Divine tolerance

A question sometimes disturbs the mind. Does it make any sense to repeat the Divine commands, admonitions, warnings and promises of punishments and rewards over and over again? Many of us claim that we already know them. Yet the answer must be in the affirmative.

Yes, it does make sense because for an ignorant person only a single sermon might suffice to enable him learn what he did not know. But for those who claim to know and yet disregard them due to procrastination rather than defiance, it is doubly necessary as a refresher, so they may shed their lassitude and hasten to seek the blessing of the Lord.

Some say, “Why the lifelong exercise of prayers, five times a day, seven days a week, especially, when most of the time our mind wanders away during prayers and that sinning and prayers go in tandem for many people?” Others question the need for fasting in Ramazan. “Why starve when there are sumptuous, finger-licking delicacies waiting to be consumed?”

Herein lies the proof of Divine tolerance, tolerance of dissent. Instead of punishing the wayward instantly, Allah allows them time to discover the wisdom behind His admonitions. He gives them far greater latitude than what even parents would do, because, He creates from a tiny, unclean drop, gives form, sustains, develops, protects whereas mothers only conceive, carry, deliver and sometimes, breast-feed. Fathers only beget and care.

Naturally, therefore, Allah is multiple times more generous, affectionate, tolerant and ever ready to overlook and forgive.

Take another example. In the case of a human boss, no servant can be irregular or absent from duty without leave. Even laziness and inefficiency would not be accepted. Nor would a human employer explain to his employees the purpose of a particular order. No employee can question the wisdom of any order. Dereliction of duty, insubordination and defiance would invite instant and dire punishment. And finally, a human employer remunerates after duty has been satisfactorily rendered.

By contrast, in the case of not only of dereliction of His duty, but even rebellion, defiance and outright rejection, there would be no instant tit for tat. He would not suspend the sustenance (emoluments). The story of Pharaoh is a case in point. He often explains the purpose of His command, as in the case of Ramazan fasting, it is to teach us self-restraint, which is what raises man above the status of animals. And finally, He gives not after service has been rendered but before. For instance, He imposes service only after one has come of age so as to be able to perform it, yet He provides all along before that stage is reached.

And finally, rather than peremptorily impose duties, He allows His creatures to “choose;” — choose even between Him and Satan. His service is voluntary. There is no immediate threat of retribution.

There are also other reasons why He would not award instant punishment. First, it would militate against His attribute of Ghani (free from all wants). He does not need our worship. “Any who is grateful does so to the profit of his own soul. But if any is ungrateful Allah is free from all wants.” (31:12). Besides, Instant retribution as a quid pro quo would reduce His status to man’s level. As Omar Khayyam said, “Mun bud kardam o tu bud mukafat dehi/ Pas farq mian-e-mun o tu cheest bego.” (I did a bad deed and Thou gavest a bad return. Then what is the difference between me and Thee?)

Second, He is not vengeful. He is most patient and forbearing. He will first show every individual even the atom’s worth of the good or evil deeds they committed in this world (99:7-8) before giving them their due desserts. Their hands will speak to Him on that Day (36:65), but not here. He would not expose the shame even of a criminal but hold it on till the Day of Judgment. Imagine for a moment if one’s hands were to speak out in public, in this world, revealing the crime one had committed a moment ago.

The answer to the question about prayers is that first of all it is the order of the Lord and Master. It, therefore, must be obeyed without question or demur.

Besides, prayers also constitute the grateful acknowledgment of His Bounties received every hour, minute and moment. Every breath that we take we owe it to His mercy, because it could be the last.

As to the distraction during prayers or persisting in sin despite offering prayers, the answer is not in giving up but in continuing to strive. Giving up would amount to accepting defeat and surrendering to Satan.

Islam is a combination of meditation and action. The Qur’an repeatedly asks us to think, reflect and ponder at the countless aspects of the natural phenomena. Allah not only reminds us of the process of human creation but also of the purpose behind it. Notably, the Bible (O.T. and N.T.) does not touch upon this issue. Hinduism does, but Hindus believe that creation is Ishwar’s leela (whim) or just fun!

But for Muslims, creation is a serious matter. It is to jolt them to realize its importance that Allah asks, “Do ye think We created you without a purpose and you will not return to Us? (23:115)” Man reflects not only on his own creation but also on the creation of everything “in the heavens and the earth” and exclaims, “Our Lord! Not for naught hast Thou created (all) this....” (3:191)

And what is the “purpose?” It is, primarily, to serve Him. (“I have created jinn and humans only to serve Me.” 51:56). Here again the Arabic word is “ya’budoon.”

It may also, and equally correctly, be translated as “worship.” But in the latter case a strict construction could limit the scope of its application only to such activities as may be clearly defined as acts of worship.

Such specific acts of ibadah would comprise prayers, zakat, Ramazan fasting, haj and jihad and finally, zikr (remembering Him). But these are only the formal expressions of submission and gratitude. Ibadah constitutes even the smallest act done to seek His pleasure.

Thus, when one solemnly declares, “Truly my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death are (all) for Allah.... 6:168,” all his actions become ibadah.

China: the other superpower?

THE past two or three years have marked a new moment in the global perception of China. There is suddenly a new awareness that encompasses both a recognition of China’s economic transformation and an understanding that, because of its huge size and cohesive character, it will have a profound impact on the rest of the world, albeit in ways still only dimly understood.

Until recently, China’s economic rise always seemed to be qualified by the rider that something was likely to go amiss — a rider that is now rarely heard. China has arrived and will increasingly shape our future, not just its own.

A number of factors lie behind this new global perception of China: its continuing staggering growth; the recognition that China is a major factor in the rise in oil prices; the fact that Chinese oil majors have become players in countries such as Sudan and Iran; the (unsuccessful) attempt to take over the US oil company Unical; the recognition that Chinese companies will increasingly become global players (of which Chinese involvement in Rover is a foretaste); the almost universal dawning that Chinese production is driving down the prices of footwear and clothing, and western fears for domestic textile industries; and the Pentagon report earlier this year warning that Chinese military expenditure will grow significantly, and that it might be driven by energy concerns and expansionary desires.

Recognition of the new reality is provoking an intense debate among national policy elites, including China’s. How should countries respond to China’s new position and power — and how should China use it? These are questions that more or less everywhere — except perhaps Japan — are still in the melting pot, not least in the US. Over the next decade, perhaps rather less, positions will begin to be struck that will have huge consequences for the world. But we can already list the ways in which this new perception of China’s rise has served to change the nature of the debate about China itself and about the shape of the global future.

In the 1990s, the process of globalization was overwhelmingly seen as a process of westernization. That hubris has receded in the wake of China’s rise. There are few who believe that China’s modernization will simply result in a western-style state. On the contrary, there is an implicit recognition that China will be a very different kind of nation in almost every respect. Moreover, it would appear that China has been as much a beneficiary of globalization as the US, perhaps more so.

A widespread belief that the 21st century would be an American century found even clearer expression in the aftermath of 9/11, with the pursuit of the neoconservative project. However, as doubts grow about America’s enterprise in Iraq, and more widely in the Middle East, there is a recognition that China is now a serious candidate to assume the role of “the other superpower”. It is projected that China will overtake the US in terms of GDP purchasing power parity before 2020. The American century could turn out to be more like a half-century.

There is a growing understanding that the future is unlikely to be dominated by the western world in the manner of the past two centuries. The major reason for this shift in perception is the rise of China and, to a lesser extent, India — which together account for well over a third of the world’s population. The world is likely to look very different from the one with which we have become so familiar — and comfortable — since Britain’s industrial revolution began in the 18th century.

From 1800 — some would argue much earlier — and until very recently, the centre of global developments was Europe. Admittedly, its hold became tenuous after 1945, but its bisection by the Cold War fault line sustained its status — a status that was lost with the events of 1989. Now, without question, the most important region in the world is East Asia. It is economically the strongest, outdistancing both North America and Europe by some considerable margin.

The main reason, of course, is China, together with Japan and, to a lesser extent, the Asian tigers. But East Asia’s centrality is not just a question of economic strength, even if this underpins it — East Asia is also where the future will be played out, where the world will first see the wider meaning and implications of China’s rise: not least in growing Sino-Japanese tensions, and in increasing pressure on the US’s role in the region.

The rise of China contradicts the commonsense view in the West, particularly strong in Europe, that the nation-state is in decline and that the future belongs to unions of nation-states, along the lines of the European Union and Asean. On the contrary, the rise of China — and India — marks the ascendancy of a new kind of mega-nation-state, which, together with the US, the EU, Japan and Russia, will dominate the 21st century.

In the 1990s, China was overwhelmingly seen through the prism of human rights and democracy. For a long time it was virtually impossible to start a discussion in the West about China except in these terms, or when this question was a central part of the agenda. This remains part of the western agenda, but a much less important one in the light of China’s stunning transformation. The question of western-style democracy remains no closer now than it was then. On the contrary, the regime has not only survived but prospered to an extraordinary extent over the last quarter-century.

The final point is the least recognized and least discussed, but it is nonetheless a striking feature of China’s rise. And it presents us with a profoundly paradoxical feature of the era in which we live. The events of 1989 represented the end of European communism. The Chinese Communist party was expected to go the same way — wasn’t that supposed to be the import of Tiananmen? We couldn’t have been more wrong. What everyone expected never happened. A communist party is presiding over arguably the most remarkable economic transformation in human history. It is true, of course, that the Chinese party is a very different creature to its European counterparts, not least in its ability, since 1978, to undertake the most extraordinary regeneration. This paradox presents us with one of the great enigmas of the early 21st century.

But these points, profound as they are, are merely the hors d’oeuvre to the kind of impact that China will have on the world over the next few decades.

—The Guardian, London

Ignoring the facts

IN one of the most intellectually incoherent major speeches ever delivered by a minor president, George W. Bush blamed “some Democrats and antiwar critics” in recent weeks for changing their minds about the war in Iraq and now saying they were deceived.

“It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began,” the president said. Yes, but it is even more deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how history was rewritten in the first place.

It is the failure to acknowledge this — not merely that mistakes were made — that is so troubling about Bush and others in his administration. Yes, the president is right: Foreign intelligence services also thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Yes, he is right that members of Congress drew the same conclusion — although none of them saw the raw intelligence that the White House did.

And he is right, too, that Saddam Hussein had simply ignored more than a dozen UN resolutions demanding that he reopen his country to arms inspectors. When it came to UN resolutions, Hussein was notoriously hard of hearing.

We can endlessly debate the facts of the Iraq war — and we will. More important, though, is the mindset of those in the administration, from the president on down, who had those facts — or, as we shall see, none at all — and mangled them in the cause of going to war with Iraq. For example, the insistence that Hussein was somehow linked to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — a leitmotif of Bush administration geopolitical fantasy — tells you much more than whether this or that fact was right. It tells you that to Bush and his people, the facts did not matter.

It did not matter that Mohamed Atta, the leader of the Sept. 11 terrorists, never met with Iraqis in Prague, as high-level Bush officials claimed. It did not matter that Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, was finding no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons programme.

None of that mattered to Vice-President Cheney, who warned of a “reconstituted” nuclear weapons programme, promoted the nonexistent Prague meeting and went after legitimate critics with a zealousness that Tony Soprano would have admired: “We will not hesitate to discredit you,” Cheney told ElBaradei and Hans Blix, the other important UN inspector. ElBaradei recently won the Nobel Peace Prize. Cheney’s gonna have to wait for his.

Nobody has been repudiated by Bush for incompetence and dishonesty regarding Iraq. Instead, some — former CIA director George “Slam-Dunk” Tenet comes to mind — have received presidential medals. What’s more, there’s evidence aplenty that the sloppy thinking, false analogies and bad history that led to the Iraq war remain the cultural style of the White House.

The president’s recent speech, for instance, conflates all sorts of terrorist incidents — from Israel to Chechnya — neglecting that they are specific to their regions and have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. —Dawn/Washington Post Service