|
| November 03, 2006 | Friday | Shawwal 10, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Writing history from below
Zero tolerance for drugs
Islamic concept of God
Public value
APART from the blasphemous remarks of a 14th century Byzantine emperor about our holy Prophet (peace be upon him), quoted by Pope Benedict XVI in his speech at a German University, a point has been raised by him indicating the difference (in his opinion) between the concept of God in Christianity and Islam.
ISRAEL’S acceptance of a peace plan, even with reservations, means nothing. In the past it has accepted and even signed agreements with much fanfare. Yet it sabotaged them all. The two most celebrated peace agreements were the Camp David accord, with President Jimmy Carter as mediator (March 1979) and the Oslo accords, when Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin shook hands on the lawns of the White House in September 1993 and signed what President Bill Clinton called “the peace of the brave”. The Camp David accord, signed by Menachem Begin and Anwar Saadat, was implemented to the extent that Israel pulled out of the Sinai peninsula, but the part of the agreement which concerned the Palestinian question and called for a halt to Jewish settlements has remained unimplemented to this day. In fact, in one of his articles, Jimmy Carter accused Begin of reneging on his promise with regard to a settlements freeze. As a follow-up to the 1993 agreement, Arafat and Rabin also signed Oslo II (September 1995), but the end-result has been a continuation of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. If the Oslo accords had been adhered to, a sovereign Palestinian state, with the status of Jerusalem settled, would have come into being by September 1999. However, after a Jewish fanatic murdered Rabin, his successors, Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak (not counting in acting prime minister Shimon Peres), completely sabotaged the agreement.
This background to Israel’s attitude towards international agreements and the contempt with which it has treated all UN resolutions on Palestine must be taken into account in assessing Tel Aviv’s guarded reaction to the Saudi peace initiative. The Saudi plan, which Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz said could be a “basis for negotiations”, calls for a comprehensive peace between Israel and the Arab world provided Tel Aviv withdraws from all lands it occupied in 1967. First adopted by the Arab League summit in Beirut in 2002, the plan was rejected then by Israel. It is more or less on the lines of the Fahd peace plan, presented in 1981 when King Fahd was still crown prince and adopted by the 12th Arab League summit at Fez in 1982. Israel rejected it, just as it had rejected the 1982 Reagan peace plan, even though it opposed the establishment of a sovereign Palestine state and merely called for an Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories.
Now that Israel has given some positive signals about the Saudi initiative, one hopes that its friends and allies will encourage it to enter into negotiations in earnest instead of merely using it as a ploy to gain more time in which to establish more settlements on the West Bank and further increase the Jewish population on Arab soil. It may also use the time to complete its plan for a fresh offensive in Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah, whose fighters have humiliated Israel twice. It is a long way to go before negotiations can begin, much less a deal is struck. But given the fate of the Oslo accords and of the roadmap crafted by the US, EU, UN and Russia, all those who long for peace in the Middle East will keep their fingers crossed. The least Israel can do to pave the way for the start of negotiations is to let the Gazans live in peace. Since June 25, when Palestinian fighters captured an Israeli soldier, Israeli attacks have killed more than 300 people.
PAKISTANI historians would do well to heed the advice given by Dr Mubarak Ali, an eminent scholar and intellectual, at the conference on historiography in Karachi on Wednesday. Dr Ali called on writers to introduce modern and scientific methods in writing history and studying the social changes in Pakistani society and their catalysts. This indeed is the need of the hour. True, Pakistani historians have moved away from the colonial perspective that had marked historiography in South Asia until 1947 when the British departed from this region. But few writers have since focused on the history of the people.
Our scholars have concentrated on studying developments in the country in the pre- and post-Independence years with reference mainly to wielders of political power. Subjects such as the freedom movement, the rise and fall of political parties, constitutional developments, democracy and dictatorship and other issues related to the governance of the country have thus been taken up quite extensively. One can understand why. Firstly, without much freedom of expression allowed in Pakistan, writers chose to play it safe and not touch ticklish matters. Secondly, source material on political history has always been available in abundance in archives and has made the chronicler’s job relatively easy. But this has been at the cost of recording social history from below, that is, focusing on what is taking place among the masses at the grassroots level. What we read is generally about the elites and from their perspective and not that of the masses. In India, historians from the subaltern studies school of thought have written discourses and narratives of the non-elites who were agents of political and social changes.
A small band of historians in Pakistan have been attempting to follow that course. The issues Dr Mubarak Ali has taken up are controversial, and since he treads on many sensitive toes, he has often come under attack. But intellectuals will have to follow suit and show courage in using scholarship to address vital issues that have a bearing on our society. This will facilitate the growth of tolerance among the people and also encourage younger ones and students to opt for the social sciences — rather than business studies — and thus strengthen the moral fibre and character of society.
JUSTICE, it seems, was neither denied nor its course perverted. In a welcome departure from past practice, the Pakistan Cricket Board has chosen to tackle a crisis situation without shielding or persecuting individuals. Once two stellar players had tested positive for nandrolone, a banned performance-enhancing drug, a process was put in place to ascertain the facts and assign responsibility. More important, the procedure prescribed by the board was followed through in a firm but fair manner. Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif were given the opportunity to clear their names, and there was no resort to undue leniency once guilt was established. The punishment is more severe for an old hand like Shoaib — on the grounds that a seasoned campaigner cannot plausibly plead ignorance — while Asif’s inexperience and possible naiveté were also given due weight in the judgment passed by the tribunal. This too seems equitable, as does the option of appeal in more than one forum. All in all, the PCB has acquitted itself well in a precedent-setting case.
Pakistan cricket has lost two of its best bowlers, one of them perhaps permanently, and our World Cup hopes have suffered a body blow. But the message sent out to the other players and those coming up through the ranks is loud and clear: there will be zero tolerance for anyone hoping to gain an unfair advantage through drugs. Narrow interpretations of national interest and attempts to ‘protect’ the country’s image have cost Pakistan cricket dearly in the past. What became the match-fixing scandal could have been tackled before it cast a shadow over the whole team. Instead, the problem was repeatedly ignored by a PCB leadership that was concerned more with not rocking the boat than doing what was right. The current board management has done well not to repeat errors of judgment.
An attempt has been made, hereunder, to present the conceptual image of God, purely in the light of Quranic pronouncements. In fact, what appears to be the Pope’s intention is to bring into discredit the institution of Jihad as sanctioned by Islam’s holy scripture — an armed struggle in the cause of the faith and to fight aggression and oppression mounted by the unbelievers.
In the words of the Pope, ‘for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not wound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality, image of a capricious God who is not bound to truth and goodness’. Obviously, this conclusion about God being ‘absolutely transcendent,’ or transcending all limitations, stems from the Pope’s irritation over the Quranic sanction of Jihad which he terms as violence — a thing which is not compatible with ‘God’s nature.’
Before coming to the main theme — Islamic concept of God — it would be prudent to ask a question. How does the Pope then reconcile his proposition that violence does not dove-tail with Divine nature with the detailed account of Moses (peace be upon him) leading the Israelites on their exodus from Pharaoh’s Egypt and fighting with the original inhabitants of the ‘holy land’ and occupying it to settle the Israelites there, because God had promised that He will destroy the indigenous tribes already living there?
The concept of God constitutes the main plank of any religious infrastructure; and if one were to make an objective study of Islam from this perspective alone, one will have to admit its distinctive character. In this connection the writer will only render into English Maulana Maududi’s commentary on Sura 109 in his Urdu translation of the Quran: “Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) religion is quite different from other religions leaving out the notions of the atheists, because the concept of God introduced by the holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), through the Quran differs greatly from that of other religions. “The God of some of them is such as had to take weekly rest after labouring for six consecutive days in creating the universe; Who is not the nourisher of all the worlds but only of Israel; Who has a special consideration for one particular race; Who condescends to fight a wrestling about with prophet Jacob and fails to knock him down; Who adopts Ezra as His son; or according to other defenders of the faith, He is the Father of the only son whom he leaves alone to be crucified for redemption of multitudes of sinners.
“There are some who believe in a God who has a wife and children but unfortunately, all his offspring are females. There are yet some whose God assumes the physical form of a man and lives and acts on earth like an ordinary human being. There are some whose God is the First Cause who has detached himself completely after setting in motion the laws of nature and neither mankind cares for Him nor He for mankind” (Tafhimul Quran Vol VI).
There is nothing mythical about the Divine Being in Islam. Allah describes Himself right in the opening Surah of the Quran (Al-Fatiha): “Praise and glory belong only to Allah, the sustainer of all the Worlds, the most Beneficent and the most Merciful, the Lord of the Day of Judgment. It is thee that we worship and of thee we seek help and succour...”
In consonance with its monotheistic teaching, the Quran inculcates belief in an all-pervasive, non-physical, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent Creator and Sustainer Who “neither begets nor was begotten and like Whom nothing exists” (Sura 112). Throughout in the Quran, there is nothing occult and obscure or esoteric and enigmatic about the Self and Attributes of Allah except a couple of cryptic references to His ‘throne’ (Al-Kursi) and His ‘seat of power’ (Al-Arsh), to convey the Divine magnificence and majesty through symbols and metaphors, which the human intellect can perceive, and to clear the cobwebs of false connotation that got attached to these symbols in the extant texts of the ancient scriptures and narratives.
The following verses regarding the Divine ‘throne’ (Kursi) will elucidate the point: “His throne extends over the heavens and the earth and the up-keep of either (i.e. heavens and the earth) is not a burden unto Him...” (Quran 2:255)
George Sale says in his translation of the Quran, (vide foot note below this verse) that the “Corsi (actually ‘Kursi’) allegorically signifies the Divine providence which sustains and governs the heaven and the earth and is infinitely above human comprehension.” Yes, most of the metaphysical symbols and ideas are above human comprehension and it is not peculiar in this particular case. To make God properly understood by humans without predicating to Him anything evenly remotely suggesting sensuous or anthropomorphic associations and at the same time the words would touch the chord of human heart was a task to be accomplished by divine dictation alone.
God is Omnipresent according to all religions. But it is only according to the Quran that He can be worshipped anywhere individually or collectively. Obligatory Muslim prayers (salat) can be offered even in a private living room or at a public place, or on a jumbo jet during flight, or on a sick bed in a hospital. Neither a cloister nor a clergyman is needed except for the Friday congregation. Each human being can establish direct communion with God, Who in the words of the Quran, is “closer to him than his jugular vein.”
Knowing, as we do, that there are countless, myriads of life forms on land, in air and water as also swarm after swarm of micro-organisms which all subsist on one kind of nourishment or the other, it is mind-boggling to contemplate how provision reaches all who need it wherever they happen to be.
The Quran, however, says that there is nothing mysterious about God’s laws once we recognise His omnipotence without question.
The divine revelation throws light on the subject: “To Him belong the Keys of the heavens and the earth; He enlarges and restricts the sustenance to whom He wills; for He knows full well all things.” (42:12)
The question arises as to why God does not enlarge the sustenance of every one and do away with the prevailing disparity. The Quran provides the answer in the same sura in verse 27: “If Allah were to bestow the means of sustenance abundantly on all; they would indeed behave insolently in the earth; therefore, He sends sustenance down in due measure as He pleases for He knows well and sees (the condition of every one of His servants).”
The Quran has mentioned about such disparity and told us to acknowledge that such visible inequality should not lead us to the misunderstanding about the distribution being unfair. The disparity is noticeable all around us in nature, diversity and multifariousness instead of uniformity and homogeneity being the hallmark of God’s creation. The entire material world is a multiform mosaic — inequality and variety in outward form, shape and size as also in inner capabilities and propensities. This is, evidently, God’s grand design of creation which is beyond question and beyond our comprehension.
The Quran further elaborates that the mere fact that some one is provided sustenance and material comfort more bounteously than others should not be taken as God’s special favour on that person: “Allah enlarges or grants by strict measure the sustenance to whomsoever He pleases. The worldly folk rejoice in the life of this world; but the life of this world is of little comfort in the Hereafter” (13:26). The Quran stresses on our ‘believing’ that under this superficial and apparent inequality lies hidden some important ‘sign.’ “Do they not see that Allah enlarges the provision and restricts it to whomsoever He pleases? Verily, in that are signs for those who believe.” (30:37) May be, the reference is to the intricate interplay of predestination (jabr) and freewill (qadr) in the acquisition of the means of livelihood by each individual.
The above will show that despite being above all constraints, God anticipates the questions that might arise in the minds of his rational creatures — human beings — who are addressees of the holy Book and gives rational arguments to satisfy such queries. This is quite unlike the image of a ‘transcendent’ and ‘capricious’ Being.
IF a “forward-leaning offer” from a “policy entrepreneur” strikes you more as an abuse of language than as something appealing, you are unlikely to be immediately grabbed by the current buzz words of the wonks — “public value”. But for once, as a new report from the Work Foundation argues, there is serious thinking behind this latest entry in the New Labour lexicon.
The big idea is that, through discussion, public services should develop their own specific objectives. Managers then pursue these, just as private managers chase shareholder value. But where share prices reflect markets in which pound is equal, public value is derived from a debate in which the voice of every user counts equally. Discussion is supposed to highlight problems that Whitehall’s dictatorial targets miss. If parents had been asked, for example, school dinners might have been tackled before Jamie Oliver’s intervention.
Looking ahead, some planned NHS mergers might be put on ice if managers are forced to listen to the value that the public puts on the convenience of their local hospital.
— The Guardian, London