Capital Punishment - Why Yakub Memon's hanging should have been telecast live

Mike Ghouse for India | http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-yakub-memons-hanging-should-have.html

I am pleased to share my thoughts about Capital punishment and the deliberate killing of the criminal Yakub Memon, as this has become the most talked about death penalty in the nation. 

I have been opposed to Capital punishment from the early 80�s, however, I have slipped twice since then; first when I heard about a guy who raped my friends� daughter, and a Houston woman who killed 7 of her children for claiming insurance. All other times, I have stood firmly with the idea that the society cannot act like outrageous beasts and we cannot deliberately kill an individual no matter what caused him to be a killer.

In a democracy, civility goes hand in hand. If everything is just in a society all goes well, but when injustice occurs directly, indirectly or remotely, bad things multiply in the society, and it will take time to restore dharma � the righteousness. Justice and Fairness are the pillars of any society; a good system ensures trust, prosperity and peace for all.

Who do you blame when some punk shoots the cashier at a 7/11 for a few bucks? His parents, his community or his situation? What if that man or woman was raised where you and I were raised? Is society responsible for creating such a monster? Should we punish that monster? Will that end more monsters?

Of course the state shamelessly kills its criminals either through a lethal injection as in Texas or chopping the head off in public as in Saudi Arabia. Both acts are disgusting and barbaric. In the early 80�s I was appalled with an Indian judge who was visiting,  his unflinching take on death penalty was just plain shocking, I thought being a judge, he would have debated, hesitated or would have reservations� NONE Whatsoever!

I have written quite a lot on the topic, but the following paragraph expressed my sentiments very well. �Today, the Indian state has shown itself to be no better than Tiger Memon. Tiger planned the bombings in retaliation to the terrible violence against Muslims that followed in the wake of Babri Masjid demolition. We have terminated his brother's life to extract vengeance for the blasts.

Tiger's act was a reaction of a hotheaded criminal; we sent his brother to the gallows after keeping him in jail for 22 years - what could be more cynical and cold-hearted than that. What ends of justice does that serve now? Are we safer from his judicial elimination? How have we shown ourselves to be different from those we condemn? �

I am citing a beautiful example, which you will find them in all societies. This by no way exonerates any society; criminals are in every group of people.  Hazrat Umar once commuted an order to cut the hands of a thief as a punishment. He discovered that the man stole the food to feed his children. Umar took the blame on the society for creating such a desperate situation for individuals to resort to such a thing.  I hope we all start thinking what is just instead of blindly applying the laws. We the Americans are no exception to that.

The following column is a compelling article to read.

Mike is a speaker, thinker, writer, pluralist,  TV-Radio commentator and a human rights activist committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. His info in 63 links at MikeGhouse.net and writings at TheGhouseDiary.com

# # #

Why Yakub Memon's hanging should have been telecast live
Courtesy of Catch News. com

MANISHA SETHI@catchnews

|30 July 2015

The verdict

• Supreme Court's late night hearing on Yakub Memon's punishment was a charade
• It was a way of projecting that we give a fair trial "even to a terrorist"

The double standards

• While we celebrate Yakub's execution, we are asked to forget the 1992 Mumbai riots
• We speak of "closure" for blast victims but ask riot victims to "move on"

The bloodlust

• On television, there were grotesque blow-by-blow accounts of the run-up to the execution
• Given our vicarious pleasure, his hanging should have been public, preferably telecast live

Till the end, till the very last minute possible, the charade of due process was played out. Three judges who had rejected Yakub Memon's petition in the day deliberated upon his lawyers' plea once again till early morning. Some were irked by what they saw as Memon's delaying tactics - as though a condemned man should go gently into the night, without fuss, abandoning the human instinct for self-preservation. Others gushed at the greatness of our judicial system. The Supreme Court by constituting a bench in the middle of the night had displayed extraordinary accommodation towards Memon. What further proof did we need that we give a fair trial "even to terrorists"?

First, there was nothing unprecedented about a late night sitting of the Supreme Court. In 2014, Chief Justice HL Dattu stayed Surinder Koli's imminent hanging through a late night order after his lawyers woke him up at 1 am.

Second, though Yakub's death warrant was issued before he had exhausted his legal rights - a clear violation of the 'procedure established by law' to precede a death sentence - the Supreme Court finally upheld it, both in the day, as well as in the dramatic early morning hearing.

But, more importantly, we would do well to remember that Yakub was tried and convicted under TADA, a law that was allowed to lapse less than a year after his return to India.

In May 1995 - as the Mumbai blasts trial was proceeding in the TADA court - the Parliament decided not to grant extension to this law. The law was not renewed because it militated against every shred of the values and principles embodied in our Constitution.

Burgeoning evidence of rank prejudice in its application, its rampant use as an instrument for witch-hunting and vendetta, forced us to acknowledge that such a law could not have a place in a democracy.

However, cases such as Memon's, already filed under TADA, continued as though the draconian law was still in existence.

So let us disabuse ourselves of the notion that law - objective, blind, undiscriminating law has spoken.

Today, the Indian state has shown itself to be no better than Tiger Memon. Tiger planned the bombings in retaliation to the terrible violence against Muslims that followed in the wake of Babri Masjid demolition. We have terminated his brother's life to extract vengeance for the blasts.

Tiger's act was a reaction of a hotheaded criminal; we sent his brother to the gallows after keeping him in jail for 22 years - what could be more cynical and cold-hearted than that. What ends of justice does that serve now? Are we safer from his judicial elimination? How have we shown ourselves to be different from those we condemn?

Yakub was tried and convicted under TADA, a law that lapsed less than a year after his return to India

The sanctimonious bile of media commentators asks us not to think of the Muslim victims of 1992 riots or the Srikrishna Commission Report, to forget that only three people were ever convicted for the anti-Muslim violence, one of whom, the Shiv Sena MLA Madhukar Sarpotdar did not serve a single day of his one-year sentence.

To raise the question of selective justice is to 'politicise' Yakub's hanging, which has after all, gone through all the legal motions.

Only the deliberately blind will fail to see that there are two parallel worlds of law: one affords 'closure', the other urges you to 'move on'; one, which grants last minute clemency and reprieve, the other, determined to sacrifice a life.

Law will take its own course surely, but the course it charts will be strikingly different in different cases.

And then there are our lynch mobs. On television, there was a grotesque, almost orgasmic obsession with the "last hours of Yakub Memon".

Blow by blow accounts - graphically and dramatically rendered - of how Yakub would be given a new set of clothes, how he would be provided with a copy of the Quran, what breakfast he might be offered, were aired non stop.

In one, an officer who had been on the investigating team of the 26/11 attacks, excitedly showed how Yakub's hands would be tied at the back when he takes his last walk - from his cell to the phansi yard.

Have we plumbed the depths of our moral abyss? Perhaps not. But it's still possible to.

Why did they execute Yakub inside the walls of the jail? His hanging should have been public, preferably telecast live. The keepers of our collective conscience should have cheered as Yakub walked to the gallows, his hands tied at the back. We could have swooned and thrown stones and bottles at him as the hangman covered his face with a hood.

We could all have held our breath as his neck snapped, and then broken into a raucous cry as his body turned limp. Surely, in such a carnivalesque celebration of death, we would have deepened our sense of justice, our faith in the processes of law, and in the fairness of our democracy.

Why stop at vicarious pleasures. Let us degrade and debase ourselves completely.

The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect of the organisation.

Contemporary no way to look at history - Tribune Interviews Dr. Nyla Ali Khan

Think out of the box - contemporary no way to look at history.

Republished at: http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2015/07/contemporary-no-way-to-look-at-history.html

Azhar Qadri of Tribune talks to Nyla Ali Khan, writer and granddaughter of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah

Courtesy of Tribune India

Nyla Ali Khan is the daughter of Suraiya Ali Matto n�e Abdullah, the sister of former J&K chief minister Farooq Abdullah.

The granddaughter of National Conference founder Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, Nyla Ali Khan has authored several books, including The Life of a Kashmiri Woman � on her grandmother Begum Akbar Jehan, whose death anniversary falls on July 11. She is a visiting professor at the University of Oklahoma, USA.

What concerns you the most when you say that the �mauled versions of history are cunningly making their way into mainstream Indian, Pakistani and international political discourses�?

When we read about the political history of Kashmir, about the turbulence and turmoil since 1989, quite a few scholars, analysts and activists have documented the human rights violations and written about the undemocratic processes that occurred in the state over the past several decades... they have written about the institutionalisation of corruption and how institutions in Jammu and Kashmir became dysfunctional over the years. But what I see in a lot of those works of history is the version of statist Indian as well as Pakistani political thought, and when I read other versions which are unofficial or which are not as statist, I do not see a recognition of the very strong Kashmiri nationalist movement, the inception of which was made in 1931. 

We might have ideological differences and a lot of us tend to view history through the subjective lens of contemporary politics, but that is where we go wrong. We can do justice to at least our own history by contextualising events.

You referred to 1931 (agitation against monarchical rule) as a nationalist event, but what qualifies it to be a nationalist event since it was triggered by a man who was not Kashmiri (Qadeer Khan)?

The fact that political players bridged the ideological divide to come together, they recognised that the movement that will bring their people � Muslims of Kashmir valley � out of the misery of illiteracy, poverty and political disenfranchisement would have to be a people�s movement. It could not be led by an outsider. We need to recognise that in 1947 and 1948, the leaps that Jammu and Kashmir made in establishing democratic processes and institutions were not made in any other part of the subcontinent.

When the movement began in 1931, it was for the enfranchisement of the Muslims of Kashmir valley and that was the reason that Molvi Yousuf Shah and Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah came together and people of their ilk supported them. So it was to voice the aspirations of the repressed, particularly the peasantry. That is how I see it as a nationalist movement. It was a movement that initially relied on religious discourse and was later transformed because that religious idiom was a very powerful motivating and unifying force. It was deployed very effectively to give legitimacy to a political movement.

With so many narratives, whose version of history is correct or nearer to reality? And how will it be decided whose version is true?

This is a very difficult thing for me to do because I, like you, look at things from a unique vantage point. I look at things from a particular position but I, unlike a lot of other people, recognise that this  gives me certain biases and prejudices. I study the politics of Sheikh Abdullah and I continue to do that, it is a work in progress. I admire his politics, his personality. I admire the unifying force that he became at a time when our state was fragmented. I admire him for the primacy which he gave to Kashmiri identity�  it is at this stage that there came a time when Kashmiri people learned to take pride in themselves, their cultural identity. 

They became a political force to be reckoned with, to be recognised. Recently I did some work on the Quit Kashmir Movement. There was a time when Sheikh Abdullah was seen as a rebel against the state. Every society and individual is dynamic and no political player remains the same throughout. No political player�s identity remains static.

As an academician, how do you see Sheikh Abdullah? Was he a nationalist, or someone who sought refuge in religion using the podium of shrines for his own politics?

Using the podium of shrines to mobilise people � that has been done the world over. Religious institutions have been used in detrimental ways but also to create positive identity politics for mobilising people to recognise their own political rights and to fight for it. Sheikh Abdullah was one politician in South Asia who was able to employ the religious idiom very successfully to mobilise the people to recognise that they were people who were entitled to privileges and rights.

In The Life of a Kashmiri Woman, the protagonist is your maternal grandmother Begum Akbar Jehan. Was her influence instrumental at any point in time in shaping the future of the region?

She was born into a very privileged family, she was half-Austrian � so my grandmother straddled two cultural paradigms and she was a very religious woman.

In 1932, she made the very difficult choice because Sheikh Abdullah then was a young man, a rebel who was trying to make his presence felt. So, she made the difficult decision of marrying someone whose future was unpredictable and unstable... but throughout the 1930s, while he was rebelling against the monarchy, and in 1950s and 1960s when he was a political prisoner of the Government of India, she stood by him. In 1955, when Mirza Afzal Beg created the Plebiscite Front, Begum Akbar Jehan was its unofficial member. Activists of that period will tell you how stifling the atmosphere was, particularly for her and her children.

Between the two extremes of being the �Lion of Kashmir� and a villainous character, as his detractors describe him, where does Sheikh Abdullah stand for you?

As a granddaughter, I have the greatest respect for him. He suffered tremendously at the political and personal level. He was betrayed by his very close colleagues and comrades and he suffered because of their betrayals and I include Jawaharlal Nehru in that... people who had sworn to protect the people of Kashmir.

As an academic, I would say he was a paradox. Sheikh Abdullah was a Kashmiri nationalist, he did not identify himself as an Indian nationalist or as a Pakistani nationalist. He did not toe the line of either Indian nationalism or Pakistani nationalism, which is what his detractors would have us believe� he gave primacy to the aspirations of his own people and to their political evolution. There was a point in time when he was betrayed by the nation-state of Pakistan as well. In the early 1970s, when he was negotiating with the political players of both nation-states, he was told categorically by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto that after the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 and after India had established its military supremacy, Pakistan was not in a position or would not be in a position for the next few decades to do anything at all for the people of Kashmir, and he should take whatever decision he could to save and retrieve whatever little autonomy he could at that time. 

The problem in the several analyses of Sheikh Abdullah is that even his detractors unwittingly place him on a pedestal and view him as an individual who could have changed the political and historical tide of Kashmir all by himself.

Do you remember Sheikh Abdullah as a sad man?

When he died in 1982, I was 10. But I had the privilege of spending a lot of time with my maternal grandparents and I remember vividly that a couple of days before he died, my mother and I were with him. There was a lot of sloganeering going on outside the house. One of the slogans was Zinde Thavun Abdullah (Keep Alive, Abdullah). He could not hear very well and he asked my mother what they are saying. She said, �They are praying for your long life.� He said, �Why, what have I done for them?� So I don�t think he was a content man. He was a sad man.

How would Sheikh Abdullah have reacted in 1989 (when militancy erupted)?

He had no desire and made no attempt to endanger the lives of the people of this place and jeopardise the lives of our younger generations. He was not a trigger-happy politician. He was a man who was in the trenches with his people. If he made a political demand, he would make sure that was followed by his presence in the trenches with his political activists. So I don�t agree he would have been a gun-toting politician, but I think he would have voiced the demand for self-determination, absolutely.

Being a chronicler and part of the Sheikh family, how do you manage that thin line of impartiality?

I am not the chronicler of the Sheikh family. That is a reductive reading of my work. The reason I chose to work on my grandmother is because there is a historical value in revisiting and challenging the historical narratives about the political actors of pre and post-1947 Jammu and Kashmir.  A few people label me as an apologist of the National Conference and some as an ideologue probably, which is interesting. This is not what I am.

Why did the National Conference suffer its worst defeat in the elections of 2014?

The antagonism toward NC manifested by both state actors and non-state actors and the increasing vulnerability of the organisation�s cadre was terribly damaging, and its status as the upholder of regional aspirations and an adversary of the centrist policies of the Government of India was greatly undermined. Several combinations and permutations didn�t bode well for the political well-being of either the political organisation or the state, which hadn�t been engineered either by Begum Akbar Jehan or by the surviving members of Sheikh Abdullah�s loyal contingent. The cementing of these alliances were apocalyptic events, portending, as future events showed, the disintegration of regional aspirations.

What is the future role of NC with PDP gaining strength in Kashmir and BJP sweeping Jammu?

It will be a force to reckon with if its grassroots cadre is strengthened and educated and well-informed young blood is infused and promoted. The connect between the top  leadership and its mass base needs to be re-established in view of changing regional, political and socio-economic aspirations. No organisation, let alone a political organisation of repute and responsibility, can continue to survive with deadwood.

 

Human Rights in Islam: key thoughts

Glad to read this article on Human rights, it is long but worth reading.  thanks Ruby.
Mike

------

Ruby Amatulla

The awareness about human rights during the last few hundred years has brought about major changes in the world. However, the Quran, many centuries earlier, laid down the basis of these rights.  

A Western thinker, Robert Briffault, asserts that humanity is indebted to the Quran for its progresses. He says, �The ideas that inspired the French Revolution and the Declaration of Rights that guided the framing of the American Constitution and inflamed the struggle for independence in the Latin American countries [and elsewhere] were not inventions of the West. They find their ultimate inspiration and source in the Holy Koran.�

Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the American �Declaration of Independence�, kept the Quran in his library. When the library was burned down once, he ordered another copy of the Book. More than two hundred years later the first Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison, took the oath of the office on Jefferson�s Quran

Briffault concurs with scholars such as Thomas Carlyle, Goethe, Margoliouth and many others in their assertions that the Scripture contains seminal ideas about human life and society that are comprehensive and very progressive.   

George Bernard Shaw says: "'The future religion of the educated, cultured and enlightened people will be Islam. "

                             ********************

The right of a person is generally denoted as �haqq� in the Quran. The concept of �haqq� is pervasive. Whatever is rightfully due to a person is �haqq�. These rights are scattered all over the Quran; some are laid down in straight forward ways but others � more fundamental or inherent rights that a person can claim just by being a human being � are implied but with paramount importance.

The main thrust of Islam is to establish justice and a just society on earth. The goal is peace [one of the meaning of Islam is peace]. The Scripture implies that peace cannot be attained without justice; and justice prevails only when rights are upheld. The Quran expounds that any violation or undermining of a right constitutes an injustice. 

The Book says God has made all human beings His representatives or vicegerents [�khalifa�] on earth [2:30, 6:165, 27:62 ]. Therefore all God�s �khalifa� are equal on earth. Each person can claim the honor and dignity the position �khalifa of God� commands. God is one and all human beings are His creation and servants. In these respects in Islam all human beings are equal before God, therefore, they should be equal before law, society and humanity.  The right to equality is fundamental in Islam

It is implied in the Quran that this status of �khalifa� is awarded to humans not arbitrarily but because God has enormously empowered them and made them capable of sensing truth and discerning right from wrong.

Different verses shed light on different aspects of the enormity of this endowment to humans.  Prostration is exclusively reserved for God. However after creating Adam, the prototype of humans, God commanded all the angels to prostrate before Adam and thus gave a God-like status to humans. The Quran proclaims, �Indeed, We have conferred dignity on all children of Adam (as their birth-right).� (17:70).

What is the nature of endowment that make a human God-like? The Quran alludes that God has given humans �fitratulla� [fitra means nature] or a God given �nature� or God�s nature or true nature. Then the Book proclaims that the one ever-true religion [al-Din al-Hanif] for mankind is to comply with this �nature� [Quran 30:30]. Any deviation from this nature amounts to injustice, the bigger the deviation the higher the derailment.

Different verses in different places of the Scripture provides glimpses of this endowment �Fitratullah�: it consists of the faculty of reason and conscience, the intuitive and spiritual capacities, the inherent knowledge or wisdom God granted humans, and may be much more. Most of all this enormous capacity enables one to sense truth. By virtue of this empowerment God has granted humans the right to free will. The idea of the �Day of Judgment� and man�s accountability to God rests on the legitimacy that God has granted humans the right to liberty. Therefore the right to equality and liberty are the fundamental rights of a human being.

Next, the right to life comes from the idea that God blows His own Spirit into a human being at the time of creation [15:29] thereby making a life sacrosanct. Killing a human being is prohibited except in the way of justice and/or fighting war against the spread of massive injustices and oppression. The Book expounds that tumult and oppression are worse than killing as these lead to extreme injustices, inhuman sufferings and a degrading state. The Quran defines �crime against humanity� in terms of killing one innocent human being [5:32]. The Scripture proclaims that if one innocent human being is killed, it is as if entire humanity is killed, and if one life is saved as if entire humanity is saved. This indeed is a higher standard than the one the International Criminal Court [ICC] could come up with fourteen centuries later.

The right to life, liberty, equality, dignity, own and dispose properties, privacy, etc are people�s inherent rights as per the Quran, rights any human being can claim irrespective of his/her religion, race, etc. Protecting and preserving these rights are also the foundation of a modern democratic system.

The thinkers of the European Enlightenment period and later the Founders of the American Revolution who laid down the framework of modern democracy realized that in order to establish a stable progressive society the government must preserve, protect and defend these rights for all citizens. A good governance then is one in which the people holds the ultimate power  and the government obtains its legitimacy to rule from the very people it rules and that the government so formed remains limited in its power.  A constitution that lays down the framework of a republic with separation of power, proper checks and balances and a system of periodic elections to elect people� representatives to govern can help attain these objectives.

Fourteen centuries ago, the Charter of Medina [Sahifat al-Medina], the very first constitution written in history, ensured these rights of people in the very first community Prophet Muhammad [pbuh] established in Medina. The system was a federal democratic system in which people of different creed � Muslims, Jews and Pagans � formed a single community ensuring safety and security of life, equal rights, freedom of religion, lifestyle and expression, etc. of all people of the community irrespective of their differences. The Modern day scholars wonder at the similarities between the Charter of Median and the American Constitution that was drafted eleven centuries later. They increasingly discover historical connections for these amazing similarities between the two important historic documents, however that is beyond the scope of this writing.

There are different categories of rights in Islam. Besides the inherent rights, there are  specific rights in Islam as to a person�s birth into a family such as inheritance rights and a person�s position in the family such as spousal rights, the position with respect to other people in a group with common cause such as fraternal rights, the rights of neighbors, rights of a member of a community or citizen�s rights,  etc. Still there are rights that arise due to efforts and activities such as workers� rights, trade-partner�s rights, other rights such as the right to presumption of innocence until proven guilty, etc.

A right comes with the responsibility in Islam. The responsibility necessitates exercising discretion and maintaining moderation and balance to avoid conflict and social instability. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Islam however the faith does not condone the misuse of this right to arouse hatred, prejudices, and phobias and the abuse of this right to humiliate and disgrace others [49:11,12]. These kinds of misuses and abuses are tolerated in the West in the name of freedom of expression.

Some times some individual rights need to have some limitations for the sake of establishing a healthy society. In the West, however, individual rights are given paramount importance and the collective rights of a society often are ignored or marginalized. As a result, in the name of individual rights excessive greed, materialism, promiscuity, etc. are pursued to the degrees at which the societies tend to become unfair and dysfunctional.

Islam advocates social justice, sharing wealth with the needy and poor, shun excessive materialism, extravagances and live relatively simple. People can become better off or wealthy through rightful means but they should share their wealth with the poor and pay Zakat or the �purifying dues�. The poor have a right [haqq] on the wealth of the better off or rich people. All these reasonable restraints are meant to promote and sustain healthy set of values for a society to become stable, peaceful and progressive.

Therefore whenever there is a conflict between an individual right and the collective right of a society Islam advocates striking a balance. As individual rights cannot disregard the collective rights of a society, the collective rights cannot trample individual rights.

Islam grants complete freedom in matters of faith [Quran 2:256]. More than hundred prominent scholars and Imams of our time and some organizations have vehemently disagreed with the assessment that apostasy is punishable by death in Islam. To the contrary They believe there is no worldly punishment for apostasy in Islam. [please see their comments in http://apostasyandislam.blogspot.com/ ]

Women are given equal status with respect to all inherent rights and most other rights except inheritance. In cases of inheritance there are some differences. However, taking all the financial matters into consideration woman and man are at par with each other. Women have the right to own and dispose properties as they wish. They have complete freedom in exercising their rights.

Facing injustices and oppression the people or a group has the collective right to be united and fight to stop rampant violations of rights and justices. Believers are commanded to establish justice. Therefore they have the right and responsibility to struggle to establish justice, peacefully and/or with arms. This is called Jihad in Islam. There are a lot of misconceptions about Jihad both among non-Muslims as well as among Muslims in the world today.

Islam has given paramount importance on peaceful Jihad against wrong and injustices. Believers must exhaust all peaceful and diplomatic means before using their right to take up arms. Patience, perseverance and consistency are advocated in peaceful Jihad. However, if all peaceful efforts � such as dialogue, diplomacy, negotiation, warning even threats -- fail to bring about the change, it is believers� rights to fight against tumult and oppression.

Facing injustices and oppression Islam does not allow indifference or looking the other way. Everyone has the right to defend his/her rights or fight for it. The struggle must be relentless and forceful until justice and fairness prevails.

     

Many major movements of our time that led the world a bit closer to justice and fairness were founded on the values and principles of human rights such as the civil rights, workers rights, immigrants� rights, women�s liberation, collective bargaining, and most importantly liberation movements in many countries. In essence they address a person�s right to liberty, equality, and dignity.

Our world as we see today largely has been shaped by these fundamental concepts of human rights that the Quran laid down a long time ago.  The whole world, in spite of being imperfect and troublesome, has been slowly gravitating towards human rights, fairness and justice, the acceptance of diversity and tolerance [2:148, 5:48], and universalism that the Quran propounded more than fourteen centuries ago.

The most unfortunate thing is that the Muslim world is not at the forefront of this Jihad to establish human rights as there are rampant violations of these rights in many Muslim majority societies. Hundreds of years of false indoctrination and misplaced priorities have robbed the lights from the ideas expounded by �fitratullah� and �khalifa� in the Quran. 

They fail to recognize, among many other issues, that since all human beings -- irrespective of race, religion, gender, etc.-- are  representatives [khalifa] of God, the sovereignty of a people collectively then represents the Sovereignty of God.  There is no clash between these two ideas of sovereignty: one is temporal and limited and the other is eternal and unlimited. 

This can change and it must change. This necessitates a real enlightened process of education, dialogue, patience and perseverance. In essence it needs the peaceful Jihad of the enlightened people in a society. It requires the vigilance and efforts of the thinking people of a society to help arouse the awareness and the commitment of a people that will become the vanguard of a system to help protect their rights and their values, Prejudices, ignorance, fanaticism, extremism, hatred, power-hunger, greed, etc. that violate or compromise rights of people also obstruct justice and hinder peace in the world.

Link to the article: http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2015/07/human-rights-in-islam-key-thoughts.html 

Ruby Amatulla is the Executive Director of "Muslims for Peace, Justice and Progress" [www.mpjp.org] based in the USA and the Secretary General of "Women for Good Governance" based in Bangladesh. She is a writer promoting inclusive politics and power-sharing as the necessary tools for an integrated society. She is the editor of Home | Consult Quran Her writings have been published regularly in the Daily Star and in many other reputable newspapers in other countries.

Mosques and Massacres

Orthodox Christians may wish to study and share this fine summary of the linkage between mosques and outbursts of Muslim jihad terror attacks. We must face and admit the undeniable fact that there is murderous evil at the core of Islam. It is commanded in the Quran, was lived by Muhammad, is preached in the mosques, and is the cause behind the new age of martyrdom we have entered into.

Related: Challenging Mosque Expansions - The Time is Now (Includes direct links to four recent studies showing 80% of mosques in the U.S. teach offensive jihad and Islamic supremacism) 

Mosques and Massacres
by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine � July 28, 2015

On June 26, Saif Rezgui walked on to a beach in Tunisia and opened fire on German, British, and Irish sunbathers in front of the Imperial Marhaba resort hotel, killing 39 and wounding dozens more. If various world leaders are to be believed, the massacre had nothing to do with Islam. In response to the attack which left thirty British citizens dead, Prime Minister David Cameron said the terrorism �is not in the name of Islam. Islam is a religion of peace.� A day later, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott assured the world that �what�s being done by Daesh [the Islamic State] has nothing to do with God, it has nothing to do with religion.�

There was one notable exception to the usual nothing-to-do-with-Islam mantra. Immediately after the attack, Tunisia�s prime minister, Habib Essid, ordered the closing of 80 mosques.

Of course, the leader of a 98 percent Muslim country can�t be expected to understand Islam nearly as well as the leaders of Britain and Australia. Nevertheless, Essid�s action provides food for thought. Mosques, after all, do have something to do with Islam. �Some mosques continue to spread their propaganda and their venom to promote terrorism,� Essid reportedly said. �No mosque that does not conform to the law will be tolerated.�

According to a Reuters report, Rezgui was �a dedicated student from a stable family who enjoyed partying and practiced break dancing.� Until, that is, �he appeared to have come into contact with extremist preachers about six months ago.�

Where do you meet extremist preachers? In extremist mosques, of course�the same sort of places attended by the two terrorists who two months previously had killed 21 foreign tourists at the Bardo Museum in Tunis. According to Reuters, �the two Bardo gunmen were also radicalized in their local mosques by hardliners.�

Another indication that the beach massacre might have had something to do with Islam is that Rezgui only targeted foreigners. As he pursued the tourists, he shouted to Tunisians to �get out of the way.� Might that have had something to do with the fact that the Tunisians were likely to be Muslims and the tourists were likely not? One other confirmation of the religious motivation for the attack came from the Islamic State. A spokesman for IS praised the attack as an operation against a �bordello��a reference to the immodest dress of the beachgoers. Apparently, cartoons of Muhammad are not the only thing that hardline Muslims consider as provocation sufficient to warrant murder.

Not all mosques are centers of extremist radicalization. On the other hand, it�s likely that the average Westerner grossly underestimates the percentage of radical mosques. Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, an Egyptian Jesuit who is also an expert on Islam, writes:

In many Muslim countries � the mosques are monitored by the police on Friday. There is a simple reason for this: many political decisions start from the mosque during the Friday khutba [sermon]. Historians of Islam know that many riots and revolutions were launched from the mosques and that jihad is often proclaimed during the khutba.

Not coincidentally, many of the Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011 were set in motion from mosques following Friday prayers. And again, it�s probably no coincidence that Rezgui scheduled his massacre for a Friday during the holy month of Ramadan.

It�s tempting to think that the mosque-mayhem connection is something that�s peculiar to Arab societies, but four separate studies of American mosques revealed that about eighty percent of them provide extremist literature and occasionally feature extremist preachers. While this doesn�t mean that every American mosque is a hotbed of terrorism, it does suggest cause for concern. For example, two very prominent American mosques which have long been thought to be of the moderate mainstream kind are now known to be connected with numerous terrorists, some of them of the high-profile variety. Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist, was mentored at the Dar Al-Hijra Mosque in Falls Church, Virginia. So were three of the 9/11 hijackers. And the person who was mentoring them was Anwar Al-Awlaki, who later became one of the chiefs of operations for Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Meanwhile, the Islamic Society of Boston has two mosques (one in Boston and one in Cambridge) which were attended by the Tsarnaev brothers and nearly a dozen other known terrorists, including the founder of Boston�s Islamic society, Abduraham Alamoudi, who is currently serving a twenty-three-year prison term for terror-related activities.

Christians assume that mosques, like churches, are simply places of prayer. Many of them are, but many mosques are also places of recruitment and radicalization�staging areas for jihad. Subsequent to the beach massacre, weapons caches were found in forty Tunisian mosques. As a popular Muslim poem puts it, �The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers.�

Not all Muslims think of mosques in this way, but as Prime Minister Essid understands, a not insignificant number do. He is not alone in this assessment. As Fr. Samir notes, Muslim governments have historically kept a close eye on mosque activities. Muslim leaders may give lip service to the notion that violence has nothing to do with Islam, but their actions tell a different story. Western leaders need to start paying attention.

The Crisis of Knowledge - Shaykh Hamza Yusuf

Q&A: Qadaa� Wal Qadar (Divine Fate and Destiny)

Question:

Assalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakaatuhu

In the book At Tayseer Fi Usool At Tafseer [page 44 Arabic version]:

�Or through definite transmission (Naqli) from Allah ?????? ?????? in His Holy Book or from His Messenger ? in his Mutawatir Hadith; like the belief in the Unseen, the Angels, the previously sent down Books, preceding Prophets, the Last Day and Qadar, its good and bad. Allah Almighty says in Surat An Nisa� verse 136:

??? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ????????? ??????????? ???????????? ??????? ??????? ????? ????????? ???????????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ??????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???????? ????????

�O you who have believed, believe in Allah and His Messengers and the Book that He sent down upon His Messengers and the Scripture which He sent down before. And whoever disbelieves in Allah, His angels, His Books. His messengers. And the last Day has certainly gone far astray.�

 The Prophet peace and prayers upon him said in his response to the question by Jibreel (as) regarding Iman in the Hadith:

�?? ???? ????? ???????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????�

�To believe in Allah and His Angels and His Books and His Messengers, and the Last Day and Qadar, its good and its bad is from Allah ?????? ??????��

I have a question, please clarify if the Hadith mentioned is Mutawtir for it to be built upon as the evidence for the belief in Qadar, and why was it not mentioned in the book Islamic Shakhsiya Volume One in the discussion of the Islamic creed? Instead the author of the book, may Allah�s mercy be on him, said that belief in Qadaa and Qadar is by rational evidence.

Jazak Allah Khair,

Wassalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakaatuhu

Ahmad Nadhif

---

Answer:

Wa Alaikum us Salaam Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakaatuhu

Before I start to answer the question, I would like to draw your attention to two matters that may have caused your confusion. These two matters are: Al-Qadar which is mentioned in the verses and Ahadeeth and the term (Al-Qada� Wa Al Qadar), they are two subjects not one, the subject of (Al-Qada� Wa Al Qadar) which you read in the books �Nitham� (System of Islam) and �Shaksiyah� (Islamic Personality)is different to the subject (Al-Qadar) mentioned in the Hadith that you are inquiring about.

Now the answer to your question:

• What came in the narration of Muslim regarding the saying of the Prophet ?:

�?? ???? ????? ???????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????�

�To believe in Allah and His Angels and His Books and His Messengers, and the Last Day and Qadar, its good and its bad is from Allah ?????? ??????�

It is not a Mutawatir Hadith but it is Ahad Sahih narration. Despite that to use it as evidence in the subject you mentioned in your question from the book At Tayseer Fi Usool At Tafseer is correct, because it is an established evidence for what is being asked to believe in and did not establish an evidence on the subject that is asked to believe in. Therefore the request to believe in Islam is because of the Ayat and Ahadeeth from the Messenger ? and even by a message He ? sends, the Messenger has sent messages with messengers that he sent to kings calling them to Islam.

• But when establishing the argument that Qadar is part of the creed (Aqeedah) and whoever denies it is a Kaffir, and to prove that it is from the knowledge of Allah ?????? ??????, and all that is written eternally in Al Lawh Al Mahfooz (the Protected Decree), then it is referred to the definite evidences, and therefore the definite verses regarding Qadar in the meaning of Taqdeer decree in eternal matters, i.e. Allah knows and has decreed everything on earth and in the heavens since eternity and is written in the Protected Decree since eternity. From these definite verses is His ?????? ?????? saying:

?????? ??????????? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????

�Except his wife.� Allah decreed that she is of those who remain behind�

(Al Hijr: 60)

Qadar in this verse means decree in eternity. And His ?????? ?????? saying:

?????? ??????????? ????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???????

�And whoever relies upon Allah then he is sufficient for him. Indeed, Allah will accomplish his purpose. Allah has already set for everything a [decreed] extent.�

(At-Talaq: 3)

The meaning of there is a decree for every matter (qadr), i.e. there is a decree and time for everything which means decree in eternity.

And His ?????? ?????? saying:

???? ???? ?????????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ??????? ??????????????? ??????????????

�Say, �Never will we be struck except by what Allah has decreed for us; He is our protector.� And upon Allah let the believers rely�

(At-Tawba: 51)

It means that nothing will befell us except what Allah has decreed for us in eternity and what He ?????? ?????? has decreed upon us, and that we depend on Allah ?????? ??????.

And His ?????? ?????? saying:

????? ???? ???????? ??? ????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ????????????? ?????? ?????? ????????????? ??? ?????????? ??? ?????????? ???? ??????

�And there is no creature on [or within] the earth or bird that flies with its wings except [that they are] communities like you. We have not neglected in the Register a thing. Then unto their Lord they will be gathered�

(Al-An�am: 38)

It means that just as your Rizq, life span, and deeds are decreed so has the Rizq, life span, and deeds of other nations and creations have been decreed, that Allah has not neglected or left out anything from the Protected Decree, the Book here in the verse is the Protected Decree, i.e. that everything is written in the Protected Decree which is representing the Knowledge of Allah ?????? ??????.

And His saying ?????? ??????:

??????? ????????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ??? ????????????? ????? ??? ????????? ????? ???????? ???? ?????? ????? ???????? ?????? ??? ??????? ???????

�[Allah is] the Knower of the Unseen. �Not absent from Him is an atom�s weight within the heavens or within the earth or [what is] smaller than that or greater except that it is in a clear register�

(Saba�: 3)

i.e it is all written in the Protected Decree which represent the Knowledge of the Almighty and the same verse is the evidence for it.

3- It is worth mentioning that Qadar in this meaning i.e. the decree in eternity or being written in the Protected Decree or the Knowledge of Allah that a certain matter will take place, does not mean to rely on the knowledge of Allah that the action will take place, and not to take means or causes into consideration, because the Knowledge of Allah is not known to anyone, so no one knows if it will take place or not. This is why no one knows if something is going to happen or not happen except after taking the means to do the action and carry it out, and then the reality will show whether the action will materialize or not. Thus it is incorrect that someone relies on the Knowledge of Allah and leaves the action. This matter caused confusion among the Sahaba, so the Prophet ? taught them not to rely on Allah�s Knowledge but ordered them to take the action. Bukahri narrated from Ali (ra):

�??????? ?????? ???? ?????????: ????? ????????? ??? ??????? ???????? ?????: ???? ????????? ??????? ?????????? ????? ??????: ???????? ???? ??????? ????????? ???????�

�A man from the people said: do we not rely (on Allah and not do the work) O Messenger of Allah? He ? said: No. Do the action, all will be made easy. Then He? recited the verse: �the one who gives and fears Allah� [Al-Lail: 5]

This is clear that the belief in Qadar does not mean reliance without action, because Qadar and the written decree, i.e. the Knowledge of Allah ?????? ?????? is not known by anyone of the creations, so what do they rely on?

This is why the Prophet ? said �??� �No� to the one who asked if they should rely on Allah and not do the work, he told him to abstain from that, and did not stop at that but ordered him to �work�, this is why belief in Qadar does not mean inaction.

I pray that the answer to your question regarding Qadar is clear.

Your brother, 

Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

7 Shawwal 1436 AH

23 July 2015 CE

The link to the answer from the Ameer�s Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/Ata.abualrashtah/photos/a.154439224724163.1073741827.154433208058098/473968506104565/?type=1&theate