Guarding against ill-will

Jealousy or "Hasad" (as it is described in the Quran), can be defined as a grudge against persons for their achievements, belongings or better fortune. Whereas healthy competition through honest hard work, prayer and faith in Allah has been encouraged in Islam, it becomes a bane for humanity as soon as the factor of envy and ill-will comes in.

It is important for us to understand the maxims of wisdom mentioned in Surah An-Najm (53). "No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another" (Ayat 38). "That man can have nothing but what he strives for" (Ayat 39).

"That (the fruit of) his striving will soon come in sight. Then will he be rewarded with a reward complete" (Ayaat 40-41). "That it is He (Allah), who gives wealth and satisfaction" (Ayat 48).

The concluding Surahs of the Holy Quran namely Surah Al-Falaq and Surah An-Naas advise us to seek refuge with Almighty Allah, against the mischief of those who envy, when they are carrying a grudge (or are resentful) and also those who whisper into human being's breasts.

The first lesson taught to men, angels and jinns by Allah when He created Adam was that "hasad" leads one to the depths of disgrace and destruction. Iblis was a jinn, a high statured creature of Allah.

When he was told that Allah was creating Adam (human being) as His Vicegerent, Iblis was over-powered by the bane of jealousy and arrogance which resulted in his rebellious attitude with his own Creator.

The point to be noted is who suffered as a result of this grudge and jealousy, Iblis or Adam? Iblis was thrown out of the heavens as the meanest of creatures whereas Adam's status was raised to "Ashraf-ul-Makhlooqat", the best among His creatures.

Ayat 50 of Surah - Al-Kahaf (18) reads, "Behold! We (Allah) said to the angels "Bow down to Adam": They bowed down except Iblis. He was one of the jinns, and he broke the command of his Rabb".

Ayaat 11 to 13 of Surah Al-Aaraaf (7) say, "Then We bade the angels bow down to Adam. They had bowed down; not so Iblis. He refused to be one of those who bow down". Allah said, "What prevented thee from bowing down, when I commanded thee? He said: I am better than he: You did create me from fire and him from clay": Allah said "Get thee down from this. It is not for thee to be arrogant here: Get out, for thou art of the meanest (of creatures)".

Ayaat 27 to 31 of Surah Al-Maida (5) narrates other true story of jealousy and envy for us to learn a lesson. It reads, "Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam (Habeel and Qabeel). They each presented a sacrifice (to Allah).

It was accepted from the one (Habeel, the younger brother) but not from the other. Said the latter (Qabeel), "Be sure I will slay you". "Surely" said the former, "Allah does accept the sacrifice of those who are righteous. If you stretch your hand against me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against you to slay you: for I do fear Allah, the Cherisher of the worlds.

"For me, I intend to let you draw on yourself my sin as well as yours. For you will be among the companions of the fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong".

The (envious) soul of the other led him to the murder of his brother: he murdered him, and become (himself) one of the lost ones". The innocent, unselfish pleading of the younger brother had no effect, for the soul of the other was full of grudge, jealousy and selfishness. He committed murder, but the Holy Quran bears testimony to the fact that this envious act resulted in ruining his own self.

Further down the history, we are reminded of Hazrat Yusuf (AS), who became a victim of the jealousy of his step-brothers. Here again, they suffered the wrath of Allah and the victim flourished.

Surah Yusuf (12) narrates in detail, how Yusuf was thrown into a well by his step-brothers, out of jealousy how he was accidentally found and picked up by a caravan going to Egypt and ultimately crowned as the ruler of Egypt.

The Surah also tells us that the same step-brothers who had tried to eliminate Yusuf out of envy and grudge, had to beg him for food when they suffered a famine in their area some years later.

Ayat 56 of Surah Yusuf says, "Thus did we give established power to Yusuf in the land, to take possession therein as, when or where he pleased. We bestow of our mercy on whom we please, and we do not let the reward of those who do good, be wasted".

Coming to the era of the last Prophet, Mohammad (PBUH), we find that the Ansaar, the people of Madinah who accepted Islam, and who invited the Holy Prophet to join them and become their leader in Madinah, shared all that they had, with the Muhajireen (Muslim immigrants from Makkah).

These were the people who were blessed, honoured and rewarded by the Almighty Allah. The people of Banu Nadhir and their allies who suffered from envy, jealousy and arrogance, were humbled and their power of mischief was destroyed by the Almighty. These facts are mentioned in detail in Surah Al-Hashr (59).

Ayat 32 of Surah Al-Nisa says, "Do not desire (in greed) of His grace, those things in which Allah has bestowed His gifts more freely on some of you than on others: to men is allotted what they earn and to women what they earn: but ask Allah of His bounty. For Allah has full knowledge of everything".

The gifts of Allah bestowed on men and women may seen unequal to an ignorant eye. If this does not appear in our sight, let us remember that we do not have the complete knowledge that Allah has.

We must remember this Iblis was clearly warned by Allah when he showed his grudge against Adam, that he Iblis) did not have the full knowledge of things that Allah had.

If we insist on our defective judgment of things, we are bound to fall into the footsteps of Iblis. We must never be jealous if other people have more than we have in wealth, position, strength, honour, talent or happiness.

Probably things are equalized in the aggregate or in the long run, or equated with the needs and merits on a scale that we cannot appraise. If we want more, instead of being jealous or covetous, we should strive harder, pray to Allah and place our needs before Him for His blessing. Although Allah knows all, our prayer may reveal to ourselves our shortcomings and enable us to deserve more of Allah's bounty.

Ayat 165 of Surah Al-Anaam (6) says, "It is He, who has made you (His) agents, inheritors of the earth: He has raised you in ranks, some above others: that He may try you in the gifts He has given you: For your Rabb is quick in punishment: yet He is indeed oft-forgiving, most merciful".

Ayat 88 of Surah Al-Hajr (15) reads, "Strain not your eyes (wistfully) at what We have bestowed certain classes of them, nor grieve over them: but lower your wing (in gentleness) to the believers".

The metaphor of lowering the wing is from a bird who lowers her wing in tender solicitude for her little ones. Ayat 131 of Surah Taha (20) categorically directs us not to envy those who are better placed than us in this life.

It reads, "Nor strain your eyes in longing for the things We have given for enjoyment to a category of people, as the splendour of this life, through which we test them. But the provision of your Rabb is better and more enduring".

Allah has directed man not to keep grudge and ill-will even against those who show hatred. Ayaat 34 and 35 of Surah Fussilat (41) say, "Repel (evil) with what is better: then if there was an enmity between you and the other one, then as a consequence the other one will turn into an intimate wali (a protector), a friend with warmth. And no one will be granted such goodness except those who exercise patience and self-restraint, none but persons of the greatest good fortune".

Ayat 32 of Surah Zukhruf (43) says, "In the life of this world, we raise some of them in their status above some others, so that some may command work from others. But the mercy of your Rabb is better than the (wealth) which they amass".

Ill-will and covetous planning harms none but the planner. Ayaat 42- 43 of Surah Fatir (35) reads, "But when a warning came to them, it only increased their flight (from righteousness), on account of their arrogance in the land and their plotting of evil. But the plotting of evil will backfire on its authors (who deserve it)".

We must remember that mutual ridicule ceases to be fun when there is a factor of envy, jealousy, arrogance or malice behind it. We may laugh with people to share in the happiness of life, but we must never laugh at people in contempt or ridicule.

Ayat I I of Surah Al-Hujrat (49) says, "O you who believe! Let not some men among you laugh at others: it may be that the (latter) are better than the (former): nor let some women laugh at others: it may be that (latter) are better than the (former): nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by (offensive) nicknames and those who do not desist are indeed doing wrong".

The very opening Surah of the Holy Quran, which we recite in every salat (Namaz), reads, "(O Allah), guide us to the path that is (correct and) straight. The path of those on whom You have bestowed Your grace, not that of the people on whom is Your wrath, nor of those who go astray".

It has also become amply clear to us that the envious, the jealous, the covetous and the arrogant are those who have gone astray and who earn the wrath of Allah. We must therefore purify our hearts and shun the vices of jealousy and pride.

Continued talks imperative

It is surprising that the Indian Foreign Minister, Natwar Singh, should have reservations about President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's suggestion that the Kashmir question had to be discussed within a fixed time-frame. It was evident from the outset that the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan could not be left open-ended.

The dialogue was resumed after much deliberation and with the hope that it would reach a mutually acceptable conclusion, unlike several previous attempts. That explains the mood of optimism that prevailed when the composite dialogue actually began early this year.

With his past reputation as being something of a hardliner where dealings with Pakistan were concerned, based mainly on his attitude towards Islamabad while serving as a member of the late Ms Indira Gandhi's team, Natwar Singh's reticence in accepting Pakistan's peace overtures at face value would have been understandable.

However, on joining Ms Sonia Gandhi's cabinet, almost the first policy declaration that he made was that he would undertake "constructive engagements" with the neighbours.

He was even reported as saying that talks with Pakistan would continue "even if the large-scale terror attacks continue." This, as the comment in an Indian news journal put it could be "music to Pakistani ears."

However, New Delhi lost no time in conveying to the American deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, on his recent visit to New Delhi that the cross-border movement of terrorists from the Pakistani side had yet to stop and that Pakistan had allowed the infrastructure for cross-border terrorism to continue. Pakistan had to issue a firm denial immediately.

Natwar Singh also maintained that the Americans were keeping Pakistan under pressure to work out peace with India. However, it seemed that the Indians themselves leaned on Washington for support.

In fact, as the Indian media was quick to note, the US ambassador in New Delhi, David Muford, was one of the first visitors to call on Natwar Singh after he had joined Manmohan Singh's government as foreign minister.

It is also known that Armitage's "first intensive interaction" with the newly appointed national security adviser, J.N. Dixit, covered India's plans for missile defence.

However, it is clear that it is the new face of India that now confronts Pakistan. It is in the interest of peace in India and Pakistan and the region as well that the composite dialogue should continue without any loss of commitment or of momentum.

It is hoped that the agenda for talks on various specific areas of bilateral relations should would not be diluted or dropped. There will also have to be something much more substantial than the mere setting up of an India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh cricket team (as visualized by Natwar Singh in one of his recent interviews) to guide the composite dialogue to a positive conclusion.

Leaders on both sides of the border should also realize that much patience would be needed to continue with the peace process. Natwar Singh could be expected to be more supportive of the Pakistan president's suggestion of a timeframe for the talks on Kashmir.

Without a result-oriented dialogue, the resolution of the Kashmir question would not be easy to achieve. It is encouraging to note that Pakistan and India appear to have delinked their bilateral relationship from any regional setup if their performance at the recent meeting of the Council of SAARC foreign ministers was anything to go by. This should lead to a greater emphasis on the bilateral efforts for peace.

With the start of the India-Pakistan peace process, there is also a growing realization that the attempts at resolving the long festering Kashmir dispute would also be linked to the induction of the representatives of the Kashmiri people.

The efforts in the past remained mostly confined to a bilateral format. While, according to the 1947 partition plan, it was mostly a question of whether Kashmir would accede to India or Pakistan, the situation in the disputed state now makes it abundantly clear that the Kashmiri people can no longer be kept out of a peace process.

Indeed, most Kashmir watchers now seem to be of the view that the Kashmiri people themselves do not regard mere accession as directly relevant to what their future is going to be.

The Kashmiris' own objective appears to be work towards some form of independence. What the form should be cannot be decided without their participation in the talks now in progress.

The United States was at one time directly involved in the sorting out of the differences between India and Pakistan. This seems to be no longer the case. Most recent analyses of the Kashmir question suggest that the US would not want to be a party to the problem.

The study conducted by a professional lobbyist commissioned by India towards the end of the 1990s also suggested that "the US should avoid tilts in its dealings with South Asia."

An Indian scholar Reeta Chowdhri Tremblay, who conducted a study on the Kashmir movement while at the University of Chicago, came to the conclusion that the "continued violence in the Valley did not seem to help the cause of either the Kashmir lobby in the US or Pakistan's protesting against the violation of human rights in the (Indian occupied) Valley."

During a visit to New Delhi in September 1997, (the first year of President Clinton's second term) Karl F. Inderfurth, US assistant secretary of state for South Asia, made it quite clear that the US did not intend to play an active role as mediator in the Kashmir issue Washington largely adhered to the same policy in subsequent years.

There is nonetheless the view held by some policy planners in the US that "American concern with terrorism has contributed to a certain degree of convergence of Indian and US interests." This was also evident from the statements of the US deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, after his recent official visit to the region.

However, Pakistan is firmly of the view that whatever violence occurs in the Valley is prompted by the excessive Indian security forces' presence there and the continued abuse of the Kashmiri people's human rights.

There is also a view which is now gaining ground that if New Delhi would give the bona fide representatives of the Kashmiri people a genuine share in the governance of the occupied state, some sort of way out of the continuing impasse would probably become manifest.

In its recent exchanges with India, Pakistan too has stressed the view. On the other hand, it is also becoming clear that the unrest in the occupied state would not end unless the Kashmiris themselves become masters of their own destiny. The Kashmiri people would not want the hegemony either of India or Pakistan over their home state.

However, a study published in Pacific Affairs (Winter 1996-97), said that with the formation of a US-India working group on counter-terrorism, there had been the emergence of a significant pro-India lobby in the US Congress.

Yet, for the sake of maintaining balance in the South Asian region the US was not likely to alter its policy or Kashmir. Consequently, sometimes it is surmised that Pakistan and some of the so called "secessionists" would continue "to refer to the UNCIP resolution to vindicate their demand for a plebiscite in the disputed state."

It seems relevant to recall that according to Prof Robert G. Wirsing, a promised South Asia expert, the Indian diplomat, J.N. Dixit, while he was India's foreign secretary in 1993, listed five points which were relevant to any attempt to break the deadlock over Kashmir.

The points were: One, we (i.e. India) accept that there is alienation in the valley; two, the government of India must explore the roots of alienation; three, the responsibility for the alienation cannot be placed wholly on Pakistan; four, the alienation cannot be dealt with by India's security forces; and Five, we (i.e. India) believe that India has to play a very key role. According to wirsing, Dixit believed that Kashmir was potentially extremely explosive and needed to be defused at the earliest.

J.N. Dixit is a key member of the Manmohan Singh cabinet. Even if he does not directly deal with the planning of India's foreign policy, he can potentially exercise considerable influence on evolving a strategy to implement New Delhi's Kashmir policy.

One would hope that he still regards his analysis as valid and it is presumed that he will invest his influence in evolving a policy of peace for the region. If he does, be will significantly contribute to the successful outcome of the ongoing composite dialogue.

'New Iraq' more violent than ever

The smell of the dead pours into the street through the air- conditioning ducts. Hot, sweet, overwhelming. Inside the Baghdad morgue, there are so many corpses that the fridges are overflowing. The dead are on the floor. Dozens of them. Outside in the 60 degree heat, Qadum Ganawi tells me how his brother Hassan was murdered.

"He was bringing supper home for our family in Palestine Street but he never reached our home. Then we got a phone call saying we could have him back if we paid $50,000. We didn't have $50,000.

So we sold part of our home and many of our things and we borrowed $15,000 and we paid over the money to a man in a car who was wearing a kuffiah scarf round his head. Then we got another phone call, telling us that Hassan was at the Saidiyeh police station.

He was. He was blindfolded and gagged and he had two bullets in his head. They had taken our money and then they had killed him."

There is a wail of grief from the yard behind us where 50 people are waiting in the shade of the Baghdad mortuary wall. There are wooden coffins in the street, stacked against the wall, lying on the pavement.

Old men - fathers and uncles - are padding them with grease-proof paper. When the bodies are released, they will be taken to the mosque in coffins and then buried in shrouds. There are a few women. Most stare at the intruding foreigner with something approaching venom.

The statistics of violent death in Baghdad are now beyond shame. Almost a year ago, there were sometimes 400 violent deaths a month. This in itself was a fearful number to follow the Anglo- American invasion of Iraq.

But in the first ten days of this July alone, the corpses of 215 men and women were brought to the Baghdad mortuary, almost all of them dead from gunshot wounds.

In the second ten days of this month, the bodies of another 291 arrived. Five hundred and six violent deaths in under three weeks in just Baghdad. Even the Iraqi officials here shake their heads in disbelief. 'New Iraq' under its new American-appointed prime minister is more violent than ever.

Qadum Ganawi puts his hand on my arm. "Listen," he says. "My brother had two tiny children. One is only a year old. We have sold our house and borrowed $15,000. How can we ever pay this back? And we have nothing for it but the grief of losing my dear brother.

He was a car importer so they thought he was rich. He wasn't. And, you know, his wife is Syrian. She went to Syria for a holiday with the two babies. She is there now. She doesn't know what has happened to her husband..."

Trucks are arriving in the street beside us, a pick-up and a small lorry with corpses for autopsy. Tony Blair says it's safer here. He is wrong. Every month is a massacre in Baghdad.

Thieves, rapists, looters, American troops at checkpoints and on convoys, revenge killers, insurgents, they are shooting down the people of this city faster than ever.

One man was shot dead by a US soldier as he overtook their a convoy on the way to his Baghdad wedding. We only found out because his marriage was to have been celebrated in a hotel occupied by journalists. Another death I only discovered when an old Iraqi friend called on me last week. He wanted me to help him leave Iraq. Quickly. Now.

"I work for the Americans at the airport but I think I'm done for if I stay." Why? "Because my uncle worked at the airport for the Americans, just like me. My uncle was Abdullah Mohi.

He was driving home the other night but they stopped him a hundred metres from his house. Then they took a knife and cut his throat. We found him drenched in blood at the steering wheel." Abbas looks at me with dead eyes. "Should I go to Jordan? Help me."

At the mortuary, a big, tall man, Amr Daher, walks up to me. "They killed one of our tribal leaders from the Dulaimi tribe," he says. "This morning, right in the middle of Al-Kut Square, just a couple of hours ago."

Selman Hassan Salume was driving with his two teenage sons when three gunmen came alongside in a car and shot him dead, just like that. Both his sons were wounded, one seriously.

Hospital records only tell part of the story. In the blazing heat of an Iraqi summer, some families bury their dead without notifying the authorities. Some remain unidentified forever, unclaimed.

The Americans bring in corpses. When they do, there are no autopsies. The morticians will not say why. But the ministry of health has told doctors that there should be no autopsies in these cases because the Americans will already have performed the operation.

Not long ago, six corpses arrived at the Baghdad mortuary after being brought in by US forces. Three were unidentified. Three had names but their families could not be found. All had suffered - according to the American records - "traumatic wounds to the head," the normal phrase for gunshot wounds. There were no autopsies.

Death is now so routine that even the most tragic of deaths becomes a footnote. A US tank collides with a bus north of Baghdad. Seven civilians are killed. The Americans agree to open an investigation. It makes scarcely a paragraph in the local press.

Four days ago, a US M1A1 Abrams tank crossing the motorway at Abu Ghraib collided with a car carrying two girls and their mother, all of whom were crushed to death.

It didn't even make the news in Baghdad. No wonder the occupying powers - or the 'international forces' as we must now call them - steadfastly refuse to reveal the statistics of Iraqi dead, only their own.

Even the deaths we do know of these past 36 hours make shocking reading. At Mahmudiyah, south of Baghdad, gunmen killed two Iraqi police officers travelling to their station. In Kirkuk, Iraqi policeman Luay Abdullah was shot dead as he waited for a lift home after guarding an oil pipeline.

A Kurdish woman and her two children were killed when someone sprayed their Kirkuk home with gunfire. A Kurdish peshmerga guerrilla was murdered in a drive-by shooting. A former government official was killed in Baghdad.

Then recently, a senior civil servant in the Iraqi ministry of interior in Baghdad was shot dead. In the town of Buhriz, hours of fighting between insurgents and US troops left 15 dead, according to the Americans. All, they said, were gunmen although it almost always transpires that civilians are among the dead in such battles.

According to American documents, insurgent groups "have become more sophisticated and may be coordinating their anti- coalition (sic) efforts, posing an even more significant threat." There is an increase in drive-by shootings.

And - a chilling remark this for all would-be travellers in and out of Baghdad - the Americans believe that "recent attacks on air assets suggest that all type of aircraft, civilian, fixed-wing and military...are seen as potential targets of opportunity."

So the war is getting worse. The casualties are growing by the week. And Mr Blair thinks Iraq is safer. -(c) The Independent