Fair dealing in Islam

JURISTS have defined justice and equality as keeping a thing in its right place, or keeping the balance. It is this which keeps the sky and the earth in their right places. If today justice were to be excluded from this world, there would be such a deluge of cruelty and brutality as would sweep off even our foundations.

The life of nations depends upon justice. This is a very important and valuable right which Islam has given to man.

The Holy Quran has laid down: “Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression” (5:2) “And do not let ill-will towards any folk incite you so that you swerve from dealing justly. Be just; that is nearest to heedfulness.”(5:8) Stressing this point the Quran again says: “You who believe stand steadfast before God as witness for (truth and) fair play” (4:135). This makes the point clear that Muslims have to be just not only with ordinary human beings but even with their enemies.

Justice and equality were the two main factors for expansion of the Islamic state from Arabia to Spain and from there to India. Some Christians and Hindus say that Islam was spread at the point of the sword. But the sword the Muslims had in their hands was justice. Take any book of history you will find this event recorded therein. When Abu Obaida, the Muslim supreme commander of Syria, had to evacuate the Syrian town of Hims, in the face of a sudden attack by a superior Roman force, he summoned the padres and the elite of the town and said to them:

“We received revenue from you, so that we may spend it on your defence and betterment. But we cannot do it any longer, as we have to evacuate this town under duress. Therefore take back the seven hundred thousand dirhams you paid to us as revenue and tribute.” On seeing this astounding and unparalleled justice of their Muslim rulers, the Chief Padre said: “No deed of justice and equality can excel this unrivalled masterpiece of yours. By Holy Jesus, I give you my pledge that if ever we are at liberty to choose our rulers, we shall choose you Muslims and none other.”

After the conquest of Khyber, a treaty was made between the people of Khyber and our Holy Prophet (PBUH), according to which half of the annual produce was to be sent to the Bait-ul-Maal — the Muslim exchequer. In one year Abdullah-bin-Rawaha was sent to get the stipulated share. He divided all the grains into two equal heaps and permitted the people of Khybar first to choose either for themselves. The people collected large quantity of gold ornaments to bribe him. At this Abdullah-bin-Rawaha said, “You people have enraged me by offering this bribe. But remember, I shall not give up justice even in rage.” This greatness of the Muslim officer’s character had such an effect on the Jews of Khyber that one of them said with real conviction in his voice, “By God, the sky and the earth exist due to this justice of yours.”

Thousand of such remarkable events of justice and equality are recorded in our history. It was this deep sense of true justice and equality on the part of our forefathers which won the hearts of Jews and Christians of Egypt and Syria, and the worshippers of fire of Iraq and Iran. We are the upholders of the Quran. We have to set such a glorious example of the traditional Muslim justice, equality, mercy and kindness that the non-Muslims will be forced to sing our praises. We are commanded to be just and kind with others. Quran says: “Lo! God enjoineth on you to be just and kind.” [16:90]

At another place Quran says: “O ye who believe! Stand out firmly for God, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just, that it is next to piety.”[5:91]

“O ye who believe! Stand out firmly on justice and follow not the lusts of your heart.” [4:135]

Justice and equality to which Islam invites its followers is not limited only to the people of a particular country, tribe, nation or race, or the Muslim community as a whole. It is meant for all the human beings of the world. Muslims, therefore, cannot be unjust to anyone. Their permanent habit and character should be such that no man should ever fear injustice at their hands, and they should treat every human being everywhere with justice and fairness.

The Prophet (PBUH) has said that: “The life and blood of Muslims are equally precious” (Abu Dawud; Ibn Maja). In another Hadith he has said: “The protection given by all Muslims is equal. Even an ordinary man of them can grant protection to any man.” (Al-Bukhari; Muslim; Abu Dawud) In another more detailed Tradition of the Prophet, it has been said that those who accept the Oneness of God, believe in the Prophethood of His Messenger, give up primitive prejudices and join the Muslim community and brotherhood, “then they have the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have” (Bukhari).

Thus there is absolute equality between the new converts to Islam and the old followers of the faith. On an occasion, a woman belonging to a high and noble family was arrested in connection with a theft. The case was brought to the Prophet and it was recommended that she may be spared the punishment theft. The Prophet replied: “The nations that lived before you were destroyed by God because they punished the common men for their offences and let their dignitaries go unpunished for their crimes; I swear by Him (God) who holds my life in His hand that even if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, had committed this crime then I would have amputated her hand.”

Islam gives its citizens the right of justice and complete equality in the eyes of the law. As far as the Muslims are concerned, there are clear instructions in the Holy Quran and Hadith that in their rights and obligations they are all equal: “The believers are brothers (to each other)” (49:10).

The Prophet (PBUH) has said that: “The life and blood of Muslims are equally precious” (Abu Dawud; Ibn Maja). In another Hadith he has said: “The protection given by all Muslims is equal. Even an ordinary man of them can grant protection to any man.” (Al-Bukhari; Muslim; Abu Dawud)

This religious brotherhood and the uniformity of their rights and obligations is the foundation of justice and equality in the Islamic society, the society in which the rights and obligations of any person are neither greater nor lesser in any way than the rights and obligations of other people.

China’s challenge

CHINA’S president, Hu Jintao, is no showman. His four-day US visit, culminating in a White House summit today, is unlikely to see a repeat of Deng Xiaoping’s antics in 1979, when he donned a 10-gallon cowboy hat, or Jiang Zemin’s 1997 recital of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

There will be no meet-the-people walkabouts in Seattle or Washington. Instead Mr Hu will concentrate on what he does best: promoting the security and economic interests of the world’s foremost aspiring superpower — while trying, for now at least, to keep the US happy.

To that end, Mr Hu sent his vice-premier, Wu Yi, and 200 businessmen and officials on a US tour last week, dispensing contracts worth $16bn. Meetings are scheduled with Boeing and Bill Gates at Microsoft. And when he meets George Bush he will try to allay growing US unease over its $202 billion bilateral trade deficit, intellectual property piracy, and Beijing’s undervalued currency. Strategic divergences over Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programmes, and Taiwan, may also be played down by Beijing.

While Mr Hu’s game-plan seems clear, Mr Bush could choose not to play ball. The US president has never made up his mind how to deal with China’s rise. He initially rebranded it a “strategic competitor” , not the “strategic partner” envisaged by the Clinton administration. After 9/11 he changed tack, seeking Beijing’s support in the “war on terror”.

But Mr Bush obtained no help in Afghanistan or Iraq. And he has watched as China has moved relentlessly into African and Latin American markets, undercutting Washington with its bids for energy and other natural resources while building bridges to administration hate figures such as Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez. Beijing has blocked US demands for tough UN sanctions on Sudan, Burma and now Iran.

The US decision to downgrade Mr Hu to an “official” rather than “state” visit was a measure of its “low expectations [for the summit] and is the latest in a series of public spats between the two countries”, wrote Peter Kwong in The Nation. The administration was particularly angered by China’s rejection of its human rights criticisms on the ground “that a government responsible for the Abu Ghraib prison abuses has no business disparaging others”.

Yet some say Mr Bush is playing a strong hand weakly. “The huge American investment in China in the last quarter of a century ($51bn in 2005) has helped lift some 280 million Chinese out of poverty,” said George Melloan in the Wall Street Journal. “The leverage the US has because of China’s dependence on US trade and investment is useful in moving China’s Communist party towards more liberal policies.”

Will Hutton, of the Work Foundation, said: “China’s growth has been constructed around an alarming expansion of systematic inequality.” He predicted that rising social instability and demands for political reform could derail China’s bid for superpower-dom. “Communist China’s decade-long development is something of a miracle, but the moment is rapidly approaching when China must break out of the straitjacket of top-down control if it is to maintain economic momentum.”

In short, China’s medium-term challenge to US dominance can be exaggerated; and the pragmatic Mr Hu, walking on eggshells and seeking a boost before the 2007 party congress, needs a successful summit more than Mr Bush.

—Dawn/Guardian Service

Foreign policy expediencies

SINCE we turned our backs on a friendly Afghan government out of fear of annoying a threatening superpower, our foreign policy has become completely devoid of any moral basis. In our effort to please Washington we have reduced ourselves from a country aspiring to become the leader of the Muslim world to being a geo-political errand boy of the United States.

Our nuclear capability notwithstanding, the fear of the United States seems to have become the most dominant feature of our foreign policy. Principles, if any, have been cast aside. Take the example of Palestine. It is difficult to find a statement by President Musharraf or Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz or even Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri condemning the continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories or the killings and suppression of innocent Arabs.

On the contrary the Musharraf regime broke its “principled” stand on Palestine when it established contacts with the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon. While Israeli forces were busy killing innocent Palestinians, Mr Kasuri was posing for his longest handshake ever with the Israeli foreign minister in Istanbul. The Musharraf regime was hoping to achieve two objectives: first, to have wider access to American markets with Jewish support and second to become a player in Middle Eastern politics. Another reason, according to some observers, was Musharraf’s desire to strengthen his credentials for a second term by seeking larger American support. None of these objectives have been achieved.

America is reluctant to allow Pakistan wider access to its markets and has stalled the much awaited mutual investment treaty. In any case, the Musharraf regime has failed to evolve an attractive investment regime for foreign investors. A survey of the region puts Pakistan virtually at the bottom of the table of investor-friendly countries and only just above Afghanistan and Nepal. Musharraf’s decision to become a frontline state to wage America’s war on terrorism has obviously backfired.

The seriousness of our desire to play a role in the Middle East has always been in doubt. Its emptiness was exposed when Hamas won the elections and President Musharraf, Shaukat Aziz and Khurshid Kasuri shied away from welcoming the development, assigning this role to junior foreign ministry officials. Rather than seizing this opportunity to play a role by asking the Israelis to talk to the Hamas government the Musharraf government restricted itself to minor utterances to avoid the wrath of the Bush administration.

As the US and the European Union stopped financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority, the Pakistani government did not step in to offer financial aid. Today the Musharraf regime’s credibility with the new Palestinian government is virtually nil and we seem to have abandoned our dream of being a player in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, although Musharraf continues to profess complete commitment to Washington’s war on terror, the resurgence of the Taliban has sowed the seeds of doubt in the minds of US policymakers, who have become suspicious of Musharraf’s intentions and are convinced that Pakistan is secretly playing a role in the Taliban’s revival. A morally strong government could have played a role here by calling for a dialogue between the Taliban, the US and the Afghan government and supported the Taliban’s inclusion in mainstream Afghan politics.This would have contributed to the avoidance of bloodshed in the region. After all, even the Karzai government is trying to make a deal with some Taliban supporters. But, thanks to our waywardness, these parties do not repose much confidence in our abilities. This has enabled India to replace Pakistan as Afghanistan’s main partner in economic development.

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz’s pronouncement in the Oval Office that “Mr President, the people of Pakistan are waiting to welcome you with open arms” made even the Americans laugh for Bush remains the most hated man in Pakistan. His arrival and departure in complete darkness belied the emptiness of Mr Aziz’s remarks. As American planners look beyond Musharraf, they need not worry much. Pakistan’s main political parties, the PML(N), PML(Q), PPP and the MQM seem committed to the “Washington route” to power. None of these parties have come out openly against the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and the countless atrocities committed by the American troops.

Contrary to our leaders’ belief that Pakistan enjoys high international prestige, we find ourselves without any influence anywhere in the world. Our relations with our neighbours Iran and Afghanistan remain strained as we struggle to develop an equation with them. This is the reason why the neither Americans nor the Europeans consider it necessary to consult Pakistan while dealing with these countries. Although President Ahmedinejad was elected more than six months ago the Pakistani leadership has failed to meet him for fear of annoying the Americans.

Our reluctance to face reality has prevented us from playing a role in the Iranian nuclear issue. Although Khurshid Kasuri has made some politically correct statements on the issue, a guilt complex emanating from the A. Q. Khan affair seems to persist. This may be the reason why our leadership is avoiding any direct interaction with Ahmedinejad. But this neglect of Iran’s new government will not lead to an easing of regional tensions. After all, Russia and China are actively engaged with Iran on the political and economic levels. Under severe pressure from the United States we also seem to have slowed down on the Iran gas pipeline project and have now started talking about the much more difficult and expensive alternatives.

As the fire from the Musharraf regime’s ill-conceived fight against terror spreads into the NWFP, Balochistan and Sindh, there is no clearly defined strategy to stop it. Neither the United States nor its allies know how or when the war on terror will end. This uncertainty has exposed Pakistan to the endless perils of the strife along the Pak-Afghan border and the tribal areas.

As Nato and the US forces dig in for a long stay the intensity of opposition to their presence and to the puppet Karzai regime continues to increase. President Musharraf continues to warn of the “dangers” of extremism and terrorism but has done little to attack the root causes. He and Shaukat Aziz have made countless statements about the need to resolve the political issues being faced by Muslims but have shied away from going any further in order not to annoy America.

The popular Pakistani sentiment on these issues has not found expression in the policies of the Musharraf government. Musharraf is aware of this and is trying to tackle this issue through a three-pronged approach. A pattern seems to have been evolved by the planners in Islamabad to keep the masses distracted. First, Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz regularly make meaningless trips abroad, usually ending with insignificant MoUs being signed.

The obvious purpose is to bolster the image of the leadership. Second, every few months Pakistan fires a new missile obviously with a view to impress the masses about our military capability. And third, more and more foreign dignitaries are being invited to visit Pakistan so that a respectable image of the country can be created.

But most Pakistanis, including those who sit in parliament, remain deprived of a chance to express their views on critical foreign policy matters. There is no national debate and a small coterie quietly decides the direction that this country of 150 million is to take. This is a dangerous trend which must be changed.