False notions about Islam
ISLAM happens to be the most misunderstood religion in the developed world. One of the various misconceptions that prevail about Islam is that it is absolutely intolerant towards other faiths. It is widely believed that Muslims have been instructed to offer Islam or the sword as alternatives to the non-Muslims.
These days one even comes across Muslims who tend to express the same views. The ignorance of the teachings of the Holy Quran and the Sunnah, and the irresponsible, outrageous, and deplorable attitude of certain Muslim groups and regimes have equally contributed to the development of such utterly false notions about Islam.
In fact, tolerance is an essential religious and legal obligation imposed upon the Muslims. Though Muslims have been instructed to spread Islam by way of preaching; however, while preaching Islam or engaging in religious dialogues with non-Muslims, Muslims have been told to employ the most respectful and polite methods: “Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner...” (Quran, 16: 125) And if the non-Muslims incline to disagree with the message of Islam, despite all the arguments and logic produced by the Muslims, the latter are still not to resort to any form of religious compulsion or violent reaction.
God declares: “There is no compulsion in religion...” (Quran, 2: 256) “But if they dispute with thee, say: I submit myself entirely to Allah and (so does) he who follows me. And say to those who have been given the Book and the Unlearned (people): Do you submit yourselves? If they submit, then indeed they follow the right way; and if they turn back, thy duty is only to deliver the message...” (Quran, 3: 19)
“And if thy lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Wilt thou then force men till they are believers?” (Quran, 10; 99) “And say: The Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve...” (Quran, 18: 29) These verses clearly establish: (1) Islam denounces forced-conversion; and (2) Islam does not enjoin Muslims to wage war for the spread of faith.
Not only Muslims are prohibited from forcing Islam on non-Muslims, they have also been ordered to deal with them in a just and kind manner: “Allah forbids you not respecting those who fight you not for religion, nor drive you from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly. Surely Allah loves the doers of justice. Allah forbids you only respecting those who fight you for religion, and drive you forth from your homes and help (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends of them; and whoever makes friends of them, these are the wrongdoers.” (Quran, 60: 8,9)
Islam not only acknowledges all the previous prophets and messengers, like Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, etc., and all the previous revelations, like the Torah, the Psalms, etc., but it goes a step further: Muslims have been strictly forbidden in the Quran from using any insulting remarks about any deity worshipped by any non-Muslim: “And abuse not those whom they call upon besides Allah...” (Quran, 6: 109) Can there be a more decisive proof of the marvelously tolerant nature of Islam?
The Sunnah too is abundant in injunctions that instruct Muslims to be considerate and courteous towards non-Muslims. The charter granted by the Prophet to the Christians of Mount Sinai is one of the glorious examples of tolerance and pluralism: “This is a message from Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily, I, the servants and helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and, by Allah, I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them; neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs, nor their monks from their monasteries.
“No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil Allah’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. Muslims are to fight for them... Their churches are to be respected... No one of the nation (of Islam) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day.”
When a deputation of the Christians of Najran came to see the Prophet, he not only allowed them to stay in his mosque, but they were also allowed to pray in the mosque according to their beliefs. The Prophet also granted them a charter similar to the one mentioned above: “...To the Christians of Najran and the neighbouring territories, the security of Allah and the pledge of His Prophet are extended for their lives, their religion, and their property... There shall be no interference with their faith or their observances, nor any change in their rights and privileges... They shall continue to enjoy everything great or small as heretofore...”
The Prophet (PBUH) was not only the head of the first Islamic state, but was also the supreme judicial authority. Non-Muslims would also come to him for the settlement of their disputes and he would adjudicate in accordance with their laws. While deciding between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, he would strictly observe the Quranic instructions regarding equality before law, and never made any distinction between litigants on the basis of religion.
There are numerous sayings of the Prophet emphasising that non-Muslims living in an Islamic state — legally called “dhimmi” — must be treated well and their rights must be protected by the state as well as Muslim members of the community: “Whoever hurts a dhimmi, hurts me. And whoever hurts me, he annoys Allah.” (Bukhari) “Beware! On the Day of Judgment, I shall myself be the complainant against him who wrongs a dhimmi, or lays on him a responsibility greater than he can bear, or deprives him of anything that belongs to him.” (Al-Mawardi)
The teachings of the Quran and the examples set by the Prophet were not only followed by the Pious Caliphs, but also by later caliphs, rulers, and administrators. In 638, when Jerusalem was first conquered by Muslims, Caliph Omar Bin Khattab, who is considered to be the strictest of the Pious Caliphs, made this declaration regarding its Christian inhabitants: “I grant them security of lives, their possessions, their children, their churches, their crosses, and all that belongs to them... Their churches shall not be impoverished, nor destroyed; neither endowments, nor their dignity... Neither shall the inhabitants of Jerusalem be exposed to violence in following their religion; nor shall one of them be injured.”
Once, Caliph Omar came across an old man begging for alms. On inquiry, Omar came to know that the man was a Jew. He ordered that the Jew be paid regular amount from the state treasury, saying, “Is it right to take jizya from him as a young man, and neglect him as an old man? This is not possible in Islam!” Jizya is the tax collected from non-Muslim citizens. However, the amount of jizya is much less than zakat. Also, it is only collected from able-bodied non-Muslim males who can afford to pay it. Non-Muslims, if they ae in need, have the right to be supported by the state treasury.
In short — based on the Quran and the Sunnah, the practices of the Pious Caliphs, and the writings of Muslim jurists — non-Muslims, living in an Islamic state, are entitled to: (1) right to life, personal safety, and respect; (2) freedom of religion; (3) right to justice and equality before law; (4) freedom of expression; (5) right to political representation; (6) freedom of movement, assembly, and association; (7) right to education; (8) right to social security; (9) right to property; (10) right to government service; (11) right to exemption from compulsory military service; etc. Here it must be mentioned that it is incumbent upon an Islamic state to grant to its non-Muslim citizens all these rights and freedoms regardless of rights and freedoms accorded to or denied to Muslims living in non-Muslim states.
Islamic history shows that all the rights accorded to non-Muslims were actually implemented by Muslim governments. Non-Muslims were always allowed opportunities of growth similar to Muslims; talented non-Muslims were greatly honoured and given high offices. Muslims can also take just pride in the fact that, unlike other civilisations, Islamic one cannot be accused of conducting forced conversions, witch hunts, inquisitions and holocausts. In fact, Muslim territories often served as refuge for non-Muslims facing oppression and persecution in other places.
Spain, under Muslim rule, was the only place in Europe where Jews could live with absolute safety and dignity. After the fall of Muslim Spain, Jews were expelled from there, and they found a sanctuary in another Muslim realm, i.e., the Ottoman Empire. Muslim India is another example. Despite centuries of Muslim rule, majority of its population remained non-Muslim. It is a well known fact that Muslim rulers even made generous donations to temples and other religious places of Hindus, etc. It is also interesting to note that, according to Al-Maqrizi, all the famous churches of Cairo were built during the Muslim rule.
Putting the economy in order
THE range of reactions following President Bush’s visit to South Asia reflects disappointment of many people in Pakistan. There have been concerns expressed about its implications and complaints about the transient nature of Pakistan-US relations despite over five decades of cooperation starting with the military pacts of 1950s, through the Afghan war of the 1980s and on to the current war on terror.
These are legitimate concerns. Equally legitimate should be our search for finding an all-season formula for durable relations with the US as well as other countries. And the only formula that has turned transient and seasonal relations into durable ones is built around mutually beneficial economic relations between nations.
We have been recipients of one of the largest aid and assistance flows from the US and new aid, loan write-offs and support from other bilateral and multilateral organizations. How far have we utilized these aid flows and political goodwill to create the assets that would oblige others to work together with Pakistan in all seasons?
In 1951, Pakistan and South Korea were almost at identical levels of underdevelopment: in per capita income, literacy rates and exports. South Korea utilized its military agreements of the 1950s with the US and the latter’s support and assistance to undertake reforms and move out of poverty and backwardness. It built its strengths in consumer electronics, shipbuilding and heavy industry and now its industrial strength — much more than anything else — make up the pillars of their mutually beneficial relations and long term cooperation.
India’s democracy has always been admired in the world and is not a new phenomenon. Nor is India’s rivalry with China a new discovery. But it is only when the Indian economy started ‘shining’ that the US and the rest of the world took serious note of India, not just for India’s sake but also for the benefits they could derive from its economic assets. Because India was able to bring to the negotiating table its strengths in industry, human resources, knowledge-based economy and its large market of middle class consumers with billions of dollars of purchasing power — besides military strength and locational advantages — it could derive a good bargain for its long-term interests.
Similarly, for a quarter of a century, China has been putting great emphasis on developing its economic assets. It is because of the economic awakening of China and its recognition as the manufacturing house of the world that every country has been obliged to build long-term relations with China for their own benefit.
The US-Pakistan joint communique emphasized the goals of ‘democracy and prosperity’ for Pakistan. Our Chinese friends have also been advising us for some time to develop our economic potential. However, in the wake of some observations coming forth in the last few days, it would be useful to briefly recount here the advice of an important leader of China to put things in the proper frame of reference for our own benefit.
During a visit to China, I was invited to participate in the Asia Society’s conference on ‘China & its neighbours’ and understand how China’s emergence as the economic powerhouse would affect countries in its neighbourhood and beyond. On the sidelines of the conference, I had a detailed meeting with one of the important ministers of China. (Because that minister now occupies an even more important position in the Chinese government, the name is being withheld out of courtesy).
The minister opened the meeting with gracious remarks for Pakistan’s past help to China — from air links through PIA, to support for admission to the UN. But then as a friend of Pakistan, the minister mentioned that the old generation of leadership which had seen and experienced Pakistan’s measures would gradually be replaced by the new leadership. In any case, since geo-economic interests were taking preference over other matters, it would be better if Pakistan also built up its economic strengths and developed mutually beneficial economic relations to further cement the old friendship between the two countries.
For a long time now, Pakistan has been able to bring to the negotiating table its two principal assets — its locational advantages bestowed upon the country by its geography and its military strength. Both are important assets for the protection and promotion of our national interests. But we need to add to our list of assets since the current ones are mostly needed in special circumstances. So when there are no Cold Wars or wars on terror, what other assets can we bring to the negotiating table to forge long-term and mutually beneficial relations?
High quality of human resources for attracting American businesses to invest in Pakistan; low-cost but high quality production systems to create consumer dependence; consistency in policies to plan for long-term investment; infrastructural links with mineral-rich Central Asia; all these could have been our added assets and strengths. They are still doable for Pakistan to create, of benefits for itself and durability in its relations with other countries. If we were to seriously develop these assets, not only US administrations, but also American business and industry and even household consumers, would see the benefits they could derive from a long-term association with Pakistan.
Let us take another example. Pakistan received very generous support — in cash and kind — from the US during the 10 years of the Afghan war. What durable economic assets can we show for it? About the same time that the Afghan war was going on in our neighbourhood, another war between Iran and Iraq was raging on the borders of Turkey. Both ended more or less about the same time. How Pakistan and Turkey differed in utilizing the situation is clear from a piece of economic data.
In 1980, Turkish and Pakistani exports were around the same size: about $ 2.5 billion a year. Ten years later, when both wars had ended, while our exports were struggling at about $8 billion, Turkey had utilized the opportunities to improve and expand its economic assets and its exports had rocketed to about $ 15 billion a year. Turkish exports now stand at $ 73 billion versus $ 17 billion for Pakistan.
The fact that the economic content of national policies had taken priority over other issues was driven home to all after the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War. But even when Pakistan opened its economy to investment and technology flows from abroad and put in place the required infrastructure in 1989 — two years before India did in 1991 — it was our own destructive politics which nipped in the bud our search for a niche, a new destination for investment and technology flows and a way to Central Asian markets.
We can’t always be going to the negotiating table asking for concessions of one kind or the other without showing areas where the other party can benefit as well. Other nations will take us for what we are and build relations on the basis of our strengths and weaknesses. Our weaknesses are imbedded in our economy — in the scarcity of quality human resources, in poor outsourcing potential, in inefficient production systems, in the narrow base and low quality of our education, in not building Pakistan into a gateway to Central Asian markets, in not having clear policies.
Now the president has told the nation that Pakistan’s policies will not be ‘Indo-centric’. That is welcome news. Our policies should be ‘people-centric’ first and last, because our responsibility also — first and last — is to our citizens and doing what it takes to improve their well-being.
But we know that ‘people-centric’ policies require readjusting our priorities and providing a clear focus to our institutions. Is the president now ready to undertake the meaningful reforms so that ‘people-centric’ policies are made and implemented in Pakistan?
Email: smshah@alum.mit.edu
One man’s crimes
THE life of Slobodan Milosevic offers another lesson in how one individual can shape the course of history. Yugoslavia, the country whose disintegration he inspired, emerged from communist rule at the end of the 1990s resembling many nations (Iraq comes to mind) in the throes of transition: Ethnic and sectarian rivalry was real in a cobbled-together state, but few people expected, much less wanted, a civil war.
Mr Milosevic, a Communist Party apparatchik in Serbia, deliberately and methodically nursed this latent tension from a flicker to a conflagration and used it to consolidate a criminal regime in Belgrade.
— The Washington Post