No justification for honour killing

THE issue of honour killing has come to the fore yet again in human rights discourse. While the practice is not confined to any particular country or region, much attention has been focused on Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Jordan, Turkey, Palestine, Syria, Egypt and Morocco, where the crime appears to be on the rise.

The spotlight on honour killing in Muslim countries has made many Muslims in the West acutely uncomfortable and generated a reaction of anger and defensiveness. Given the widespread negative stereotyping of Islam and Muslims, this reaction is understandable. However, it is very important to point out both to Muslims and non-Muslims who think that honour killing can be legitimised by reference to Islam, that there is absolutely no justification for it in our faith.The Quran – the highest source of authority in Islam – puts so much value on the life of a human being that it likens the killing of one person to the killing of entire humanity. “…if anyone slays a human being – unless it be (in punishment) for murder or for spreading corruption on earth – it shall be as though he had slain all humankind; whereas if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all humankind.” (Surah 5: 32)It is well known that most victims of honour killing are accused wrongly and murdered on little or no evidence. All too often, the horrendous crime is sought to be legitimised with reference to a value system which claims to be Islamic. The Quran which is extremely protective of the rights of disadvantaged human beings is particularly concerned about protecting the rights and lives of women who are accused of dishonourable acts, as the following verses show:“And as for those who accuse chaste women (of adultery), and then are unable to produce four witnesses (in support of their accusation), flog them with 80 stripes; and ever after refuse to accept from them any testimony -- since it is they, they that are truly depraved” (Surah 24: 5) “…And for those who accuse their own wives (of adultery), but have no witnesses except themselves, let each of these (accusers) call God four times to witness that he is indeed telling the truth, and the fifth time, that God’s curse be upon him if he is telling a lie. But (as for the wife, all) chastisement shall be averted from her by her calling God four times to witness that he is indeed telling a lie, and the fifth (time), that God’s curse be upon her if he is telling the truth” (Surah 24: 6-8)The Quran makes it mandatory upon all believers that they respect the sanctity of life; that they stand up for justice and that they testify to the truth. It also makes it obligatory for the Muslim community to protect those who witness to the truth. Those who deny that honour killings are taking place, or that highlighting them is tantamount to Islam-bashing, need to be mindful of the Quranic verses such as the following:“You who have attained faith! Be ever steadfast in upholding equity, bearing witness to the truth for the sake of God, even though it be against your own selves or your parents and kinsfolk. Whether the person concerned be rich or poor, God’s claim takes precedence over (the claims of) either of them. Do not, then, follow your own desires, lest you swerve from justice: for if you distort (the truth), behold, God is indeed aware of all that you do.” (Surah 4: 135)“Behold, God enjoins justice, and the doing of good and generosity towards (one’s) fellow-beings; and God forbids all that is shameful and all that runs counter to reason, and is envy; (and) God exhorts you (repeatedly) so that you might bear (all this) in mind.” Surah 16: 90). “And cover not truth with falsehood, nor conceal the truth when you know (what it is).” (Surah 2: 42) “…And let (not a) witness suffer harm. If you do (such harm) it would be wickedness in you.” (Surah 2: 282)

The writer is a scholar of Iqbal and Islam, teaching at the University of Louisville, US.

Post-modernism and Islam

WHAT is the relation between Islam and post-modernism? Earlier, we used to talk of Islam and modernism and now we talk of Islam and post-modernism.First let us understand the difference between modernism and post-modernism. Modernism which ruled the roost until the early 1950s was characterised by a hegemony of reason. Modernism rejected anything which was not in conformity with reason.Modernism was, in a way, quite intolerant of forces of tradition or even anything supra-rational, let alone irrational. It was for this reason that Freud’s theory of the subconscious or unconscious was also ridiculed by modernists. It was not deemed to be in conformity with reason. Even Marxists also rejected Freud and his explanation of deeper sources of human behaviour. Naturally they also rejected religion as something irrational. Thus, modernism was as intolerant of anything non-modern as one religion is said to be of another.Europe throughout the 19th century was characterised by modernism and Asia and Africa were looked down upon by the Europeans as anti-modern and irrational. Thus, the 19th century was the century of modernism and of European hegemony. It was in the early 1950s and ’60s that new trends began to emerge and post-modernism began to be theorised by academics and social scientists.In post-modernism, reason lost its hegemony and supra-rational forces came to be accepted. Post-modernism is mainly characterised by pluralism, be it cultural, religious or literary sphere. Europe and North America became multi-cultural and multi-religious societies due to the migration of people from the western powers’ former African and Asian colonies.Also, it was during this phase that religion also found a respectable place again in western society. In other words, religion came to be re-appropriated. Thus, post-modernism, unlike modernism, is not hegemonic and is tolerant of other cultures; its main characteristic is pluralism. Now let us explore the relation between Islam and post-modernism.Islam believes in religious and cultural pluralism, and while accepting importance of reason it also accepts supra-rational forces. According to the Quran, Allah has created several religions and cultures though he could have created only one, if He so desired. (5:48). Thus, pluralism is the very basic to the Quran.According to the Quran the world has been created in its plurality, not only in matters of religion but also by way of ethnicity, nations and tribes. These have been described as signs of Allah (30:22). About national and tribal plurality, one only need see Surah 49, verse 13.The Quran stresses pluralism to such an extent that even when one is convinced that others’ gods are false, it stops believers from abusing them. The Quran says, “And abuse not those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest, exceeding the limits they abuse Allah through ignorance.” Further, it says: “Thus to every people have. We made their deeds fair-seeming…” (6:109)Here, it is a Quranic injunction not to say bad words about others’ religion(s) because to every people their religion looks true and valid. The Quran even says that in every place of worship Allah is remembered and hence it should be respected. Thus, the Quran says, “And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah’s name is much remembered, would have been pulled down.” (22:40).Thus, there is no place for inter-religious conflict in Islam. The Quran also subscribes to the doctrine of what Shah Waliullah and Maulana Azad called the wahdat-i-Deen i.e., unity of religion, which means all religions are same in essence and in their core teachings. Both the eminent theologians have thrown detailed light on this question in their respective writings.As far as multi-culturalism is concerned, the West accepted it only in the latter part of the 20th century. The West had otherwise long been a mono-religious and mono-cultural society, because the Christian church had rejected validity of all other religions except Christianity. The church now of course believes in inter-religious dialogue and has issued instructions to Christian organisations to that effect. The Quran had accepted all Biblical prophets during the revelation itself.Islam accepted multi-culturalism too by saying that all believers are one Ummah regardless of their ethnicity, language, tribe or nationality. It also admonished believers not to discriminate between Arabs and non-Arabs, as Arabs were very proud of their ethnic origin. Islam spread far and wide among peoples of different cultures and even the Shariah respected the ‘adat (customs) of different people. Local customs and traditions were integrated with Shariah formulations from the earliest time.Thus, it will be seen that Islamic teachings anticipated what came to be called post-modernism today. The most essential thing is tolerance for diversity and for those who are different from us. Being different should not mean being inferior, superior or hostile to the other. We must project Islam in the right spirit, emphasising the practice of tolerance it so ardently advocates to the faithful.
The writer is an Islamic scholar and heads the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai.

Ijtihad

President of Pakistan is spot on when he says that War On Terror is now Pakistan's war. We do not need threats of attack from US presidential candidate, Barack Obama, because we know that Pakistan is the victim and not perpetuator of terrorism and it is Pakistanis and Pakistanis alone, who have to deal with this matter to save our beloved country.Our policy in this regard, as I often repeated, has to be tailor made to suit our own peculiar circumstances and cannot be dictated by others. Use of force has to be the last resort, must be tempered with dialogue and the strategy has to focus on eliminating breeding grounds for recruitment of terrorists by providing better living opportunities and conditions to people, due education, adaptation of madarssa system with western education and ready access and availability of justice.It is indeed a landmark, not only in terms of strengthening parliamentary democracy, but also in the fight against terrorism that the armed forces are making in camera debriefing to parliamentarians. It is hoped that Parliament as a collective body can now set aside their inherent political differences and party politics and agree on the overall terrorism combating strategy on the basis of a democratic and collective decision.To me one of the major factors of rise in terrorism across the world is the ascendancy of the influence of a large body of intellectuals, also called warriors, who believe that West and Islam are enemies and that a clash between the two is inevitable hence in order to save the west the enemy must be destroyed. People like Bernard Louis, Daniel Pipes, Krawter Kramer and Samuel Huntington urge US to confront Islam now and contain it militarily. The second major reason is admittedly and an inherent fault with Muslim societies including Pakistan in failing to carry out an internal reform and giving up the concept of Ijtihad.On the other hand the majority are of the view that both worlds need to understand and reconcile with each other and if only US and West play a more just role in world politics and impartially resolve issues like those of Palestinians, Kashmiris, Chechens and ratify the wrongs of the past like invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, apologise for allowing atrocities in places like Bosnia, collaborate with Muslim populations rather than their rulers, particularly in economic and educational fields and promote democracy, then the so-called "clash" can be avoided.It is correctly pointed out that after all it was in the days of Islamic Empire that principles of tolerance and living with harmony with all cultures and religions were established. All this may be very true but the fact of the matter remains that the warriors have much more political and media clout in the world and hence the gap between the western and Muslim worlds continues to grow.It is a sad fact however that all is not only the fault of West alone. One key factor which contributes, in my opinion, in a very negative way is not only creating more misunderstanding between the two worlds, but also within the Muslim community itself, is the confusion and lack of clarity on most issues that are modern and relevant to today's age. Muslim societies are in a state of mystification and hence it is difficult not only to build that essential understanding between the two communities, but also as a result of lack of clear guidance, there is ample opportunity for ill-motivated and the wrong kind of people to easily brainwash segments of the society and make them commit acts of terrorism against mankind, all in the name of Islam.One of the most overlooked areas of activity that can play a major role not only in building bridges between Muslim and Western worlds but which is an essential factor for enabling Pakistan to effectively work against terrorism is to carry out Ijtihad of a grand scale within the Muslim community.Ijtihad is the intellectual endeavour to seek solutions of day-to-day matters and in the context of Islamic law, an attempt to interpret sacred tax of Quran and Sunnah and apply them to day-to-day working, akin to the concept of Jihad (physical struggle against aggression) and is the fourth source of commands of Islam.When Muaz Bin Jabal was going to Yemen as Hakim, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) asked him how he will make his decisions: "by the book of God," Jabal replied. The Prophet (PBUH) asked him how will you judge if you don't find the concerned matter there. He replied, "By traditions of the Prophet." Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) then asked him and if you don't find it there. Jabal replied, "Then I will judge by Ijtihad (by my own understanding)." Upon this Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) praised Allah and showed his appreciation for Muaz. This established the basis of Ijtihad in Islam.
Clearly under this concept one cannot make new laws contrary to what is in the Holy Quran but at the same time there is no prohibition and in fact only encouragement for innovation and reinterpretation. One of the key reasons for Islamic societies' rise to power was this development of the civilisation through reasoning and a major cause for the fall from great heights was when Muslim societies closed the gates of Ijtihad.Ijtihad fell out of practice mainly due to the efforts of the Ashrite Theologians from the 12th century who saw it as "leading to errors of over confidence in judgements" since the time of Al-Ghazali. In the words of Joseph Schacht, Professor of Islamics at Columbia University, New York: "A consensus gradually established itself to the effect that from that time onwards no one could be deemed to have the necessary qualifications for independent reasoning in religious law, and that all future activity would have to be confined to the explanation, application, and, at the most, interpretation of the doctrine as it had been laid down once and for all."The decline in Islamic societies was of course augmented by the concept that science, reasoning, poetry, architecture and other educational pursuits were necessarily anti-Islamic. Progress began to be viewed as something contrary to Islam.Over time practices and procedures unconnected with Islam started acquiring status equivalent to principles of Islam and the lack of education, in particular the lack of discussion on issues, led to different anti-Islamic practices being followed by Muslim societies all over the world. Take the example of Pakistan, honour killings and traditions like Vani have acquired almost religious sanctity. As a result of confusions even dealings with the West are considered and believed by many to be contrary to the principles of Islam.It is therefore extremely necessary to go back to the drawing board and differentiate between the behaviour that Islam propagates and practices followed by some Muslims. It is correctly said, "Every human being views things differently and differences get resolved through discourse. If there is only one interpretation, it results in dictatorship, dogmatism and monism. Divergence is in fact a mercy from God."There is immense room for Muslims to interpret the Holy Quran and apply it on different situations. Tis surely is the right way to ensure that Islam and Muslim communities reform with the times in a positive way which augments rather than diminishes the spirit of Islam. Clearly modernity does not mean adopting Western culture and habits but what is proposed is adoption of same spirit of enquiry and zest for knowledge.It is correctly said that Ijtihad is about "freedom of thought, rational thinking and the quest for truth through an epistemology covering science, rationalism, human experience, critical thinking and so on."It is time to allow Ibn-e-Sina, Ibn-e-Rushad, Al-Farabi, Al-Baruni and Al-Haytham, scientists, philosophers and jurists of Islam's golden age to be allowed to work with freedom and revive, revitalise and restore Islamic civilisation. According to Mr M A M Khan, "Islamic modernists have been trying, since the time of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the great Muslim reformer of the 19th century, to re-instill a sense of the value of knowledge and an appreciation for science and philosophical inquiry. There is no research institution worthy of recognition in this way in the entire Muslim world."Muslims must learn that science and religion can be bridged and that Islam has nothing to fear from reason and therefore Ijtihad is the only option which will open the hearts and minds of the Muslims. According to Ibn Khaldun, the great 14th century Arab historian and philosopher, "Ijtihad indeed is the engine of civilisation." Mr M.A.M. Khan in his theory has also puts it well that "Islamic reformation can be understood into two different ways. It can mean a reform of society to bring it back to what have been considered Islamic norms and values...the other reform strategy is to question the existing understanding of Muslims and seek to articulate a reformed understanding...."With these two kinds of Islamic reforms it is clear that Muslims can indeed modernise without in any manner "de-Islamising" or losing their traditions and cultures. Indeed culture and Islam are distinguishable and Muslim societies will retain their Islamic essence and can reform "dysfunctional cultural habits that hinder development, progress, equality and prosperity." The challenges for Muslims today are to adopt whole-heartedly the concepts of "democracy, modernity and globalisation" without cutting the "umbilical cord to the heavens."
Indeed the Holy Quran's principles of consultation add to the democratic traditions of the Islamic world.The western warriors have at least in the case of Pakistan been proved wrong when they said that democracy and Islam are incompatible. Let Pakistan now be the first one to go back to the drawing board and carry out the exercise of Ijtihad and become the beacon light for the Muslim Ummah. Let us prove to the world that Islam is not about the three Ss. It is not "stayed, stale or static." Indeed Ijtihad is the method through which the gap between message and meaning is closed. Indeed it is only through this method of Ijtihad that the gap between message and meaning in today's world can be closed.

Terrorism and SAARC

Despite poor progress pertaining to burning issues, the SAARC Conferences can boast of indiscriminate use of hyperbolic expressions, generally, by all and sundry. The final declarations tend to be well-worded but bathetic. More often a wish list adorns such official communiqués instead of a course of action developed on the basis of a consensus. Such dramatic utterances with nothing to stand on undermine the status/ credibility of the organization. However all members appear reconciled to holding such exercises, perhaps, as a tribute to Don Quixote' adventures. The biannual Conference of the SAARC chiefs of Police on cooperation held in Islamabad in mid-April this year was no exception. Putting paper over cracks in inter-state relations in the region, diplomatic homilies were, generally, used. The Secretary General SAARC, an officer of the Indian Foreign Service, sounded truly diplomatic. However, the others too, reportedly, kept up the façade as usual. Amid high-sounding statements etc on terrorism etc, the end-result looked a Whimper.

Colombo hosted 15th SAARC summit on Aug 2-3 which again projected terrorism as the dominant agenda. Karzai started the blame-game which sidelined the real issue of cooperation. The final declaration called "Partnership for Growth of Our People" stressed the leaders' commitment to upgrading the "legal regime against terrorism" under the auspices of International conventions etc on the subject as well as the SAARC-specific protocols signed by all the members.All regional alliances tend to capitalize on shared interests of the members to promote collaboration for the realization of peaceful coexistence, upgradation of economic benefits and harmonious policy-making for facilitating fair social surge in the region. Such a mandate presupposes certain equality among members. The working-arrangements benefit greatly if there are no festering inter-state disputes. In such an environment, a consensus on major issues can be worked out, generally, acting in good faith.SAARC appears to suffer from many handicaps. First, India has satellites like Bhutan, Sikkim as members while even Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have serious problem-areas with her. Second, in such a setting India tends to be calling the shots all the time. The only member which can question such mode is Pakistan. Third, Indo-Pak relations are marred by the Kashmir dispute which casts a spell on most interaction. Fourth, the problem in Afghanistan draws different reactions in India and Pakistan. While the Karzai regime catches at any straw including Indian-support to keep US Administration in good humour, Pashtuns resent the same. India is trying to create a foothold in this country for fulfilling strategic designs of her own and the US. She also hopes to benefit from the Central Asian trade ultimately. By such posturing it also tries to impress the US, now its principal ally in this area.Pakistan shares a border, unlike India, with Afghanistan. Historically it has remained a porous border like the one between US and Mexico. On both sides of the border, Pashtun tribes live. Though physically divided yet they share relationships, culture and religion. Such a disposition was exploited by the CIA in the 80' to bolster the war against the Soviet 'occupation' of Afghanistan. The local as well as foreign volunteers were smuggled conveniently in to the battle-zones with great consistency by US/Pakistani agencies.Now the wheel has come back a full circle. The Pashtuns, who form the biggest majority in Afghanistan, are, generally, up in arms against the 'occupation' of their country with the complicity of the warlords from the North. A surrogate regime under Pashtun Karzai is supposed to run the country but all reports indicate that its ambit is Kabul. While the South/East remains under the influence of the Taliban, the rest of the country is run like small fiefdoms by the accomplices of the Kabul-regime. To ingratiate the warlords, the foreign forces had to look the other way at the fantastic growth of opium in Afghanistan in the last 4 years. It was started by the greed of the Northerners and the South also started chipping in for its 'survival'. Even the Karzai Govt concedes that opium etc are earning the country about $ 4 Billion every year as the demand for the drugs remains high in US, Russia, EU etc. Taliban are reported to be getting a share out of such earnings by providing security to such operations in the Pashtun area. As such this makes their lifeline.As Pakistan has been suffering from acts of terrorism by the extremists, it had demanded that the border may be walled like in Berlin of Soviet days. This has implications which can only be overridden by the consideration for winning the 'war on terror'. However, finally this was not agreed to by the parties concerned. Now about 80,000 troops are trying to seal all movement across the border. The cost to the forces is high as the topography defeats operational capability of the troops.The progress of the 'war on terror' appears to be dismal except for its political utility. Too many reports indicate how the issue has been used to mislead public opinion, particularly in the US. Looking back one finds a far more peaceful Near-East/ South Asia immediately after the Taliban were bundled out of Kabul on the charge of complicity with OBL a la 9/11. Defying history for some reason, the US neo-cons preferred 'occupation' through a proxy-regime which has proved to be corrupt and unreliable over the last five years. The local resentment against the US has been growing steadily due to the terrible governance by its surrogates. As the economic situation keeps on deteriorating, particularly in the Pashtun areas, despondency appears to be the name of the game there. The indiscriminate bombing by foreign troops on the basis of 'intelligence received' appears to have helped the Taliban in a big way as their numbers swell despite the remonstrance by a 'beleaguered' Karzai.' Such killings in Pakistan are fast eroding US' goodwill among moderate majority which has obliged the elected Govt to take a tough stand on the issue.SAARC can do precious little while Kashmir is burning. It is time India heeded the attempt by Arundhatti Roy etc to smite her people' conscience. Branding the freedom struggle as 'insurgency' would only complicate the situation. The oppression launched by 'occupation forces' would incite more volunteers to join the Jihad from all over the Muslim world. Once Kashmir gets an equitable deal, SAARC would be able to function more harmoniously to realize its potential for quantum-jumps in human welfare including victory over Terrorism.