compete, religious sectarianism is found in varying forms, like prejudice, bigotry, discrimination, malice, violence, and ill-will towards members of another sect. Sectarianism, in different forms, has been an issue among different Muslim sects and this practice has led the Muslims to disunity and weakness, intellectual and educational backwardness.

There are different types of sectarianism. It can appear in several, often inter-related forms, e.g. personal, cultural, institutional and structural. Sectarianism is also revealed in attitudes and behaviours, where one can easily observe the signs of hatred and prejudices. Sometimes, members of different sectarian groups take the form of name calling, titles or other forms of verbal abuse or discrimination. It can also take the form of physical violence.

Moreover, it is also most commonly observed through jokes and by using sectarian terms to describe the people. We find these examples in history, where different sects named each other with different names to look down upon them. Every sect has its own concept of others. All of us have our own religious ego and we tend to glorify our own faith in different forms, which encourages sectarianism.

Furthermore, disapproval of relationship and marriage, sectarian threat, harassment and discrimination in employment decisions has also been common forms of sectarianism. Within Islam there is scope for difference of opinion but unfortunately, in Muslim societies the difference of faith has crossed the boundary of tolerance and reached violence in terms of fanaticism and extremism. The violence and refutation of each other’s beliefs has become part of religious duty of different sects. Considering others infidel and ‘kafir’ is considered to be a favourable religious duty which enlarges the gap between different Muslim sects.

Sectarianism is known to have sparked religious violence throughout Muslim history. The main cause of it seems to be the attitude of exclusivity and fanaticism. According to Dr Riberio, inflexible attitudes, the claim of religious believers to an absolute and exclusive hold on truth, and the denial of the right of others to be different, are root causes of religious sectarianism.

Indeed, human beings have a tendency to exclude others and to see their own beliefs as right, and all others wrong. This tendency leads to violence and fighting in history. A question can arise here that why do people exclude others? One answer could be the religious rigidity, but another answer could be some personal material interests. There are many examples in history to show that most sectarian clashes and wars did not happen on religious basis, but also for material benefits, power and identity. So the development of sectarianism should be viewed religious as well as a political phenomenon.

Moreover, if we see the sectarianism in the Muslim context, it is clear that every sect considers others heretical sects, ‘kafir’ (infidel) and dweller of hell. Verses of the Quran and Hadith are used to disprove others’ faith and sect. Furthermore, every sect is trying to keep a specific physical appearance and insists on its identity which sometimes causes clashes of identities. In addition, there has been a close connection between poverty, sense of deprivation and religious violence.

People, who are poor and deprived, are usually used and engaged in sectarian violence. If the roots of sectarianism become strong in Islamic Ummah, it will pose a more serious threat to the unity of the Muslims than any external threat. Hence, it is the need of the hour that every member of the Muslim society played his/her role in creating an open-minded, flexible and tolerant society, where every Muslim sect can survive peacefully without any fear and can practise without anybody’s pressure.

A debate has been raging for a long period among Muslim intellectuals on sectarian differences. Each sect is unique and it is the beauty of Islam to be diverse. Diversity is the strength, not weakness within Muslim community and every member of the Muslim community has to respect it to promote peace and harmony within Muslim community. Within Islam there is scope for difference of opinion and Muslims should take these differences as blessings and should respect each other’s opinion, faith and ideas by showing tolerance and patience.

Tolerance, respect for each other’s ideas, pluralism and diversity are beauty and core values in Islamic tradition. Quran recognises diversity and tolerance of differences based on belief, ranks (64; 2; 6: 165), gender (49: 13; 53; 45), skin colour and language (30:22). Harmony between different religious, social grouping and communities is praised, and competitions, violence, force and control of any person or sect by any other is condemned.

It is important to note that Allah has created diversity and we should accept it in all humility. Diversity is in fact our test. Our response should be pluralism. Each sect is unique. It is Allah’s will to have diversity in the world and the believers have to live with it in a way which will promote peace and harmony. Quran confirms divine unity but it also recognises the diversity of culture, religions and ethnicity. Above this, it recognises freedom for humans to choose their way. “Let there be no compulsion in religion…” (Quran, 2: 256). In order to promote peace and harmony among different sects within Muslim community every member of the Muslim community including our leadership and stakeholders at different level can play a major role and can live as brothers and sisters.

BRAZIL’S ambitious plans for supplying the world with renewable sugarcane ethanol have been put on hold as criticism of biofuels escalates. Instead of being seen as a solution, biofuels have become the new villains of the energy scene and are now blamed for everything from hunger to climate change itself.

“A few years ago, we thought biofuels were heaven, but now we think they are hell,” says Anders Wijkman, an MEP from Sweden, which is the only European country that already imports Brazilian ethanol for its public transport system. “I think the truth is somewhere in between.”

Last year, Brazilian exports of ethanol fell by 14 per cent. Work on two giant pipelines planned to carry ethanol from the canefields of Goias to the ports of Paranagua and Sebastio has been suspended, and the question being raised is whether the bio-boom is over before it has begun. Are the big-name foreign investors such as George Soros and the pension funds, who were falling over themselves to buy up land in central Brazil to plant sugar cane, backing the wrong horse? Are biofuels really less sustainable and more polluting than fossil fuels?

The view from Brazil, which has vast space, a burgeoning economy and a growing population hungry for development, is very different from that in Europe. With oil at over $120 a barrel, they say the answer can only be “no”. Ethanol is just $35 a barrel, and for most countries — especially poor oil-importing countries in Africa, where high fuel prices have already led to a drop in real income — the economic argument is all important. As the number of vehicles in the world tops a billion, the oil companies themselves admit that biofuels will be essential for meeting the growing demand for fuel, probably providing 10 per cent of transport needs by 2030. Today, they account for only one per cent.

Moreover, the demand for fuel is expected to double by mid-century, thanks not only to the gas-guzzling rich countries’ inability to reduce their already high consumption, but to population growth and higher incomes in the large emerging economies.

There is conflicting research on sugar cane’s contribution to greenhouse gases (GHGs). According to Friends of the Earth’s biofuels campaigner, Kenneth Richter, research shows that growing and processing some crops in certain countries can release more GHGs than they save. Meanwhile, the Smithsonian Institute — reviewing recent research into 26 biofuel products — gave sugar cane black marks for polluting rivers and producing GHG from nitrogenous fertilisers and annual burning.

However, Brazil’s government research company, Embrapa, has found that where sugar cane replaces soy or cattle pasture, it absorbs much more CO2 because it has a greater capacity than other crops to convert the gas into biomass. For Mark Lundell, a World Bank expert on biofuels, other factors such as the type of crop, production technology, energy inputs into processing, transportation to refineries and product markets, and alternative land uses also affect the environmental impact — and Brazilian sugar cane comes out well when compared with US maize or Malaysian palm oil.

The American ethanol made from maize is not only heavily subsidised but is also protected from its much cheaper sugar cane competitor by a steep import tariff — so much so that Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, has called for the tariff’s reduction to allow cheaper fuel to help in his battle with inflation.

But above all, biofuels are seen as a threat to tropical forests and food production. In Indonesia, palm oil plantations have replaced rainforest, and there are fears that sugar cane will invade the Amazon region, or have a domino effect, pushing soy and cattle into virgin forest, causing more deforestation.

Marcos Jank, president of Unica, the sugar cane industry association, points out that the humid climate of the tropical forest does not suit sugar cane, and that it grows best in the temperate south-eastern state of Sao Paulo, where productivity is higher and technology is most up to date. Mechanisation will soon eliminate the practice of burning the cane, cutting emissions — and thousands of jobs.

Brazilian officials laugh at the idea that sugar cane will push out food production in a land where at least 90m hectares of arable land is said to be still available for farming outside the rainforest, and where sugar cane covers only five per cent of Brazilian farmland. Jank claims that increased productivity will soon double the current yield of 7,000 litres per hectare and that production could be raised by 50 per cent, with an additional 10m-15m hectares of land.

The problem is that while the Amazon rainforest might be safe, another invaluable ecosystem, the cerrado of central Brazil, could be at risk. And Lundell believes that rainforest deforestation will be difficult to avoid if sugar cane production demands more than 20m hectares.

But social sustainability is much harder to defend. In 2007, over half of nearly 6,000 workers found by government inspectors in slave-like conditions were sugar cane cutters, most of them in the traditional plantations of the north-east.

The babassu palm, whose oil was used to part-fuel Richard Branson’s Boeing 747, grows mostly in the poor and backward states of Maranhao and Piaui, and is harvested exclusively by women. If it joins the list of desirable renewables, will these 300,000 women reap some of the reward or will they lose their livelihood to multinational companies with machines?

Some form of certification of environmental and social sustainability is seen as the answer, and will be on the agenda at the next G8 meeting in Tokyo, in July.

If it can meet the demand for sustainability, Brazil, which already enjoys a huge competitive advantage because of its abundant land, good climate and advanced technology, stands to become a major player in the new world of renewable energy.

The country’s experience with ethanol goes back to the 1970s, when Brazil — a big oil importer — was hit hard by the oil shock. The military government launched a huge, subsidised state programme to produce fuel from sugar cane. An unexpected side benefit was the avoidance of 600m tonnes of carbon emissions between 1974 and 2004.

As the price of oil collapsed, ethanol fell out of favour. But now it is back. Nearly all new cars leaving the factories are “flex” or dual-fuel models, able to detect and run on any mixture of petrol and ethanol, whatever the percentage of each; 80 per cent of Brazil’s ethanol goes to its own market.

While the Americans tax it and the Europeans condemn it, Brazil is looking at other export markets, not only for its ethanol but for its highly advanced ethanol technology.

—The Guardian, London