Fasting to ward off evil

THE literal meaning of Saum (fasting) is to be at rest and it implies abstinence. The word Ramazan is derived from the word “Ramz” which means “to burn” and here it applies to the burning of selfish desires.

The sacred month of Ramazan is in fact an annual invitation to delinquents to shed evil away and put on garb of humility. The Holy Quran states, “O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed for you, even as it was prescribed for those before you, that ye may ward off evil” (2:183).

The verse i.e. II: 187, that follows the ordinance about Ramazan, is of particular significance to the concept of self-denial and offers limitless assurances to those who fast “when My servants ask thee concerning Me, I am indeed close (to them). I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he calleth on Me...”

Thus, Fasting has been enjoined and made incumbent upon every Muslim adult but with the condition that he must be fit physically for it. A sick person, one who is travelling, an old person and one who finds the severity of fasting hard to bear on account of age or other infirmity, are exempt. But for the sick and the traveller this is a temporary exemption, they have to complete the period on other days. “And whosoever of you is sick or on a journey let him fast the same number of other days.” (2:185).

The verses 261-265 in Surah Al-Baqra mention about charity and the high standards it requires. It is here that Allah says: “kind words, and the covering of faults are better than charity” (II:263)

In the above verse, Almighty Allah, places good deeds such as covering the faults of others at the same pedestal as charity, which is the third form of worship after Salat and Saum. This verse amply proves that there is no room for ritualistic worship in Islam; mere observance of Saum and other forms of worship is insufficient, these acts must be accompanied by revolutionary changes in the character of the individual.

The essence of fasting is to imbibe a permanently inherent quality of leading a devout and disciplined life. The practice of good behaviour that attends a Muslim during his fasting tenure is to be replicated 365 days of the year. The garb of humility and modesty is, but, unfortunately worn for mere thirty days and then it is consigned back to the wardrobe; to be taken out again with the next advent of Ramazan. This is fasting without ritualistically.

Fasting must be observed with the accompaniment of the purpose for which Allah has instituted it, as an essential format of worship. It must necessarily bring about a revolutionary change in the personality and character of its practitioner. Those who “fast” must stand out as embodiment and true reflection for what Islam stands for — a religion of peace, tolerance, mercy and forbearance.

The changes through Saum must induce Taqwah (piety), mercifulness, forbearance, forgiveness and also the ability to hide misdeeds of others. In our day-to-day life, which we like to refer to as ‘practical life’, perhaps to hide our own inadequacies, there is a tendency to completely ignore these important facets of the teachings of Islam. We openly talk and broadcast any wrongdoings we come to know of others. In fact the tendency is to add some spice to hearsay, to make it saleable and attractive. Such behaviour is in direct conflict with the dictates of the Holy Quran. Hazrat Ali once said, “One of the finest of a liberal man’s gesture is not to take advantage of what he knows of others.”

At the core of each form of worship is the objective of developing human qualities in a person. The Holy Quran asserts, “and indeed thou standest on a lofty standard of character.” (68:4) Hazrat Ayesha said, “His morals are the Quran.” The Prophet (PBUH) manifested in his everyday life a personality that will remain as a summit of human behaviour. He was kind, merciful, forgiving, loving, patient and exhibited a remarkable trait of modesty, despite his lofty standing. The Quran testifies and says, “Surely, such a thing hurts the prophet but he is too modest to tell you so and Allah does not forbear to tell the truth” (33:53). In another verse, “To the believers he is compassionate, merciful” (9:128)

He proved the need to attend to the sick by visiting the woman, who would otherwise everyday throw garbage in his way; he invoked the mercifulness of Almighty through Arch Angel Gabriel, when he visited him with the command of Allah, that should the Prophet desire, he will cause the two mountains at opposite ends to collide against each other, so that everybody therein would perish. The Prophet who was bleeding profusely as a result of injuries caused by pelting of stones, prayed against and wished that someday from their progeny there would be Muslims and yet again he is a Prophet who announces general amnesty to all, when he re-enters Makkah, as a conqueror.

Through this one act, the Prophet set aside the bitter persecution he and his companions, endured at the hands of Makkans. The Prophet again demonstrated that it is better to forgive than to retaliate. Here it must be understood that only the powerful can forgive or otherwise; the weak possess no retaliatory option, and hence can only succumb. The lesson therefore, is to show restraint, when in power to do otherwise.

All Muslims must endeavour to protect each other, and not be positioned to provoke and retaliate. Allah explains typical behaviour of a Muslim in verse IX:71, “The believer men and women, are protectors of one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil...”. In the gravest of provocation no Muslim is expected to trespass the norms of just and kind behaviour.

“Say to my servants, that they should only say those things that are best...” (XVII:53). Abdullah Yousuf ali interpreting this verse says, “This command refers to two situations: (1) even to your enemies and the enemies of God, you should speak fair: who are you to judge others. Judgment belongs to Allah alone, for He knows mankind best and your personal knowledge at best is imperfect. (2) Amongst yourselves i.e. believers, you should not entertain suspicion but speak politely according to best standards of human speech. A false or unkind word may destroy all efforts at building up unity, because the forces of disruption are numerous than the forces of unity”. We pray and observe Saum in an exhibitionist fashion, but conveniently forget these simple but lofty standards, we need to imbibe in our everyday life.

Ramazan is a month of patience. Every Muslim during the course of this holy month has to observe utmost patience against all provocations. “The object of fasting is to attain righteousness, patience in adversity, steadfastness in deprivation and to increase one’s power of resistance. Fasting places everybody the rich and the poor; the high and the low on the same pedestal. Fasting is not meant for self-torture. Although it is stricter than other fasts, it also provides alleviations for special circumstances. It is not merely a temporary abstention from food and drink but this abstention enables the attention to be directed to higher things” writes Yusuf Ali. Fasting accustoms us to face hardships of life — by renouncing everyday comforts; we give strength to our resolve and increase the power of resistance.

It must not be forgotten that the whole purpose of Fasting during Ramazan is to promote righteousness, which is a progressive cultivation of spiritual values. The Prophet was very particular and emphatic in drawing attention to this aspect of Fasting. He said “He who abstains from food and drink during the period of Fasting but does not strive to abstain and safeguard himself against moral lapses, starves to no purpose.”

Maulana Mohammed Ali Jauhar in his book ‘The Religion of Islam’, states, “Ramazan is a signal for a mass movement towards equality which is not limited to one vicinity, but affects the whole Muslim world.” Unfortunately we keep the observance of good behaviour only within the confines of the month of Ramazan, and are back to our demeaning selves, immediately thereafter.

The most significant aspect of “Fasting” is the reformation of the “self” through conscious management. It is this process, which is to receive our utmost attention, whilst we engage in fasting. If this objective is not achieved, then fasting would be a ritual without a purpose. The object is to make our behaviour symbolic of the virtues attending to fasting such as mercy, generosity, truthfulness, endurance, patience and fortitude.

We should not disregard the primary teaching underlying this fundamental injunction of Islam, because in the final analysis, fasting removes from the believing soul every evil. It perfects and liberates the human spirit and directs it towards common welfare, thus helping in the establishment of a righteous and stable society.

Troubling issues for the NWFP

THREE separate issues of national importance — all concerning the NWFP — have engaged public attention, two in the recent past and the third on occasions but for a long while. Brief comments on each based on historic realities are in order.

The issues are, first, the reported or misreported comment on the present status of the Durand Line by the NWFP governor. Secondly, the proposal to fence the Pak-Afghan border; and finally, whether the NWFP should be renamed and if so what should be the new name.

First, the status of Durand Line. A governor house spokesman in Peshawar says that the “Governor did not speak about the expiry of the Durand Line agreement. He referred to the Durand Line only in the context of easement rights under the agreement to the tribesmen living on both sides of the border and their difficulties in case of fencing the border.”

The spokesman urged the media to avoid digging out settled issues and always uphold the “national interest while reporting on such sensitive issues.” The contradiction is a step in the right direction. Despite this, the lingering doubts, if any, deserve to be nipped in the bud with historic realities, as human memory is short.

The Durand Line, the border between Afghanistan and British India, was established by a fully negotiated agreement signed on November 12, 1893. The signatory from Afghanistan was the Afghan ruler Amir Abdul Rahman who had personally suggested the name of Mr Durand for demarcation of the border between the two countries. The agreement thus bears his name. In 1905, Amir abdul Rahman’s son and successor, Habibullah signed a pact with the British government reaffirming that he would abide by the agreements and compacts concluded by his late father. The treaty of Rawalpindi — between Afghanistan and British India — signed in 1919 reaffirmed the Durand Line. So did the permanent Anglo-Afghan treaty of 1921.

On King Nadir Shah’s accession to the Afghan throne (1930), the validity of the 1921 treaty was reaffirmed by the exchange of letters between the British secretary of state for foreign affairs and the Afghan minister in London. These facts are well documented by Olaf Caroe in his book The Pathans.

In 1944, when the British departure from India appeared inevitable, the Afghan government wrote to the government of India saying “it hoped to be consulted should a change occur affecting the fate of the Pushtuns living East and South of the Durand Line.” The British reply was curt and firm. It stated that “the Durand Line was an international boundary, and, therefore, Afghan interest stopped at that end.”

After the birth of Pakistan, Noel Baker, secretary of state for the Commonwealth told the House of commons on June 30, 1950, “It is His Majesty’s government’s view that Pakistan is in international law the inheritor of the rights and duties of the old government of India, and of His Majesty’s government in United Kingdom, in these territories, and that the Durand Line is the international frontier.”

On November 3, 1953, the British foreign secretary, Lord Home, repeated this view in the British parliament. Later, two successive British prime ministers — Mr Anthony Eden and Mr Harold Macmillan — confirmed this position in separate statements made by them in the British parliament on March 1, 1956, and May 20, 1960, respectively. The Durand Line is thus a legally negotiated and internationally accepted permanent border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. To suggest that it was valid for only one hundred years is void of reality.

Secondly, the idea of fencing the Pak-Afghan border is lucrative on face value but its administrative, financial and political implications are complex and difficult, perhaps impossible, to implement. The timing of the proposal is an additional complicating factor. Parts of the Tribal Areas are at present simmering with unrest because of the military action conducted in them against the hiding foreign activists called terrorists. The fencing may open a Pandora’s box and provide a tailor-made excuse to arouse sentiments in the entire tribal belt against it. The Government will be accused of violating long-established rules, laws, customs and ‘rawaj.’

The ongoing unrest in Afghanistan is a temporary phenomenon largely created because foreign forces occupy this country. The Afghan agitation is likely to persist at varying high and low levels during the occupation. The agitation is essentially a political issue that is best settled by political means. The military approach may be counterproductive.

Pakistan and Afghanistan, coexisting with each other as friendly countries, do not need to fence their border. Besides, a border fence is practical, viable and effective only if (at least) the population on the home side is friendly to it. This is not the case here. Neither the Afghans nor the people inhabiting Pakistan’s tribal belt would relish the creation of a barrier that had never existed in the annals of history — and for good reason.

Additionally, erecting the fence might be a gory process and maintaining it prohibitive in cost and effort. Let the foreign forces erect the fence on the Afghan side of the border, if they so desire. It may be mentioned that the Soviet Union, during its occupation of Afghanistan, had once asked Pakistan to close the Pak-Afghan border by military means. Moscow was asked to do so from the Afghan side of the border, if desired. The reply was “it is not practical to do so.”

The third issue — renaming NWFP. On principle, there should be no objection to renaming the province if all segments of its population living in different regions so desire. The names of the two provinces — Sindh and Punjab — are based on rivers. Sindh draws its name from Indus (Sindh in Urdu and Sindhi) and Punjab means ‘punj ab’, land of five rivers. The new name for NWFP should not only enjoy regional and provincial consensus but it should also national consensus. The government is attempting to create a national consensus on the issues of the National Finance Commission Award and the Kalabagh Dam. This healthy tradition should also be applied while renaming NWFP. A national consensus on this issue will promote inter-provincial harmony and unity.

While selecting a new name it may be wise to avoid the pitfalls of our past. It may be recalled that the word Pakhtoonistan suddenly emerged at the time of our independence. Unbiased and authentic evidence shows that a senior British representative of the crown in India in pursuing the policy of “divide and rule” planted the idea that was picked up by a small segment of people that had opposed the creation of Pakistan.

The memory of this lingers. A national consensus is thus necessary to ensure that the new name does not have direct or indirect semblance to our troubled past. We must promote greater national harmony for the good of our motherland and avoid initiating a new controversy.

Provincial rights should be respected and granted in letter and spirit. These can be further enhanced on the basis of a national consensus by writing it into law. The federating units, the limbs of the federation, should be functionally viable and effective. Their importance cannot be ignored. The vital component, however, is the federation itself that draws strength from the components and provides vitality to them where necessary. The provinces and the federation should therefore work in unison in the service of Pakistan.

The writer is a retired general of the Pakistan Army.

Climate change and storms

ON one side are those who openly blame the Bush administration for hurricanes Rita and Katrina: “The American president has closed his eyes to the economic and human damage that ... disasters caused by a lack of climate protection measures ... can visit on his country,” said Germany’s environment minister.

On the other side are those in the administration who have been telling the country for five years that even if climate change is taking place, which they doubt, there isn’t much that can or should be done about it.

The first claim — that if only President Bush had signed the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, there wouldn’t be so many hurricanes — is absurd. Not only did the carbon dioxide emissions that are thought to cause global warming begin accumulating at the start of the Industrial Revolution — making it hard to blame Mr Bush for their impact — the Kyoto treaty itself isn’t even intended to lower emissions, just slow their growth.

More important, most climate scientists agree that it is impossible to explain the weather in a single place or at a single time as a manifestation of climate change. Atlantic hurricanes appear to come in cycles: There were more in the 1940s and 1950s, fewer in the 1970s and 1980s.— The Washington Post

Torturing the detainees

THE conviction of Pvt. Lynndie R. England for abusing Iraqi inmates was a foregone conclusion. What remains an open question, unfortunately, is the extent of the damage done to America’s image abroad by the continued allegations of cruelty and mistreatment at the hands of US soldiers.

The pictures of England holding a prisoner on a leash and grinning at naked detainees who were forced to form a pyramid at Abu Ghraib prison were as sickening as they were powerful. England’s conviction on six of seven counts of conspiracy and mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners makes her the ninth reservist to plead guilty or be convicted of crimes at Abu Ghraib. She was sentenced to three years in prison.

Pentagon officials blamed a few rogue soldiers when the pictures were published last year. But the Army has since investigated hundreds of charges of abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than a “few bad apples” were involved.

We now know, for example, that Abu Ghraib was not the only venue for mistreating prisoners. Men freed from custody at Guantanamo Bay have provided credible tales of abuse. Last week, Human Rights Watch released a report containing firsthand reports that members of the 82nd Airborne Division routinely tortured detainees in 2003 and early 2004 near the Iraqi city of Fallujah.

Capt. Ian Fishback and two sergeants, formerly of the elite 82nd Airborne, said prisoners taken during the hard-fought siege of Fallujah were kicked and beaten, their bones broken and eyes doused with irritants. Equally disturbing, Fishback said his reports of wrongdoing were ignored by higher-ranking officers.

There are encouraging signs of congressional unease, even within the president’s own party, with the administration’s policies.—Los Angeles Times