Reconfiguration of the South Asian Polities

This is the first time I am interacting with Chowk Last night (November 21, 1998) I happened to read a chunk of the petition against the nuclear tests conducted by both Pakistan and Indai.

Tonight I can`t see it any more. I don`t know whether it was once a week or month type thing Any way I want to be one of the signatories.

Please take this message as my consent to have my name appeared on the list.

Sohail SUBHANI

shell@securenet.net

Ashish

The Jamaat used to have sound policies way back in the distant past, now they seem to be kinda lost. However I still have respect for Prof. Khurshid Ahmed, the Whiz behind Jamaat`s economic agenda. I still remember way back in 89/90 during the first Benazir government, when he made the Federal Finance minister sweat on TV. The good professor pulled out so many charts relating to the mismanagement of the economy, there was no escape for the poor minister, who obviously didnt know his GDP from GNP.

Anyway, For Jamaat`s perspective try http://www.jammat.org

Also this is an article by Qazi Sahib, and his view of economic situation in the country on their official website.

http://www.jamaat.org/issues/econoletter.html

ArtZ

ArtZ

Good stuff. Keep it coming.

I believe the Jamaat in Pakistan is blaming Nawaz Sharif for the (mis)handling of the economy ``post-Nuclear blast``. With pakistan about to default on a bunch of loans NS can do little to avoid this financial crisis. Also he has very little moral ground to impose anything harsh, since he has been accused of turning over some ``over-valued`` properties in, as repayments of his personal loans.

Can someone shed some light on why exactly NS is under pressure from the Jamaat ?

Also what is the economic outlook of the Jamaat ? What do they offer economy wise ?

regards

Ashish

Re: Ashish

`However, strange paradox. Without ``personal gain, revenge, vendetta, or empire building.`` what else would you fight a war for ?`

exactly!! fight against injustice! for no other gain than to see justice !! :)) Simple really.

Now about your point about Iraq and the Gulf War.

``Kuwait and US do believe that Iraq was engaged in offensive warfare with a smaller, weaker neighbour. Diplomatic arm-twisting didn`t really work. US (with Kuwait and Saudi approval) attacked Iraq. Then Iraq claimed it was being attacked by a bigger stronger country and claimed its own Jihad. How would you interpret the situation Islamically ?``

Iraq was the aggressor, granted. No defense of Iraq.

As for US attacking Iraq with Saudi and Kuwaiti approval, I don`t quite think so. For MONTHS Iraq tried to solve the problem with Kuwait diplomatically, But Kuwait was not budging an inch, Hosni Mubarak and King Hussain of Jordan intervened, to ask the Emir of Kuwait to reconsider. Emir of Kuwait replied, `` ... fine if they attack we will bring the Americans in`` ... EVEN before Iraq threatened to use force!

Kuwait was NOT willing to budge. The whole Gulf war had been staged in US war games on American territory ages before the crisis emerged. It was part of an American plan to get a foothold in the region.

Even the `diplomatic arm twisting` was a front, Hosni Mubarak got Saddam Hussain to agree to a withdrawal, all he asked for was some way to save face in front of his own nation. IF USA was interested in peace they could have given him that opportunity to withdraw. But President Bush flatly declined, even without discussion with the allies.

(I got all this from dozens of books on the Gulf War by Arab as well as American and British writers including the infamous Noam Chomsky)

I do not defend Iraq`s offensive action, and they can not be defended in the light of Islamic principles. The Iraqi call of Jihad was rhetoric, I fail to see how they could claim to be the front runners of Jihad, having killed hundreds of thousands of their Muslim brethren in the war with Iran.

Also, why was the US willing to commit so much resources for the Gulf war? why not the same enthusiasm in the Balkans? or Africa? Because they are driven by their national interests, But they CLAIM to be helping the weak and defenceless.

There was no JIHAD in the Gulf war. It was senseless violence from both sides.

As for the War being `holy` ... Jihad does not translate into holy war. No war is holy. Apart form that I agree with your last paragraph.

This whole discussion is getting side-tracked. :)

Re: farouq Taj

True there seems to be no `Grand plan` to any decision the GOP makes. Nawaz is trying to consolidate his position. A task I don`t think he will succeed in. I do however like to think sometimes that there actually is a `Great Plan` behind all this. And the randomness of these events is carefully planned. But I`m afraid that`s a mixed after effect of reading Isaac Asimov`s `Foundation` Series and suffering 5 years of secondary schooling in Pakistan, being force-fed all that patriotic propaganda.

Here is something interesting ... as the first action after the Shariah Bill is passed Nawaz Sharif should fire all his cabinet and step down as PM. I shall attempt to explain.

The distinguishing qualities of a `Islamic Leader` under the Shariah are summarized as follows ( with reference to why Nawaz Sharif doesn`t fit them.)

1. Take the world as a temporary resting place for preparation for the eternal next world. ( Looking at all his adventures with Ittefaq Foundries I think he is planing to stay in this realm a lot longer)

2. take himself as a servant of the people and their trustee. (Instant disqualification.. having frozen the peoples money and squandered millions from the `Qarz Utaro Mulk Sanwaro` scheme )

3. Love for his subjects what he loves for himself ( i don`t see him passing out Mercedes` or Airbus 310`s to the people?)

4. keep his door open for hearing grievances and for redress of wrongs ( Oh sure he does that ... only when there is a TV camera crew recording every bit of his performance .. and when the spotlights go off .. the people get kicked out )

5.make justice coupled with mercy, the key of his administrative policies ( woah woah woah ... Justice?? )

6. appoint pious, truthful, and sincere ministers and staff

( if there are sincere people around him, he cant really pluck a plum from the pie can he?)

7. Look to every community with an eye of equality as far as justice is concerned . ( I don`t need to elaborate on what the Christians, Parsis, Hindus and others go through)

9. govern people of other faith according to their own respective laws. ( ok this one is not his fault .. the whole system is messed up ... the majorities don`t get justice here .. who can expect the minorities to get any? but he was disqualified on #5 anyway )

and now for a bit more on the `Abba-ji` angle ;

Nawaz sharif was on the phone with Bill Clinton

`Bill! ..`, he says,` Hows yer Father?`

`Nawaz`, Clinton answered, ` ... My father died ages ago..`

Nawaz: `Oh Dear! how do u make decision then?`

My apologies to those who have heard this before.

ArtZ

ArtZ

Very interesting. Good stuff.

However, strange paradox. Without ``personal gain, revenge, vendetta, or empire building.`` what else would you fight a war for ?

Referring to your earlier statement:

``Muslims DO NOT have any right to attack or annex a region which consists of Non-Muslims, living peacefully. But if this nation is hurting any of their minorities, be it Muslim or Non-muslim, Or engaged in offensive Warfare with other smaller, weaker neighbors then it is the responsibility of the `Islamic State` to prevent this ... preferably through diplomatic means ... Force is the last option, to be used when no other method works. All to propagate Justice.``

Kuwait and US do believe that Iraq was engaged in offensive warfare with a smaller, weaker neighbour. Diplomatic arm-twisting didn`t really work. US (with Kuwait and Saudi approval) attacked Iraq. THen Iraq claimed it was being attacked by a bigger stronger country and claimed its own Jihad. How would you interpret the situation Islamically ?

Me thinks this whole business about when a war becomes holy is perfectly sound in an ideal situation. You can`t find anything wrong with it. Yet its application to different situations has a lot of room for abuse (evidently !!). Especially since, more often than not, one can find themselves fighting a JUST BATTLE in an UNJUST WAR.

regards

Ashish

Getting back to discussing the article...

One is tempted to try and figure out what Nawaz Sharif’s strategy is, what is the motivation behind his Shariah bill ?, what is he trying to achieve ?. I don’t think the government of Pakistan has a strategy to go anywhere. The nuclear tests and many other decisions are just shooting from the hip, knee jerk reactions with no thought for tommorow. The country is in a mess and Nawaz will try anything to stay in power. Makes me think of a thrashing dying fish that has been taken out of the water.

Farouq Taj.

Re: Rishi

I second Ibn sina . the statement about majority of jihad being offensive in the Prophet`s time is wrong, whatever the source. But I will leave evidence against that for later.

Right now .. its about Offensive Jihad. Since we are talking about Islamic principles, the sayings of the Prophet and Books of Jurisprudence are secondary, I am going straight to The Quran to make the point, in light of the following verses.

04:75

And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill treated( and oppressed), men, women and children whose cry is:` Our Lord: rescue us...`

02:190

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah does not like transgressors.

02:193

And fight them on until there is no more persecution and the religion becomes Allah`s, but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.

02:194

... for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.

04:90

Those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you... If Allah had pleased He could have given them power over you, therefore, if they withdraw from you but fight you not and (instead) send You guarantees of peace, then Allah has opened no way for you ( to war against them).

So,

1. Jihad is a duty on all Muslims, to serve humanity. This entails rendering every possible but righteous support to all humanitarian causes and issues, in particular for ensuring that the weak, the needy, the ill-treated the oppressed and those who are discriminated against, whoever and wherever they might be, get their legitimate rights.

2. Jihad is purely in defense to repel aggression, oppression, exploitation or discrimination against ones own self or against any other person or class of persons, without consideration of religion, nationality or race.

3. Be it peace or war, no transgression or unseemly action is permissible.

4. Fighting must be stopped immediately as aggression, persecution or inequity is vacated or the enemy expresses intent to cease fighting or offers peace.

Hope it brings a bit more light to the issue ... :)

Re:Ashish

Talking about big brothers ... America meddles in world affairs only when its interests are at stake. Example Kuwait vs. Rwanda ( or Bosnia)

An Islamic state would only interfere in pursuit of a just and righteous cause, scrupulously free of any consideration of personal gain, revenge, vendetta, or empire building. These must on no account serve as justification for war.

Can the same be said for Uncle Sam?

However .. I agree it depends which side of the fence one is ... I however think im sitting on it ... ;)

regards

ArtZ

Re : Zehra

Thanks for the reply. It is a splendid start at the least

Re : ibne sina

Ah ! another page and another time....sparring again

My statement may be fundamentally flawed and wrong. However, I repeat, it was not my interpretation nor a fiction of my imagination, only an excerpt from some of the authors i have read. They might be wrong. What i am looking for is not a vindication of my reply, but on the contrary, evidence against it. ? Believe me, i shall be more happy than you are ( for obvious reasons ) if only a majority of muslims across the worlds do not interpret islam the way it has been portrayed by some as in my reply.

For learning more about multiple views on Jihad, try reading the following.

Jihad in the Qur`an & Sunnah

By: Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid



The Men of Madina

MUHAMMAD IBN SA`D

ISLAM: A COMPLETE WAY OF LIFE

by Iyad Hilal

Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam

Rudolph F. Peters (A) /

End of the Jihad State, The: The Reign of Hisham Ibn Abd al-Malik and the Collapse of the Umayyids

Khalid Yahya Blankinship (A)

Jihad in Islam

Abdul Hameed Siddiqi (A) /

Jihad in Medieval and Modern Islam

G. Morrison (E) /

and take a tour of the various Jihad sites in the net.........

happy journey

Reply to Rishi:

You write ``The majority of Jihad undertaken at the time of our Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) was within the category of offensive Jihad.``

Although I am delighted by your interest in islam, I must say this. THIS STATEMENT IS WRONG AND DEEPLY FLAWED. Ms. Zehra should have picked up this glaring mistake. Please back up your statement by HISTORICAL REFERENCES that have constituted your homework.

cheerio

re: Rishi.

Kudos to you on your research. I think its great when people take time out and actully do all kinds of research of this sort to edify their own mind body and soul. My mother does it and i wish some day i have enough patience and time to be able to do it. The research you have done, however, has just looked at one aspect/faction of Islam. You have been researching jihad and have presented what you found about it. Islam has many factions and `firqahs`. You must always keep that in mind. All Muslims, though under the same title of Muslim, vary the same way as Jews, Christians and Hindus. All the major religions have factions and so does Islam. Just something you should keep in mind :). WHat you have presented about jihad and the ``imam`` having to go out twice a year is something foreign to me. It could be becuase my `faction` is not one of the majority ones. The Islam i have grown up with and practice does NOT preach violence. It apts for negociations and diplomacy, the way ArtZ did point out in his reply.

Another thing to keep in mind is that you will get all kinds of responses and that is because Muslims within themselves dont agree on how things should work and what Islam is. I have given no specific answers because i do NOT feel qualified to be able to do so. i do not want to misrepresent Islam or any other religion. If i had done the research I would feel more qualified to give out answers, but again, im not ALlah to be doing so :))

Religion is such a personal thing and it hits so many invisible cords people have within them. It is something that comes within a preson and religious convictions vary from person to person. I consider myself a devout Mulims but more in theory then in practice. ( when was the last time i did namaz? however, i do think about Allah everyday and thank Him for the many gifts etcetc. I dont even want to think where i would be without Him and the peace and serenity with which i can go through life becuase of him. Peace of mind is so important).

It seems that the discussion got sidetraked from politics to religion ( two things never to discuss with your boss or inlaws). Hope you find the answers you are looking for Rishi but do keep in mind that there is not just ONE kind of Muslim out there :))

Z. Rizvi.

Re : ArtZ

Interesting reply ArtZ. I am trying to understand Islam and have done some groundwork on it. There are areas I find pretty fascinating in Islam, there are also areas I find too involved in details of practising Islam (about which, i shall put across my doubts and questions in these forums later.....).

One particular statement in your reply to Ashish especially caught my attention where you had stated that Islam does not permit Muslims to invade non-muslim countries .

Would appreciate it, if you could throw some light on the following interpreted from the Quran.

``

The Types of Jihad

There are two types of Jihad against the Kuffar.

1- Offensive Jihad, 2- Defensive Jihad

1- Offensive Jihad is when the Muslims launch an offensive attack. If this attack is on the Kuffar who have previously received the message of Islam, then to call them towards Islam before commencement of the attack is considered preferable. However, if the message of Islam has not reached them, then the Kuffar will be invited towards Islam. If they reject this true faith, then they will have to pay Jizyah (Kufr tax). If they refuse to submit to the payment of Jizyah then the Muslims are to fight against them. With this type of Jihad the Kuffar who plot against the Muslims are repelled and their hearts are filled with fear, so that they do not succeed in their plans.

The offensive Jihad is Fardh Kifayah, the purpose of which is to ensure the Kuffar remain terrorised and away from mischief, thereby, allowing the message of Islam to be conveyed without any obstructions.

If one group of Muslims fulfil this obligation then it will be sufficient on behalf of all Muslims, but if there are no Muslims fulfilling this obligation then everyone is considered sinful.

It is stated in Fatawa Shami: IT IS REQUIRED OF THE IMAM (LEADER) OF THE MUSLIMS TO DISPATCH THE ARMY ROUTINELY ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR TOWARDS THE KUFAR COUNTRIES.It is also the duty of the Muslim public to assist the Imam in this noble cause. If the Imam does not send an army, then he will considered sinful.

The majority of Jihad undertaken at the time of our Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) was within the category of offensive Jihad.

The Quran has called upon the Muslims to undertake the offensive Jihad and when this obligation is satisfactorily fulfilled there would be no apparent need for the defensive Jihad.

When Muslims neglect this important obligation then they are subjected to the defensive Jihad and this has become, with regret, widely common in our time.

``

HONESTLY, NO OFFENSE INTENDED. WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HAVE A DIFFERENT PERCEPTION OF JIHAD .

PEACE

ArtZ

Another interesting thing. In terms of ``foreign policy``

``Muslims DO NOT have any right to attack or annex a region which consists of Non-Muslims, living peacefully. But if this nation is hurting any of their minorities, be it Muslim or Non-muslim, Or engaged in offensive Warfare with other smaller, weaker neighbors then it is the responsibility of the `Islamic State` to prevent this ... preferably through diplomatic means ... Force is the last option, to be used when no other method works. All to propagate Justice.``

This starkly resembles the US foriegn policy. Which is often seen as ``big brother meddling in others affairs``. I guess it is open to interpretation depending on what side of the fence one sees oneself on.

regards

Ashish

ArtZ , thanks for the very informative reply. It does help explain some of the viewpoints expressed in various articles at chowk, which initially I found bizarre.

Thanks indeed

regards

Ashish

Re: Ashish

Why Thankyou. :)

Since Allah is the creator, all land is his .. for eternity.

However `Land Of Allah` in this context would be a place where the laws revealed to Man are being practiced.

So a place becomes `Land of Allah` when his laws are implemented`

Yes Muslims believe in national boundaries. But the definition of `Nation` differs, as I presunme u know/have heard. There are no Sub-groups in Islam, it is one nation( ideally of course).

Muslims DO NOT have any right to attack or annex a region which consists of Non-Muslims, living peacefully. But if this nation is hurting any of their minorities, be it Muslim or Non-muslim, Or engaged in offensive Warfare with other smaller, weaker neighbors then it is the responsibility of the `Islamic State` to prevent this ... preferably through diplomatic means ... Force is the last option, to be used when no other method works. All to propagate Justice.

A territory comes under Islamic Rule when the local populace has accepted Islam. They might be autonomous, but they owe allegiance to a central leader, the `Amir-ul-Momineen`

However I must point out, History has seen otherwise. Ruthless `Muslim leaders`(their Muslim status is questionable in my opinion), have attacked neighbouring states, without much regard for any persecution or injustice that might exist. Their solitary motivation was power, which came when they got more territory ( thus more resources)

Islamic principles of government and Foreign Policy have rarely been used throughout our 1400 year history.

Mostly Islam has been Used as a Billy Club. So in that respect Mian Nawaz Sharif is following the lines of traditional Muslim Leaders. But not `Islamic Leaders` minor difference :)

I strive for the ideal.

Peace

for the sake of conversation then ...

the distinction between womens rights and human rights was not meant to be deliberate, it was merely to suggest that Islam and Islamization tends to bring up one or the other. more often than not, the terms could be used synonymously.

however, since women tend to suffer more in the name of this new found sense of religion men (predominantly) seem to have discovered, might it not be appropriate to separate the two ?

but this was for the sake of conversation. i was actually trying to suggest that there is more to Islam and `Islamization` then these two (one) issue(s) inevitably suggest.