True spirit of Islam

ISLAM had never been so much a target of criticism and accusations as it is today. Some people call it a religion that breeds intolerance and bigotry, while there are others who blame it for preaching animosity and discrimination. And some brand it as a religion that sanctions violence, terrorism, oppression and conflicts specially against the opponents in faith.

The responsibility for these accusations lies squarely on us — the Muslims of today. We have not been able to project the true spirit of Islam in general and the sublimity, objectivity and universality of its message the way we should have done it. We have been so much absorbed in the ritualistic aspect of the religion that we have forgotten its true spirit and its potentiality of being capable of weathering every storm and guiding and enlightening the human beings till the day of resurrection.

The very name of the religion of Islam is enough to dispel and set at naught most of the above blames and accusations. It is a religion that implies submission to the will of Allah, the Creator and Nourisher of all and of everything and living being in the universe and Who neither has nor will ever have any equal or partner. This is what the Muslim faith in essence implies.

The Quran being the mainspring of Islam, enjoins us to believe in all the Prophets and their scriptures alike and without any discrimination (2:177) (4:150). It does not sanction the use of force and coercive methods for taking its message across (2:256) (50:45). Rather it emphasises the extensive use of knowledge and reasoning when it says “O, Prophet invite to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and excellent preachings and argue with the people in the best manner” (16:125).

The practical aspect of this admonition is manifest in the way Hazrat Ibrahim used to invite people to the Way of Allah (6:83). In regard to the people of other scriptures, the Quran advises us to take a start from the common elements of faith, while arguing with them, telling them that we have believed in what has been sent down to us as well as in that which has been sent down to you (29:46). Thus, even in the matter of preaching and conveying its message, the Quran takes every possible care to avoid the use of force and conflicts.

The Quran considers all human beings irrespective of caste, colour, descent or creed as equal and on that account entitled to all such rights that could be basic to human dignity and needs at the relevant time but always subject to the limits set by Allah (49:13). It also emphasizes the need for abiding by the principle of equal opportunities, namely, that everyone shall be entitled to have equal opportunity to learn, develop, contribute and be accordingly rewarded (4:32).

Jealousy also occurs when people are afraid of simply being equalled in certain respects. But when Islam already treats the people as equal in the most important aspects of life, there can be very little scope for breeding intolerance, bigotry and inclination towards discrimination among the true believers.

Propensity towards violence, terrorism and oppression is created when people have bona fide conviction that they are not being treated justly or they are being discriminated against. But Islam is the only religion that enjoins the believers to do justice even if it may be harmful to themselves, or their relatives or friends and irrespective of the fact the party concerned is rich or poor (4:135). The believers are specifically advised to ensure that their enmity with some people does not turn them away from justice (5:8).

The practical aspect of this admonition was manifest in the directive of Hazrat Umar to the governor of Kufa when he said “treat the people equally in your presence, in your company and in your decisions so that the weak despair not of justice and the strong have no hope of any favour”. To the same effect was what Hazrat Abu Bakr emphasized in his address at the time of assuming the office of Caliph when he said “By Allah: he that is weaker among you, shall be strongest in my sight until I have redressed his wrong and he who is strong, shall be weakest in my sight until he conforms to law and I have taken from him that which he has usurped”.

Violence and terrorism are the manifestations of excesses and transgressions. The Quran specifically enjoins the believers to avoid the commission of excesses and transgressions (5:87). Rather it enjoins the maintenance of balance (55:8) and adherence to moderation in every walk of life (31:19). It specifically condemns oppression (42:42) and creation of disorder on earth.

Harmony in human relations could be one way to avoid most of the acts and behaviours for which Islam is blamed. The Quran provides excellent guidance for the promotion of harmony in human relations when it says: cooperate in all good things (5:2), repel evil with goodness (28:54), do your work through consultation (42:38), do not cooperate in doing wrong things (5:20), exercise patience (16:126), control rage (3:134), hold to forgiveness (7:199), tell the truth (33:35), shun pride (2:134), hold to forgiveness (7:199), avoid evil plotting (35:43), avoid greed (4:128), do not commit fraud (83:1), do not covet what belongs to others (4:32), keep up pledges (17:34), do not commit excesses (5:87) control desires (4:135), do not withhold from people things that are due to them (11:85) and treat others the way you would like yourself to be treated (2:267) (4:86) and don’t tell lies (39:3).

From the above Quranic injunctions, admonitions and historical facts it follows that Islam is the only religion that has the inherent and unlimited capability of guiding and enlightening the human beings on the right way, on the one hand, and combating and warding off all wrongs and evils, including those for which it is gratuitously blamed, on the other. It preaches love and affection and not animosity, it preaches moderation and maintenance of balance and condemns commission of excesses.

Islam preaches peace and brotherhood and not violence and hatred; it preaches doing of justice and condemns oppression; it preaches harmony and not conflicts; it enjoins kindness even to enemies; it emphasises the need for the acquisition of knowledge and shedding of ignorance; it encourages continuous progress and not retrogression and above all it stresses the need for equality in treatment in respect of certain basic rights and needs and the provision of equal opportunities and condemns discrimination.

Patient’s right to die

SLOWLY but surely Britain is moving to a more rational position on a patient’s right to die. Currently the law remains locked into an illogical contradiction under which death can be accelerated by doctors withholding a drug, but the pursuit of the same end by administering a drug remains illegal.

The law, which rests on intent, should recognise this inherent contradiction. Withholding treatment is just as much a death-dealing procedure as active intervention. The courts, which have given doctors the go-ahead to accelerate death in a succession of rulings on individual patients undergoing insufferable pain, have rightly refused to make more sweeping judgments on the grounds that this is an issue for parliament.

But until recently parliamentarians were reluctant to act. It was left to doctors, who grapple daily with this ethical dilemma, to bring relief to these patients. But the first authoritative study of medical decisions, which we reported this week, suggests there are far fewer actively helping the terminally ill to die than earlier believed.

A decade ago a survey of 300 doctors published in the British Medical Journal found almost half had been asked by patients to take active steps to end their lives. Of this half, almost one-third had complied. But the survey was too wide-ranging and probably included the withholding of treatment. The new study was much more specific.

Extrapolating from a survey of 870 doctors, the study suggests that there were fewer than 3,000 deaths last year (0.5 per cent of the total) where there was active intervention by doctors to accelerate the death of the terminally ill, compared to 177,192 (nearly a third of the terminally ill) where treatment was withdrawn to achieve the same end.

Even so, as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society noted, the research confirmed that some doctors were in fact breaking the law, admittedly for compassionate reasons, and deliberately helping their patients to die. As these columns have long argued, a more overt system would be more honest, more accountable and assuredly less likely to be abused simply because it could be properly monitored.

Parliament now has an opportunity to act. A new bill, the assisted dying for the terminally ill, introduced into the Lords by Lord Joffe, is due to receive its second reading shortly. This is the third - and much revised - version of earlier bills by the peer. It includes extensive changes as a result of a 150-page report by a select committee of the Lords last year.

It is now restricted to “indirect assisted dying” - meaning the doctor’s role is limited to writing out a prescription or providing an oral barbiturate to allow a patient a peaceful death. The new approach reflected the procedure in Oregon, that has been in operation since 1997, and only this week was upheld by the US supreme court.

The Lords select committee, which supports the Oregon approach, held 10 evidence hearings in the US state where it learned the system was free from abuse and working well. The bill will be restricted to patients who are terminally ill with six months or less to live, suffering from unbearable pain, are mentally competent, and have made persistent and well-informed requests to die. It includes 20 safeguards to protect vulnerable people including an assessment by two independent doctors as well as consultation with a palliative care expert to explore alternatives.

But, alas, the alliance of nine major faiths that was against the last bill, is likely to remain opposed even with the extra concessions. These religious opponents have every right to believe in their strict interpretation of the sanctity of life, but no right to impose their belief on others. There is no doubting what society wants.

Over 80% in a succession of polls have supported the principles of the bill. It is time parliament ended a medical practice which requires too many terminally-ill patients to inch towards death through a torture chamber.

—The Guardian, London

US-India strategic alliance

HISTORY bears witness to the fact that the United States focused its efforts on building a close relationship with Pakistan only when it deemed it necessary to do so to achieve its limited aims in the region. It did not consider Pakistan important enough to develop long-time relations with.

In contrast, American policymakers have made sustained efforts to develop a cordial and durable relationship with India for the promotion of major US interests in South Asia. This illustrates the dichotomy in America’s attitude towards Pakistan and India.

However, being one of the principal exponents of the non-aligned movement, India preferred to remain politically neutral and in order to attain great power status in the international system it endeavoured to maintain a non-aligned posture. Yet, American policymakers continued to feverishly work to woo India which was seen by them to have strategic possibilities of interest to the United States.

The end of the Cold War, however, brought about a perceptible change in the strategic outlook of India. To all intent and purposes it abandoned its hoary commitments to non-alignment. President Bill Clinton’s visit to India in March 2000 not only opened a new chapter in US-India relations, it was also heralded as a blueprint for future ties between the two countries. Based on the conviction that US interests required strong links with New Delhi, the Bush administration has been exploring ways of creating a strategic partnership with India since 2001.

Consequently, in 2004, the United Sates and India embarked upon a bilateral programme referred to as the Next Steps in the Strategic Partnership (NSSP). Under the aegis of this programme the United States and India agreed to work on a quartet of security issues that included civilian nuclear technology, civilian space technology, high technology trade, and missile defence.

On July 18, 2005, both, the United States and India formally established their strategic partnership in the furtherance of cooperation in a number of areas of mutual interests, including the nuclear field. Many considerations underlay this “new relationship” between the United States and India, which is, however, predicated on their common desire of containing China’s growing military might and its emergence as a political/economic power. China is perceived by both countries as a potential threat to their long-term interests in the region and beyond.

It is generally believed that President Bush, aiming to boost India as a counterbalance against China, has moved closer to accepting it as a nuclear weapon state notwithstanding his rhetoric of a vigorous non-proliferation policy.

It is important to note in this context that while welcoming Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, to the White House on July 18 last year, President Bush described India as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, and said that it should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states were entitled to. The president also said that he would ask Congress and US allies to revise American laws and international laws to allow nuclear trade with India.

One should not, however, be surprised at Washington’s nuclear cooperation with India which, in fact, dates back to the 1950s when, apart from building the Tarapur nuclear reactor and providing heavy water for its reactors, it also allowed Indian nuclear scientists to study at US nuclear laboratories. Declassified American papers also revealed that, in 1961, the United States had contemplated making India a nuclear power as a counterweight to China. That idea, however, had to be shelved at the time because of some problems in its implementation.

It is difficult to believe that while making a decision about a strategic partnership with India that would facilitate its emergence as a powerful entity with considerable political and military clout conferring upon it the status of a regional hegemon, US policymakers would not have taken into account Pakistan’s sensitivities.

Washington is well aware of Pakistan’s serious concerns about the threat to its security, particularly from its eastern neighbour, which leads one to believe that it deliberately ignored this important aspect.

However, it is equally intriguing that policymakers in Pakistan for many years did not know which way the wind was blowing in US corridors of power and, therefore, could not persuade Washington to adopt an even-handed policy towards Pakistan and India. There no point in making hollow noises against the US-India strategic alliance at this stage as it is now a fait accompli.

The US-India strategic partnership may be in consonance with America’s interests but will, however, create serious problems for all countries in the region as they have disputes with their bigger neighbour. It will particularly hurt Pakistan. Political analysts believe that the existing cordial Pakistan-US relationship might come under severe strain and place the present pro-US regime in Pakistan in a quandary if Pakistan’s legitimate concerns about its security are not addressed by the United States in a satisfactory manner.

Having been on the wrong side of history in Afghanistan and Iraq, the containment of China has now commanded President Bush’s attention. He has decided to use India as a conduit for this purpose. He has entered into a long-term strategic partnership with that country, ostensibly, to build closer ties between the two countries in different fields. The scepticism that this ominous development would upset the delicate balance of power between Pakistan and India and undermine the security of the former is well-founded.

A wide body of opinion in Pakistan is of the view that the United States cannot be relied upon as a dependable ally which underlines the need and urgency of evolving a new strategy that would particularly address the security concerns of their country. For obvious reasons, Pakistan cannot abdicate its responsibility for the preservation of its security and national integrity in the aftermath of the recent overtures the United States has made to India.

Unfortunately, however, Pakistan is also suffering from a number of serious political, economic and social problems. Ethnic and regional conflicts have particularly assumed critical proportions and might impinge upon its national security and territorial integrity.

It is, therefore, equally important to put our own house in order by creating national harmony and reconciliation. The need for pragmatism has never been so acutely felt as today.

The writer is a former ambassador.