Moderation in Islam

Moderation is currently the most fashionable buzzword, hyped to the high heavens, especially because it was "floated" in the same way as "roadmap," about a decade ago. But this is the age of semantics, where words are given a sense different from original connotation.

The word 'moderation' offers a glaring example of semantics. For example: who did not know that the term means "avoidance of extremes?" Who did not know the blessings of a steady, middle course and the curse of extreme attitudes in every sphere of human life? So why should it have to be trumpeted about as if it is a new-found gem of wisdom?

This word at present is being mainly applied and addressed to Muslims. It is not applied to other communities such as Christians, Jews and Hindus. And, besides, those who preach moderation the loudest are themselves often its most flagrant violators.

For instance, not long ago there was a furore in the US media about the insulting remarks against Islam that US deputy under-secretary, Lt. Gen. William Boykin made before church gatherings. Yet, he was not even disciplined.

The desecration of mosques in India and Israel and the torching of churches are ignored. Nevertheless, it is a tragic irony for Muslims to have to be lectured on "moderation," by non-Muslims.

A Muslim's identity, 1slam, which means submission (to Allah) and peace, itself embodies the basic elements of "moderation," - balance, due proportion, tolerance, justice and equity - because abiding each and tranquillity is unthinkable in a situation of extremes. In fact, moderation or balance is the core value, the very soul of Islam.

Whoever claims to be a Muslim is, therefore, expected to be aware of what moderation means and how excess should be avoided in practical life. If they do not, their faith would be incomplete and amount, at best, to lip service.

They would be like the desert mentioned in the Holy Quran 49:14 "The desert Arabs say, 'We believe', (O Prophet) Say, 'Ye have no faith but ye only say 'We believe.'..." On the other hand, if any Muslim knowingly abandoned moderation, then he strayed from the Straight Path (siratal mustaqeem).

Being in complete accord with nature, Islam approaches the issue of moderation holistically to encompass all aspects of human conduct, both in personal matters and in social life. Therefore, Islam treats extremism not only in its negative (violent or provocative) aspect, as the West tends to do, but in its positive (virtuous) aspect, as well.

Extremes of both kinds, too much as well as too little (ifraat and tafreet), have to be avoided. To make the point, the Holy Quran mentions balance, Justice and due proportion repeatedly in every sphere of creation, including even elements, planets and stars.

"Every single thing is before His sight in due proportion." (13:8). Planets orbit on their fixed routes; none collides with the other. "It is not permitted for the sun to catch up with the moon." (36:40).

The sun and the moon, both, traverse the belt of the zodiac and (their motions are different, yet they never catch up with each other. It is the same with everything else. Again, in 15:19, "And the earth We have spread 'out, set thereon mountains firm and immovable and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance."

Thus equilibrium is in the very nature of things; any disturbance in it would be a recipe for disaster. For example, overeating would cause indigestion and the slightest change of molecules could turn wholesome water into poison. There is no extreme either way in the Divine dispensation, but a Just balance.

One of the fields of positive activity where mankind was likely to go to extremes was in the worship of God. Indeed, this appeared on the face of it to be the surest way to earn His pleasure and the eternal bliss of salvation. Many people professing other faiths, therefore, in their religious ardour, renounced the world.

They became hermits, ascetics, celibates. They went to dwell in caves performing rigorous penance to expiate their sins and purify their soul. Yet, to renounce the world in order to serve and worship Allah is neither the practical nor the natural way of life.

It would even conflict with His purpose of Creation if everyone gave up the world and took to a life of celibacy, asceticism and confined himself only to prayers.

Thus, when Allah says, "I created, jinn and men only that they worship/serve Me", the implication of worship and service is not endless prayers and fasting and turning His name on the beads of a rosary. And to bring the point home, He instructed His Messenger to, "stand (to prayer) by night but not all night; half of it, or a little more or less."

Returning to the question of moderation, let us take "positive" extremism first. This kind relates entirely to one's personal actions, which do not affect other people. Several items fall in this category; first of them being religion. Too much of religious zeal may end up in fanaticism and bigotry. So the Quran says, "Commit no excess in your relation." (4:171).

The second is charity: The Book is replete with exhortations, inducements and commands to spend, spend and spend, yet it admonishes "The servants of Allah are those who, when they spend are not extravagant and not niggardly but hold a just (balance) between those (extremes)." (25:67).

Elsewhere it say, ".... And render to kindred their due rights as also to those in want and to the wayfarer. But squander not your wealth in the manner of a spendthrift. (17: 26-27).

In the context of food: "Eat of the good things We have provided for your sustenance but commit no excess therein...." (20:81). As regards, lifestyle: "O children of Adam! wear your beautiful apparel .... and eat and drink but waste not by excess for Allah loveth not the wasters. Finally, even in happiness and sorrow there is admonition against extremes.

The negative side of extremism affects other people, which is why it has triggered the current outcry for moderation. This kind of extremism would include, from reviling other people's gods (faith) to retaliation and revenge. As to the first, the Command is "Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah..." (6-108).

As to retaliation, Islam recognizes the natural instinct of mankind to avenge an injury. Therefore, it has prescribed retaliation (law of equality) in the case of murder, such as "the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman," but authorizes the heir of the slain to grant remission.

It warns that, "after this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty." (2:178) Elsewhere it is repeated thus, "And if anyone is slain wrongfully We have given his heir authority to demand (Qisas or forgive), but let him not exceed bounds in the matter. (17:33).

Islam also recognizes lex talionis (again the law of equality). "Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal." (5:45).

"The recompense for an inquiry is an injury equal thereto," it says. (42:40). But, any excess is strictly forbidden. "(Do not commit excess)" is the Divine admonition and the warning, "Allah does not love those who transgress."

On the other hand, forgiveness is encouraged. From 5:8 where it says, "... Stand out firmly for Allah in fair dealing and let not the hatred (if others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice....." Fairness, justice, balance and restraint are extolled as excess is deplored and throughout the Book.

ln the light of the above submissions therefore, those who suggest moderating Islam, only expose their ignorance of the Divine Message. The fact is that Islam enjoins its followers to give lessons in moderation to other people. What the Muslims need today, therefore, is not lectures in the liberals' concept of moderation, but to delve into the treasure trove of guidance that Islam has already bequeathed to them.

Congress faces deep crisis

By deciding to decline India's prime ministership because of the vilification campaign launched against her by the out-voted Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies, Congress president Ms Sonia Gandhi has plunged her party and indeed the whole Indian nation into a deep political crisis, the ramifications of which are difficult to foretell.

It is doubtful that another leader would be able to hold together for long the disparate elements, which comprise the United Progressive Alliance, and that have pledged whole-hearted support to her leadership.

No doubt Dr Manmohan Singh, a widely respected financial expert and an outstanding public figure, who has served in some Congress cabinets in the past, will do his best to prove himself a capable alternative. But he starts with the handicap of not enjoying the charisma which marked the prime ministership of three members of the Nehru-Gandhi family in the past 56 years.

Ms Gandhi has managed to build a formidable front of committed political parties against the rising tide of petty Hindu nationalism and crass communalism which marked the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led coalition during its five years in office.

The prospects of a better future for the deprived classes and the religious minorities and the beginning of the end of the resurgence of a crass Hindutva culture promised by Ms Sonia Gandhi's rise to power may be jeopardized by her refusal to head the new government.

With Manmohan Singh entering the prime minister's office, a leader belonging to the Sikh community will be heading the government in New Delhi for the first time. He could also help stabilize the stock market in Mumbai and other commercial centres with his reputation as a financial manager.

He has already appealed to the caretaker finance minister Jaswant Singh to cooperate in putting an end to the state of panic in financial and investment circles.

Dr Manmohan Singh has said that he had come to know that some institutions at the urging of the outgoing government were deliberately spreading panic among the public "to slander the image of the new government." Such petty party politics is not in the country's best interest.

While India's two Communist parties - the Communist Party (Marxist) and the Communist party of India (CPI) - have announced their support to the Congress without formally joining the coalition, there are indications that there would be no radical moves in the management of economic reforms.

It is not unlikely, however, that there could be a popular perception that Ms Sonia Gandhi and her allies would resort to extreme measures to restore some semblance of balance in problems created by the outgoing government's economic policies.

As head of India's Reserve Bank, Manmohan Singh developed the reputation of being a moderate liberal economic manager. This should help create a sense of confidence in the people.

By deciding to stay out of the government, in response to what she says is the dictate of her "inner voice", Ms Gandhi perhaps hopes to deflect some of the barbs aimed at her party which in the recent elections emerged as the largest single party although not enjoying a clear majority in the newly elected Lok Sabha. It is difficult to say whether her decision has taken the wind out of the attacks by her advisaries.

If Ms Sonia Gandhi had not backed out she would have been the first foreign born Indian to be at the head of the central government. At the same time, there is a view that the elections were less of a Congress victory and more of an adverse verdict against the BJP-led coalition which by its retrograde Hindutva-based policies did immense damage to India's image as a modern progressive state, in spite of its unprecedented progress in the economic and technological field.

It is obvious that India, despite its all-round development, has not been able to shed its ancient five thousand-year old racial and caste-based prejudices. Sonia married Rajiv Gandhi in 1968 whom she had met while studying at Cambridge.

She accepted Indian nationality in 1983, but even after two decades is not considered fit to enjoy the rights and privileges of an Indian national. She married into a family which was in fact the symbol of independent India and has enjoyed almost fifty years of dominance in India's politics.

As a writer in The New York Times has said, the Nehru-Gandhi family has acquired "an aura that mixes the right-to-rule of the British royals, the tragedy of the American Kennedys - complete with the assassination of Indira Gandhi and her son - and traditional South Asian respect for family and public sacrifice."

During Sonia Gandhi's election campaign, her rivals believed that her appeal would be confined to the sophisticated urban elite. However, when the results started coming in, it was clear that the main support for her came from the rural constituencies.

When the communist parties decided to support her candidature from outside and not join her coalition, over 200 intellectuals from in and around Mumbai "rushed an appeal to the CPM bosses urging them to share the responsibility at the centre."

One would not want to believe that Ms Sonia Gandhi has backed out of her candidature for prime ministership out of timidity or fear of sparking countrywide protests as threatened by diehard BJP chauvinists such as the party spokesman Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi.

He claimed that there would be nation-wide turmoil when the Congress parliamentary party nominated her for the top job. He went on to declare, "Some of the country's votes may have gone to the Congress... but the electorate has not given a mandate to Sonia."

Ms Uma Bharti, also of the BJP, said in a similarly menacing tone: "If a person of foreign origin as prime minister becomes privy to all top secret documents... it will pose a grave danger to national security."

Surely, Sonia knows of the various crises which her mother-in-law, Ms Indira Gandhi, had to face during her tenure as prime minister. Indeed, she lived from crisis to crisis.

When Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri suddenly died in Tashkent on January 10, 1966, the old-timer Congressite, Kamaraj, suggested Ms Indira Gandhi as his successor. However, the right-wing Congress "syndicate" (mafia) including Morarji Desai, S.K. Patil, Neelam Sanjiva Reddy et al demurred, as she was known to be holding "leftist views." President Radhakrishnan was also sceptical as he looked upon her as an 'ingenue'.

That led to some informal desultory discussions in the inner circle of the Congress veterans. Then, as Ms Pupul Jayakar in her biography of Ms Indira Gandhi recalls, Indira who had kept quiet "in a flash of supreme confidence, said, 'No one can be prime minister without my support'."

Four days later, in the Congress parliamentary party, four names including that of Ms Indira Gandhi were proposed. Jayakar says that on the eve of the election, she wrote to her son Rajiv, then in London, and quoted Robert Frost: "How hard it is to keep from being king; when it is in you and the situation." When the voting took place, she had won by 355 votes against 169 which her nearest rival Morarji Desai secured.