Islam: the reality
IT is most unfortunate that Islam, as one of the revealed religions of the world, is judged by the western man in the light of the example of infinitesimal group of misguided Muslims who indulge in acts of terrorism, inter-sectarian riots and other heinous crimes. The holy Quran describes all such acts as fasad fi’lard (corruption). However, Islam ought to be perceived as practised by the teeming millions of peace-loving believers who are pious devotees of Allah. The spread of Islam across the globe, in fact, owes itself to the Sufis who had exerted spiritual influence on the common man.
The secret power of Islam lies in its articles of faith — the oneness of God (Tawheed) distinguishing it from other religions; the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH), life-hereafter, doomsday of reckoning, paradise and hell; five times daily prayers, paying the poor tax (Zakat); and performing annual pilgrimage (Haj).
Islam has prescribed a code of conduct — good behaviour (amr bi’l ma’ruf) and eschewing bad behaviour (nahi’anilmunkar). This simple code of conduct is technically called Shari’at. In addition, a code of spiritual discipline practised by the Sufis is called ‘Tariqat’. There is no
substantial contradiction between the legal code ( Shari’at) and the spiritual self-discipline (Tariqat). In fact, both reinforce each other, and are complementary.
On the basis of our faith all mankind are called upon to weld themselves together into a social order which has been described by the holy Quran as the universal ummah. Islam does not discriminate among men and women either on the basis of race, colour, or tribal affiliations.
Islam aims at regenerating a human community founded on the principles of equality, social justice, and brotherhood. Thus Islam transcends geographical boundaries and artificial political barriers. The commonwealth of Islam establishes peace with other peace-loving nations and it is called ‘dar-al-sulh’ (the land of peace). Islam does not sanction wars of aggression and permits war strictly in self-defence. It does not recognize first strike in a battle. All wars during the life-time of the holy Prophet (PBUH) were either preventive, or pre-emptive but were essentially in self-defence. It provides humane treatment to the old, young, and womenfolk during peace time, as well as during war.
Islam does not recognize sectarian conflict; all sects co-exist with each other peacefully within the framework of fundamental principles of faith, and therefore exhorts all Muslims to exercise tolerance, and mutual respect for one another. This is the crux of what is described as the Muslim unity (ittehad banalmuslimin).
Islam also prescribes tolerance for the votaries of other religions; and minorities are provided protection and freedom of worship within the Islamic territories (daral’Islam). Thus, Islam believes in inter-faith peace.
Within the framework of our faith, code of conduct, and love of God, we, American Muslims, resolve to observe all laws of the land, respect churches, synagogues, and temples of the votaries of all other religions. We seek peace and freedom of worship within our mosques and Islamic centres as the hub of religious, cultural and community activities.
We would like to assure all that we shall always be loyal citizens of this great country which has accommodated millions of Muslims migrating from their homelands to this land of peace and prosperity.
AMERICAN MUSLIMS
Washington, USA
Internet advertising
THERE is a company which claims to offer ‘fiber-optic’ based broadband Internet access to home-users at a low monthly cost of Rs1,400 to Rs2,100 a month. They also offer a cable TV service alongside their mainstream Internet access service. Both ‘home- user’ plans claim to offer a speed of 64kbps and 128kbps respectively.
Before singing on the service of this company for home use, I asked a few of their sales representatives about their setup and the actual speeds I would be able to achieve while using their service. They claimed that the speed would be almost 10 times as fast as dialup Internet access (something similar is stated boldly on their website).
When I subscribed to the service, I was fairly pleased. However, after three weeks of using it, I realized what a horrible mistake I had made by doing so. Their service became ridiculously slow and the download speeds were much slower than dialup! I could not access any websites whatsoever and lost a lot of precious time since I could not get any work done.
Their customer service representatives refused to help in any way and I was blatantly cut off the line five times when I called them. Their customer service phone lines are swamped in calls. They claim to be handling sales requests. However, it’s fairly obvious that they are swamped in customer complaints. This suspicion was confirmed when I visited their office. I also spoke to their service supervisor (over the phone) who seemed as clueless as everyone else working for this company as to what the problem really was.
The customer services representative I met when I visited their office used the old and overused blame shifting technique of using PTCL as the scapegoat (the bandwidth and telecommunications monopoly in Pakistan) though he did finally admit that there was a problem at their end as well.
Speaking as a person who is experienced with networking infrastructure, the problem with them is clearly that of overselling. They have sold more connections than their network can support. As far as the issue of network overselling goes, PTCL is partly to blame considering the outrageous fees they charge for a dedicated link to the Internet.
ASHER SAEED
Karachi
Pakistan-India relations
SINCE April 18, 2003, the people of the subcontinent are taking a fresh look at relations between the two neighbouring countries after a worse diplomatic and strategic rivalry in recent history. First, the start of the Lahore-Delhi bus service to facilitate the people of the two countries to reconstruct the relations not broken by them. It is the first phase of people-to-people contact.
Secondly, the air and rail routes will be opened. To obtain the visa from the Indian High Commission, people from every corner of the country will rush to the federal capital, the most expensive city of Pakistan in terms of board and lodging, transportation, etc. The majority of the people from Sindh, especially from Karachi, will face difficulties in travelling to Islamabad to obtain the Indian visa.
After coming back from Islamabad, they will make plans, according to their status, to visit India. The common man who uses the rail link faces a number of problems that include going through the customs and immigration checks on the Atari border, miseries of the long journey by the Samjhota Express, etc.
Much of the misery of the common man will be gone if the government allows the opening of the Indian consulate at Karachi and also reopens the Khokrapar-Munabao rail link with India in the first phase. In the second phase, a road link between Badin and Palanpur can be opened.
This time-saving route was in the use of the people of the united province of Bombay (Sindh, Gujarat and Bombay) before the partition. This will also generate economic activities such as transportation trade, provision of board and lodging. These economic activities will play a significant role in the financial progress of Sindh.
IMTIAZ H. ABBASI
Karachi
Agricultural credit
“HUGE cost makes farm lending unattractive” has been discussed in the Business Section of July 6, 2003, issue of your esteemed paper. Agriculture credit is one of major inputs for agriculture production and needs to be brought up in line with the requirements of this sector which contributes one-fourth of the GDP with very large employment.
Economic policy implementation covering a large sector would have operational difficulties, which have to be resolved in the interest of the economy. In context of the article, unpaid loans of over Rs100 billion incurred were given on the basis of pelf and power which also happened in other sectors.
When the article refers to “haris” (meaning share cropper in Sindh), the reader gets an impression that defaults are in the province of Sindh, which is not so. Also, in Sindh the lands are not rented to the “haris”. The rental mechanism is different in this province. In any case the loans are covered by land titles and rented land may not qualify for a loan.
It is important that the State Bank of Pakistan should look into the difficulties of commercial banks in extending credit to the farm sector and come out with corrective measures, ensuring that the genuine farm enterprise does not suffer from lack of credit in the absence of which the potential of agriculture production in Pakistan will not be realized.
MASOOD AHMED
Karachi
White elephants
THIS is with reference to Mr Ayaz Amir’s column, “White elephant and the PR trade” (July 11).
The writer has aptly pointed out the total lack of professionalism of our generals, past and present. It is ironic that in Pakistan the generals are handsomely rewarded after military debacles. Examples abound but some are very glaring.
In 1987 a general lost the post in Siachen, he was temporarily removed from command but later promoted as Lieutenant-General. Afterwards he was posted to Turkey on a lucrative appointment. A corps commander bungled the operation in 90/91 in Siachen. The casualties were very high, including that of a promising brigadier. He survived unscathed. He pretended that he didn’t know about the operation.
In 1971 two brigadiers took massive beating from the enemy in Rahimyar Khan-Reti Sector, their battalions virtually broke but afterwards both were rewarded; one rose to become a lieutenant general and the other was made a joint secretary in the cabinet division. And who can forget the great general who left his troops in the forward defended localities in Chandpur (East Pakistan) Sector while the battle was still raging, fled to Burma by a helicopter after off-loading a nurse? Back in Pakistan being a good friend of Gul Hasan, he became chief of the general staff and on retirement was well looked after. The irony is that Niazi was never court-martialled, why should others be?
LT-COL (RETD) SAFIR A. SIDDIQUI
Karachi
PTCL billing
THE PTCL provides value-added services, including CLI, to its customers as per existing tariff, but due to some technical reasons, charges of CLI and other value-added services could not be billed in time in the monthly telephone bills of some of the customers.
In June, 2003, billing charges outstanding against the customers have been billed through “Other Charges” which have also been highlighted in the bill. Owing to billing of arrears, some of the customers are facing difficulties in paying their dues in lump sum. Those customers are requested to approach the accounts offices or the GM office for payment of their bills in instalments. Inconvenience caused to the customers is regretted.
MEDIA COORDINATOR
DG (Operations) South, PTCL,
Karachi
US visa policy
THIS refers to the response of Ms Linda Cheatham, acting counsellor for public affairs of the United States embassy in Islamabad (July 12).
I would beg to differ with what she had to say. Most of us would not disagree with me when I say that after the tragic incident of 9/11, the US government and all its functionaries have really not been very rational in their attitude. There is no doubt that whatever happened on September 11 was something which the Americans will not be able to forget, but I guess the grief has equally been felt the world over.
The US embassy here in Islamabad, in particular, and the other US embassies all around the world, specially in Muslim countries, have been very unkind even to genuine travellers and intending visitors and there are many who would share these views.
Many of us in Pakistan believe that the US embassy is punishing the Pakistanis for a crime they have not committed. It is on record that the Pakistan government, as well as the people of Pakistan, was not linked to the September 11 incidents. Rather, as a matter of fact, they have thoroughly been supportive of this war against terror as on all other major issues involving the United States in the past. Why then we have been targeted is something most of us will never be able to understand.
ABDUL SALAM DADABHOY
Karachi
Mixing up facts
THIS refers to your correspondent’s report, ‘N. Areas education plan to be shelved’, (May 23). Perhaps he meant to write about the Northern Education Project rather than the Northern Areas Education Project.
The Northern Education Project (NEP) is a World Bank-funded project, which was part of the Pakistan government’s Social Action Programme (SAP) and was due to end in 2002. It was extended by one year.
On the other hand, the Northern Areas Education Project (NAEP) is a project wholly funded by the British government through its Department for International Development (DFID). NAEP is providing technical assistance plus training costs and other equipment as grant-in-aid. This component is being managed by the British Council in Pakistan.
NAEP Phase 1 began in 1997 and will extend support to the Northern Areas’ Department of Education until Dec 31, 2003.
Your correspondent’s assertions about 400 employees losing their jobs and details in the following paragraph in the report do not correlate with the NAEP staff who number 32 and who have been employed for the duration of the NAEP Phase 2.
SALIM KHAN
Communication Manager,
British Council,
Islamabad
Where bank statements go
THIS refers to Mr Javed’s letter headlined “Where do bank statements go?” (June 17). In this respect I would like to say that until 3/4 years back, when banks would send statements of accounts through post offices, this complaint was somewhat understandable. Readers may recall such news items as saying that “thousands of bank statements found dumped in a nullah... and as usual enquiry has been ordered”.
However, non-receipt of statements of accounts now is not understood because banks are said to be sending the statements through courier companies, for which they show heavy amounts as expenditure incurred in this respect. Therefore, Mr Javed’s presumption that “statements are sent to only 10 per cent account holders while expenditure is shown as incurred for all account holders and thus misappropriated” appears to be fairly convincing.
The fact that none of the banks deemed it necessary to come up with an answer to “where do bank statements go?” only strengthens the notion that statements are not sent to all account holders.
I and members of my family maintain half a dozen accounts with the HBL and MCB but none of us receives any statement. When the branches concerned are contacted, we are told that statements have already been sent at your address. After a considerable wait if the branches are contacted again, we are some time “obliged” with a duplicate copy from the computer but no clarification is ever given as to where the original statement go. Perhaps, the original is not sent at all.
Will the banks and the courier companies concerned like to come up with a cogent clarification?
HASAN
Karachi
Traffic violations
I AGREE with the views and apprehensions expressed by Mr Fayyaz Maklai on the above subject (June 13).
It is painful to observe that the designers of this important junction have not bothered to check and observe the inherent fault in the new system after its implementation so as to make necessary alterations. Neither the signal violators are being caught and fined, thus allowing virtually a free hand to public transport vehicles and motorbike riders who openly jump the red signals at will, nor the vehicles using the wrong tracks are warned or reprimanded at all.
Apart from taking necessary steps to check the flouting of signal rules, the most urgent thing to do for the authorities concerned is to arrange painting of various tracks with clear arrow indications for the help and direction of drivers.
It is hoped that the authorities will wake up and do the needful before any major accident takes place due to the absence of clear indicators.
NAJMUL HASAN
Karachi
India’s ‘no’ to America
I WAS overwhelmed by a sense of deja vu as I read about India’s refusal to send troops to Iraq under the American military command. I was swept back to my days in boarding school at Atchison College when my house (Leslie Jones House) hardly ever won any sporting tournaments among the various houses and I would be left fantasizing about how nice it would feel to be on the winning side for a change.
Similarly, India’s principled stand in the face of strong American pressure made me think how nice it would be if at least once in a while our leaders too would take a stand on issues which are in our national interest and rests on firm moral and political values, instead of habitually bowing to the American will every time they wave the proverbial stick or a fist full of dollars in our face, so that we too can occasionally hold our heads high with pride.
I experienced the same sense of deja vu when Turkish parliament, despite severe pressure from Washington in the shape of repeated frantic diplomatic sorties by high-ranking State Department officials and President Bush’s pleadings over the telephone, boldly refused to allow American troops to use its territory to launch an offensive against Iraq.
By contrast, all it took was one telephone call from Secretary of State Colin Powell to bring all our generals in line. At a time when Iraqi youths are laying down their lives in suicide bomb attacks against American occupation troops, the image of a fellow Muslim state falling over itself to pander to the Americans, while the predominantly Hindu India refuses to dirty its hands in this mess, is not likely to leave a very flattering of image of Pakistan in the minds of our Iraqi brethren.
What hell has descended upon Turkey for its refusal to be stampeded upon by American global interests? What apocalyptic fate does await India for showing some backbone? Already a high ranking US Embassy official in New Delhi has been quoted as saying that “India’s decision would not hinder its (America’s) growing strategic ties with New Delhi ... India remains an important strategic partner for the US”. They had the foresight to realize their strategic, geo-political significance and the nerve to take a stand. But then our history shows us that taking a stand against America leads to the hangman’s noose. No one wants to be the holy cow.
AMEER BUKSH BHUTTO
Larkana
Beating around Bush
I DO not know why America does not dismount from the high horse it is riding to ask for assistance like any other country does when it needs it. On the one hand, Washington preaches democratic principles which presuppose equality. On the other, it expects nations to fall into line with America and accept the policies it lays down as the supreme power in the world.
India’s decision not to send troops to Iraq has evoked from the American government a reaction which is typical of that sort of thinking. The reaction is patronizing in tone and presumptuous in tenor. A US official says that Washington’s bilateral relations with New Delhi will not be affected by India’s decision. At the same time, he says that America had hoped that India would take “a different decision.”
If America believes that India, as a sovereign democratic country, has every right to decide its course of action, then why this observation or the one that India would remain “a strategic partner” of the United States?
The assurance evokes doubts. It sounds like going on record for the sake of doing so. US ambassador Robert Blackwell in Delhi conveyed something else a few days earlier: India would miss an opportunity if it did not send troops to Iraq. What opportunity?
Such observations smack of arrogance which does not go down well in a country that waged a struggle for independence for 50 years to free itself from British bondage. America’s attitude on the question of sending troops, notwithstanding what it did to Iraq, has been haughty from the beginning.
When Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani met President Bush in Washington some time back it was clear that America expected India to send its troops. The very first thing that Bush reportedly said was to ask when India was sending troops to Iraq. It was not a request but a veiled fiat.
Advani naturally said that a consensus on the issue would have to be built in the country. Bush brushed aside the plea as if that was only a matter of details which he said a Pentagon team would sort out.
The problem any independent country faces is not whether America likes its particular decision or not but whether what it does has the backing of its people. Had there been a provision in the Indian constitution to hold a referendum, the decision not to send troops would have got an overwhelming support.
There are many reasons for it. People in India did not like the manner in which America and Britain attacked Iraq without having the UN sanction. India wanted a proof of their contention that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
It was on the basis of this that the common man in Iraq was subjected to carpet-bombing and what not. It now turns out that the intelligence was doctored to suit the wishes of Bush and Tony Blair. Not only that, according to newspaper reports, a high official sold some fake documents to the Italian government about what Saddam was doing.
The Italian government shared the information contained in the documents with the US. Can anything be more preposterous than this?
New Delhi is also conscious about the sensitivity of the Muslim world. Although the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) has again rejected India’s entry, it has not lessened New Delhi’s interest in the Middle East in any way. Barely a few hours before the resolution for the admission of India was to be voted on, Pakistan’s information minister checked with General Pervez Musharraf, who directed him to make Pakistan’s reservation known to the OIC.
Over 30 million Indians are gainfully employed in the Gulf and Arab countries. New Delhi’s “yes” would have hurt them. When I met some Indian Muslims recently in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf and Qatar, I found how proud they felt over India’s policy to stay distant from America. It was not merely the question of saving their jobs but of confidence that New Delhi, although pressured, would never distance itself from India’s traditional and independent policy.
By not sending troops to Iraq, India has sent a clear message: The country’s foreign policy is not up for sale because America has money to give (contracts were offered for Iraq’s reconstruction) or muscle power to flaunt.
The feedback of Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal to the government was not positive. When he spoke of the “grey areas” in Washington, he was not referring to the “ambiguities” in the original UN resolution alone but also to his perception that Washington had once again tilted towards Islamabad after General Musharraf’s visit to Camp David.
Bush was reportedly falling head over heels in wooing Musharraf. New Delhi might have felt that it could not change America’s attitude even if it sent troops to Iraq. Then why do something which was palpably wrong on all counts?
In fact, a couple of ministers in the cabinet committee on security (CCS) fought a last-ditch battle not to take a categorical stand on America’s request for troops. The ministers wanted to postpone the decision on the ground of seeking further clarification. But Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee was not in favour of deferring the decision, particularly when public opinion was nearly unanimous that India should not send troops to Iraq. That all political parties, including the BJP, were strongly against the deployment of troops negated even the semblance of support for America.
It is believed that the words — “were there to be an explicit UN mandate for the purpose, the government of India could consider the deployment of troops in Iraq” — were added to mollify America which might feel annoyed after receiving India’s “no.” The reported view at the CCS was that America should be assured that India was not against sending troops but against bypassing the UN, a legitimate body to decide on such issues. Russia, France and Germany have been telling India behind the scenes to do its bit to retrieve the pre-eminence of the UN. Whatever America’s initial reaction is, it is sure to take some steps to hurt India. New Delhi should be prepared for it.
India’s decision not to send troops to Iraq has put the Pakistan government on a sticky wicket. In the course of a recent tour of the United States, Musharraf had in “principle” agreed to send two brigades of Pakistani soldiers to Baghdad. But following sharp criticism of this announcement, the Pakistan president modified his statement when he returned home.
He said that a decision on whether or not to send troops would be taken after a “national consensus” was reached.
Now the only option left for General Musharraf seems to be to tell Washington to provide Islamabad a respectable umbrella under which it could send troops. Before the general made his commitment to the US on sending two brigades, he had said that since the UN was not willing to take the responsibility, options such as involving the OIC or the Gulf Cooperation Council should be explored. But all this is between him and the people of Pakistan. As for India, his new line — a national consensus — is the country’s gain.
The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.