Thomas Jefferson once wrote: “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
For many, it’s easy to appreciate Jefferson’s eloquently stated advocacy of religious freedom of conscience, as well as the idea that all individuals should be able to express religious or nonreligious positions independent of others’ beliefs. Likewise, at the United Nations, both the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantee “freedom of thought, conscience and religion” to all individuals. But, in spite of international agreements and Jefferson’s beautiful words, the reality is that these tenets are often forgotten.
Today, few corners of the world are immune from the oppression of conscience. ..... A snapshot of what Pew reports as roughly 75 percent of the world—5.25 billion people—that live under some sort of social or governmental oppression of religious conscience.
Last year, the Center for Inquiry launched a campaign focused on promoting freedom of conscience and expression around the world—an initiative we applaud and support wholeheartedly.
The Qu’ran itself champions this sentiment, emphatically declaring: “There shall be no compulsion in religion” (2:256).
But in a world where oppression of conscience is inflicted on people of all different religious affiliations (or lack thereof), one fact is clear—oppression of conscience and expression is not something that impacts only one group of people. The diversity of the players who perpetuate this oppression is as widespread as the issue itself. The solution will never come from those oppressing, but must come from those who recognize this oppression for what it is—a violation of basic human rights—and are willing to work together to fight against it.
In an increasingly globalized and interconnected world, how can we achieve freedom of conscience while embracing civility and respect in the face of vast and polarizing religious differences?
President Truman once wrote, “Those who want the government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination.” The only agent that can truly regulate matters of mind and spirit is the individual. Another’s religious beliefs, or lack thereof, should not threaten an individual’s sense of self.
Thus, freedom of conscience requires civility and cooperation. We coauthor this piece respectively as an atheist and a Muslim to illustrate this principle. While many people in the United States seek to inflame a so-called “clash of civilizations” between our respective communities (and others) by promoting Islamophobia and anti-atheist bias, the two (may) engage in intellectual, civil, and genuine discourse—which allows each to express their perspectives in a candid but respectful manner. They may never agree on some matters—and that is fine. In a world where freedom of conscience and expression are rare, agreement is not the the primary concern. Recognizing another’s fundamental right to disagree while respecting his or her humanity and highest principles, however, is central to the ability to productively exchange ideas in the first place.
Civility also builds trust. By engaging in respectful discourse, we ensure two things. First, that even the most sensitive questions about the other’s beliefs can be asked—as they should be—without censorship. Thus, we do not avoid important or difficult questions out of fear of “offending” the other. Second, regardless of whether we agree on an issue, we emerge with significantly more appreciation for one another and significantly less ignorance. In the end, that knowledge is of priceless benefit.
Even in areas of the world where freedom of conscience is upheld, an act as simple as sending a hateful email can erode the mutual respect that serves as the foundation of our freedom of conscience. Such expressions are often defended under the banner of “free speech,” but all too often we ignore the fact that freedom of conscience and such incivility ultimately cannot coexist. A society that values the freedom of conscience cannot also value ideas that support oppression—our commitment to one another requires us to stand up against dehumanizing ideologies like sexism, homophobia, racism, xenophobia, and all of the other -isms that inhibit people from living their lives freely. Given enough time, hateful words lead to hateful actions—making oppression of conscience a reality for the vast majority of the world. The aforementioned oppressive regimes did not emerge and have not strengthened because people were “too civil” with one another. Rather, they are the eventual end of societies that chose to exchange ideas with distrust, ignorance, and vitriol—not through education, compassion, and civility.
Sending hate mail takes mere seconds. Likewise, a majority’s decision to pass a law that oppresses its minority population can happen with little resistance. Neither of these acts requires respect or courage—only ignorance and cowardice. On the contrary, the road to ensure global freedom of conscience is not navigable without civility and courage—civility to respect others even when you disagree with them, and courage to defend the right to disagree even when people disrespect. This is not a quick task, nor an easy one, but it is the right one. We must actively dispel our fear of the unfamiliar and embrace our fellow human beings as equals—especially the ones with whom we might vehemently disagree. We need neither whitewash our differences, nor evangelize. And under no circumstance can we compromise an individual’s right to believe—or not believe—as she or he deems appropriate. By instead embracing the middle path of respect and moderation—even in the face of injustice and insults—we better inform each other and ourselves. Likewise, we set a practical example, one worthy of replicating, for those 5.25 billion who have known oppression of conscience.
And surely, such a strategy neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg. Excerpts from article by Qasim Rashid
A potentially explosive report has linked the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI to the discovery of a network of gay prelates in the Vatican, some of whom – the report said – were being blackmailed by outsiders.
The pope's spokesman declined to confirm or deny the report, which was carried by the Italian daily newspaper La Repubblica.
The paper said the pope had taken the decision on 17 December that he was going to resign – the day he received a dossier compiled by three cardinals delegated to look into the so-called "Vatileaks" affair.
Last May Pope Benedict's butler, Paolo Gabriele, was arrested and charged with having stolen and leaked papal correspondence that depicted the Vatican as a seething hotbed of intrigue and infighting.
According to La Repubblica, the dossier comprising "two volumes of almost 300 pages – bound in red" had been consigned to a safe in the papal apartments and would be delivered to the pope's successor upon his election.
The newspaper said the cardinals described a number of factions, including one whose members were "united by sexual orientation".
In an apparent quotation from the report, La Repubblica said some Vatican officials had been subject to "external influence" from laymen with whom they had links of a "worldly nature". The paper said this was a clear reference to blackmail.
It quoted a source "very close to those who wrote [the cardinal's report]" as saying: "Everything revolves around the non-observance of the sixth and seventh commandments."
The seventh enjoins against theft. The sixth forbids adultery, but is linked in Catholic doctrine to the proscribing of homosexual acts.
La Repubblica said the cardinals' report identified a series of meeting places in and around Rome. They included a villa outside the Italian capital, a sauna in a Rome suburb, a beauty parlour in the centre, and a former university residence that was in use by a provincial Italian archbishop.
Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said: "Neither the cardinals' commission nor I will make comments to confirm or deny the things that are said about this matter. Let each one assume his or her own responsibilities. We shall not be following up on the observations that are made about this."
He added that interpretations of the report were creating "a tension that is the opposite of what the pope and the church want" in the approach to the conclave of cardinals that will elect Benedict's successor. Another Italian daily, Corriere della Sera, alluded to the dossier soon after the pope announced his resignation on 11 February, describing its contents as "disturbing".
The three-man commission of inquiry into the Vatileaks affair was headed by a Spanish cardinal, Julián Herranz. He was assisted by Cardinal Salvatore De Giorgi, a former archbishop of Palermo, and the Slovak cardinal Jozef Tomko, who once headed the Vatican's department for missionaries.
Pope Benedict has said he will stand down at the end of this month; the first pope to resign voluntarily since Celestine V more than seven centuries ago. Since announcing his departure he has twice apparently referred to machinations inside the Vatican, saying that divisions "mar the face of the church", and warned against "the temptations of power".
La Repubblica's report was the latest in a string of claims that a gay network exists in the Vatican. In 2007 a senior official was suspended from the congregation, or department, for the priesthood, after he was filmed in a "sting" organised by an Italian television programme while apparently making sexual overtures to a younger man.
In 2010 a chorister was dismissed for allegedly procuring male prostitutes for a papal gentleman-in-waiting. A few months later a weekly news magazine used hidden cameras to record priests visiting gay clubs and bars and having sex.
The Vatican does not condemn homosexuals. But it teaches that gay sex is "intrinsically disordered". Pope Benedict has barred sexually active gay men from studying for the priesthood. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/21/pope-retired-amid-gay-bishop-blackmail-inquiry
Obesity is in the news again- but how does the UK compare to the rest of the world?The World Health Organisation(WHO) database contains global comparisons of overweight and obesity prevalence broken down over time. The map below shows the overweight and obesity (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²) prevalence by gender and country. Click on the map to see the figures by place and use the drop down menu to change year displayed, or explore the table below
WASN`T it? Yesterday I mean. Spring announced itself in Delhi.
The sun was out, and the law took its course. Just before breakfast, Afzal Guru, prime accused in the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament, was secretly hanged, and his body was interred in Tihar jail.
Was he buried next to Maqbool Butt? (The other Kashmiri who was hanged in Tihar in 1984.
Kashmiris will mark that anniversary on Monday.) Afzal`s wife and son were not informed. `The authorities intimated the family through speed post and registered post,` the Home Secretary told the press.
`The Director General of J&K police has been told to check whether they got it or not.
No big deal, they`re only the family of a Kashmiri terrorist.
In a moment of rare unity the nation, or at least its major political parties, the Congress, the BJP and the CPM, came together as one (barring a few squabbles about `delay` and `timing`) to celebrate the triumph of the rule of law.
The conscience of the nation, which broadcasts live from TV studios these days, unleashed its collective intellect on us the usual cocktail of papal passion and a delicate grip on facts. Even though the man was dead andgone, like cowards that hunt in packs, they seemed to need each other to keep their courage up.
Perhaps because deep inside themselves they know that they all colluded to do something terribly wrong.
What are the facts?
On Dec 13, 2001, five armed men drove through the gates of the Parliament House in a white Ambassador fitted out with an IED (improvised explosive device). When they were challenged they jumped out of the car and opened fire. They killed eight security personnel and a gardener.
In the gun battle that followed all five attackers were killed.
In one of the many versions of confessions he made in police custody, Afzal Guru identified the men as Mohammed, Rana, Raja, Hamza and Haider. That`s all we know about them even today. L.K.
Advani, the then Home Minister, said they `looked like Pakistanis`.
(He should know what Pakistanis look like, right? Being a Sindhi himself.) Based only on Afzal`s confession (which the Supreme Court subsequently set aside citing `lapses` and `violations of procedural safeguards.`) the government of India recalled its ambassador from Pakistan and mobilised half a million soldiers to the Pakistan bor-der. There was talk of nuclear war.
Foreign embassies issued travel advisories and evacuated their staff from Delhi. The standoff lasted for months and cost India thousands of crores.
On Dec 14, the Delhi police special cell claimed it had cracked the case. On Dec 15 it arrested the `mastermind`, Professor S.A.R Geelani, in Delhi and Showkat Guru and Afzal Guru in a fruit market in Srinagar. Subsequently they arrested Afsan Guru, Showkat`s wife.
The media enthusiastically disseminated the special cell`s version. These were some of the headlines: `DU Lecturer was Terror Plan Hub`, `Varsity Don Guided Fidayeen`, `Don Lectured on Terror in Free Time.` Zee TV broadcast a `docudrama` called `December 13`, a recreation that claimed to be the `Truth Based on the Police Charge Sheet.` (If the police version is the truth, then why have courts?) Then Prime Minister Vajpayee and L.K.
Advani publicly appreciated the film.
The Supreme Court refused to stay the screening saying that the media would not influence judges.
The film was broadcast only a few days before the fast track court sentenced Afzal, Showkat and Geelani to death. Subsequentlythe High Court acquitted the `mastermind`, Professor S.A.R Geelani, and Afsan Guru. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal. But in its 5th August 2005 judgment it gave Mohammed Afzal three life sentences and a double death sentence.
Contrary to the lies that have been put about by some senior journalists who would have known better, Afzal Guru was not one of `the terrorists who stormed Parliament House on December 13th 2001` nor was he among SITUATIONER those who `opened fire on security personnel, apparently killing three of the six who died.` (That was Chandan Mitra, now a BJP Rajya Sabha MP, in The Pioneer, October 7th 2006). Even the police charge sheet does not accuse him of that.
The Supreme Court judgment says the evidence is circumstantial: `As is the case with most conspiracies, there is and could be no direct evidence amounting to criminal conspiracy.
But then it goes on to say: `The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties had shaken the entire nation, and the collective conscience of society will only be sat-isfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender.
Who crafted our collective conscience on the Parliament Attack case? Could it have been the facts we gleaned in the papers? The films we saw on TV? There are those who will argue that the very fact that the courts acquitted S.A.R Geelani and convicted Afzal proves that the trial was free and fair. Was it? The trial in the fast-track court began in May 2002. The world was still convulsed by post 9/11 frenzy.
The US government was gloating prematurely over its `victory` in Afghanistan. The Gujarat pogrom was ongoing. And in the Parliament Attack case, the Law was indeed taking its own course.
At the most crucial stage of a criminal case, when evidence is presented, when witnesses are cross-examined, when the foundations of the argument are laid in the High Court and Supreme Court you can only argue points of law, you cannot introduce new evidence Afzal Guru, locked in a high security solitary cell, had no lawyer. The court appointed junior lawyer did not visit his client even once in jail, he did not summon any witnesses in Afzal`s defence and did not cross examine the prosecution witnesses. The judge expressed his inability to do any-thing about the situation.
Even still, from the word go, the case fell apart. A few examples out of many: How did the police get to Afzal? They said that S.A.R Geelani led them to him. But the court records show that the message to arrest Afzal went out before they picked up Geelani. The High Court called this a `material contradiction` but left it at that.
The two most incriminating pieces of evidence against Afzal were a cellphone and a laptop confiscated at the time of arrest. The Arrest Memos were signed by Bismillah, Geelani`s brother, in Delhi. The Seizure Memos were signed by two men of the J&K Police, one of them an old tormentor from Afzal`s past as a surrendered `militant`.
The computer and cellphone were not sealed, as evidence is required to be. During the trial it emerged that the hard disc of the laptop had been accessed after the arrest. It only contained the fake home ministry passes and the fake identity cards that the `terrorists` used to access Parliament.
And a Zee TV video clip of Parliament House. So according to the police, Afzal had deleted all the information except the most incriminating bits, and he was speeding off to hand it over toGhazi Baba, who the charge sheet described as the Chief of Operations.
A witness for the prosecution, Kamal Kishore, identified Afzal and told the court he had sold him the crucial SIM card that connected all the accused in the case to each other on the 4th of December 2001. But the prosecutions own call records showed that the SIM was actually operational from November 6th 2001.
It goes on and on, this pile up of lies and fabricated evidence. The courts note them, but for their pains the police get no more than a gentle rap on their knuckles.
Nothing more.
Then there`s the back story.
Like most surrendered militants Afzal was easy meat in Kashmir a victim of torture, blackmail, extortion. In the larger scheme of things he was a nobody. Anyone who was really interested in solving the mystery of the Parliament Attack would have followed the dense trail of evidence that was on offer. No one did, thereby ensuring that the real authors of conspiracy will remain unidentified and un-investigated.
Now that Afzal Guru has been hanged, I hope our collective conscience has been satisfied. Or is our cup of blood still only half full?
The death penalty given by Supreme Court of india to hang Mohammad Afzal Guru on October 20, 2006, has been executed. Defending Afzal Guru, Arundhati Roy said that the Supreme Court’s ruling which says that Afzal Guru must be hanged ‘to satisfy the collective will of the nation’ although there is no proof of his involvement is in itself unconstitutional.
Afzal Guru’s hanging will reinforce the perception of two sets of legal norms prevalent in a society polarising fast on communal lines, says Ram Puniyani
By Ram Puniyani, Combat Law
There were two petitions with the President, one demanding Afzal’s immediate hanging and the other asking for clemency and reducing his punishment to a life sentence. Guru was one of the accused in the case of assault on Parliament on December 13, 2001, in which, eight security personnel and one gardener were killed. Guru was not found to be part of any terrorist outfit, nor did he play any direct role in the same. In the trial that took place the provisions of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, had not been respected. Supreme Court noted that there is no direct evidence of his involvement. The evidence was mainly circumstantial. All three courts including the apex court have acquitted him of the charges under POTA of belonging to either a terrorist organisation or a terrorist gang. Court also noted that the evidence was fabricated. Most importantly, he was not given any worthwhile legal assistance to defend him during interrogation.
When Ram Jethmalani offered to be the lawyer for SAR Geelani, the Hindutva goons attacked his office. One also recalls here that the lawyers offering to hold the brief of accused in July 11, 2006 Mumbai blasts were also threatened by Hindutva outfit, a real case of cowardly display of pseudo-patriotism. At best, Guru was facilitator in the crime and not a part of directly perpetrating the crime, and the evidence against him is mere circumstantial and that the police lied about the time and place of arrest, fabricated evidence including arrest memos and extracted false confessions. Court noted that he was not a member of any banned organisation, “The conviction under section 3 (2) of POTA is set aside. The conviction under section 3 (5) of POTA is also set aside because there is no evidence that he is a member of a terrorist organisation, once the confessional statement is excluded. Incidentally, we may mention that even going by confessional statement, it is doubtful whether the membership of a terrorist gang or organisation is established.” Further that since “The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender.” So does it mean that the punishment is being given to assuage the collective national conscience? One must add what is presented as this conscience is the consciousness of the section of dominant middle classes.
Many a human rights activist of repute sat on a dharna demanding the commutation of the death sentence, to life imprisonment. They issued appeals to the same effect and also have floated the petitions for clemency. Not to be left behind another section of activists have floated counter petitions demanding nothing short of death penalty for this “terrorist”. In various talk shows, the angry audience is hooting down those talking of the facts of the case and asking for leniency in the light of the holes in the story built by the police authorities. There are two major questions involved in the case. One, that death penalty should be given in the rarest of rare cases, and two when world over the brutal capital punishment is being done away with, should we stick to it? The other peripheral issues which are trying to undermine the basic issues are the hysterical nationalism of Hindu right and sections of society who cannot think that the crime of those accused of acts of terror also needs to be proved before they are punished, and that the punishment has to commensurate with the crime. For them once Supreme Court has ruled the doors for clemency are closed.
The base on which Supreme Court has given the judgment has been built by the police with methods which are questionable, which have also been reprimanded by the court in this case. The argument on the other side is that if Guru is not hanged it will be an insult to those who have laid their lives for defending Parliament. And that other terrorist acts a la Kandahar may be undertaken to bargain for his release. The other question, which has got mixed up with this, is the fate of peace process, which is going on in Kashmir and South Asia as a whole. In the visual media debates, one can see the hysterical nationalism oozing from every pore of Hindu right wing and some others.
Some Muslim spokespersons of this or the other party are finding this as the best opportunity to wear their patriotism on their sleeves by taking blinded firm positions against any consideration of clemency. This became most obvious when Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi of BJP went to the extent of denying that Bhagat Singh’s kin can ever make a clemency petition in this case, to the loud applause of the studio audience. As matter of fact Bhagat Singh’s kin Prof Jagmohan Singh and Anand Patwardhan, the noted documentary filmmaker and rights activist, had issued the appeal carried by the media. It is unlikely that the BJP spokesperson would have missed it; any way some times even feigned ignorance is bliss to pursue one’s political assertions! The response of letter writers in the newspaper columns is no different. Most of them demanding the blood of this ‘terrorist’! Nothing else can reflect the state of social common sense in the society. By now communal violence has become passé in the society. It is justified to the extent that those involved in this are neither punished nor even looked down upon. On the other hand anybody remotely linked to acts of terror can be hanged without any pangs of conscience, communal patriotism at its worst on display.
The impression is gaining ground that there are two legal systems in India. One, where the killer of Graham Staines is spared the noose and is hailed as Hindu dharma rakshak. While the other one is for those who belong to the minorities
While Supreme Court deserves all the respect, one has to see that the primary investigation done by the police, whatever its flaws forms the base of the judgment. When that investigation has holes, should it be accepted as it is presented? When the primary culprits are either dead or absconding, can the whole truth be out’? Or is it that somebody has anyway to be punished to quench the thirst for revenge, and who better than the one who has a Muslim name and happens to be from Kashmir.
The whole trial of Afzal needs to be looked at again; the flaws of the investigation, the weakness of and deliberate violation of norms by police authorities and the absence of competent legal assistance to Afzal should alert us to the fact that something is seriously amiss in the whole story. The worst fallout of hanging of Afzal will be that the real truth will remain buried in the shoddy investigation and the real culprits may not be apprehended at all, who so ever they are.
Mere being guided by Islamophobia is no guarantee for the correctness of the story of prosecution. Afzal’s letters and the appeal of his wife have a lot to tell which has been ignored. Even the role of media in reaching Afzal to hangman’s noose should be looked at carefully; we need to question that ‘trail by media’ should not become the base of our legal system. The quality of the judgments is the backbone of the strength of democracy. State is all-powerful to hang someone on the shoddy ground but at the same time it will be hanging the very concept of a just legal system. Lets have a look at the vulnerability of Afzal Guru, a Kashmiri, a poor man and an ex-militant not being able to afford the legal cover. Is that not ground enough to re-look at the case? Even the latest verdict of apex court, that presidential pardon is subject to review by the same system, which has given punishment, nullifies the very basic of the provision of presidential pardon. It needs to be debated whether the President will have this power or from now on there will be no appeal once the apex court has given its verdict even if that be based on the investigation full of gaping holes.
Kashmir has been reduced to ‘our’ real estate, where we are posting lakhs of our soldiers to deal with couple of thousand of militants! Surely if there is one Indian soldier for every seventh Kashmiri, no wonder Kashmiris will see it as an occupation army. After having said that, the punishment being meted out to Guru is not commensurate with the crime done by him, one will also endorse that the very notion of capital punishment is nothing but barbarism, and it does not become dignified if it is given to a suspected terrorist. Many of those otherwise swearing by non-violence are so communalised at core that they are at the forefront of some or other moves demanding the hanging of Guru.
One can understand that for the RSS and its affiliates this is the golden opportunity to display their patriotism, partly also to wash the sin of accompanying the terrorists to Kandahar by one of their ministers. One can also understand the success of RSS in communalising the social thinking to the extent that now truth and humane values have ceased to matter in the face of communal thinking. Justice is being converted into revenge and punishment is meant to further communalise the society rather than a means of reform, rather than being an occasion to introspect as to why such crimes are going on. Surely, no one is born a terrorist and no one likes to resort to these means by choice. What are the deeper circumstances due to which these acts of violence are taking place needs to be given a thought. One understands that terrorism is a mere symptom of the underlying disease, which has roots in injustices somewhere. One understands killing the terrorists cannot finish the terrorism. For that the underlying causes have to be addressed.
The perpetrators of communal violence not only get away with their crimes but also sometimes they get promotions, as in the case of Ramdeo Tyagi of Maharashtra, the man who led the bloody attack on Suleiman Bakery in Mumbai during 92-93 riots
The double standards of our society and legal system are becoming glaringly apparent. The perpetrators of communal violence not only get away with their crimes but also sometimes they get promotions, as in the case of Ramdeo Tyagi of Maharashtra, the one who led the attack on Suleiman Bakery in Mumbai during 92-93 riots. Hundreds of police officials who have been named in the inquiry commission reports are enjoying the ‘fruits’ of their crimes of omission and commission. The long arm of law could not even touch Bal Thackeray and Narendra Modi, who have been the main architects of Mumbai and Gujarat riots respectively. On the contrary they landed up increasing their political clout after presiding over these genocides. While the perpetrators of Mumbai riots are having a gala time, the culprits of subsequent bomb blasts are being meted out the punishments due to them. The general impression is gaining ground in the society that by now there are two legal systems in the society. One for the followers of Hindu communalism, where killer of Pastor Graham Staines, Dara Singh, is spared the noose and is hailed as Hindu dharma rakshak (protector of Hindu faith), the perpetrators of communal violence who get away with ease. The other one is for those who belong to minorities. In their case even the remotest association with the terror attacks is ground enough for hanging or the severest possible punishment.
In Kashmir, Indian army is seen as the occupation army, thousands of innocents have been tortured by this army, and Chittisinghpura is just a tip of iceberg. The hanging of Maqbool Butt in 1984 did give a feeling of alienation and later a boost to militancy. Who do we blame for that? Those calling for a hangman for Guru surely are bent upon repeating the process. Nation can watch the hanging of those who have not committed the crime of such a severe proportion, but while hanging them what processes will be unleashed need to be seen overcoming the communal myopia. We must distinguish between the hysterical nationalism of the likes of those demanding the hanging and the humane nationalism wanting to call for reconsideration of the punishment meted out, to quench the feverish pitch of communalised sections of society. This hanging has surely reinforced the perception of two sets of legal norms, which are prevalent in the country.
Partial list of endorsors so far: Anand Patwardhan, Arundhati Roy, Noam Chomsky, Sister Helen Prejean, Harsh Mandar, S. A. R. Geelani, Sandeep Pandey, Justice Suresh, Gautam Navlakha, Ved Bhasin, Ziauddin Sardar Praful Bidwai, Ram Puniyani, Dionne Bunsha, Jyoti Punwani, Asgar Ali Engineer, Ammu Abraham.
Send in your endorsments today!
Please also support a new petition to the President. It is sponsored by Mukul Dube, N. D. Pancholi and Harsh Kapoor |Click here
By Indira Jaising, Hindustan Times, 20 Jan., 2007
To send a man to his death without legal representation is not only unconstitutional but also barbaric | Click
A letter to NDTV by N. D. Pancholi (Afzal Guru's lawyer), 26 Dec., 2006
"Your repeated news bulletins over two days reduced the issue of the hanging of Afzal and his Mercy Petition pending with the President to a very simplistic solution "Show repeatedly the video tape (an unlawful piece of evidence) of the alleged confession of Afzal recorded in police custody as breaking news, convince the viewers that it has brought out the ultimate truth, ask them to send SMS messages to NDTV conveying their opinions about the "—Phansi" (hanging) of Afzal, and then pour out the "—collective opinion" gathered in this manner to pave the way for the prompt hanging of Afzal."What a simple, quick solution of an issue involving the life and death of a citizen!"| Click
Media bending the truth to push Afzal to the gallows
-- Bv Arundhati Roy, Hindustan Times, 23 December 2006. | Click
India's shame -- Bv Arundhati Roy, The Guardian, 15 December 2006. | Click
If the proceedings of the trial of Afzal guru and three others before the designated judge under POTA were to be videographed one would have understood the trivialization of rule of law in this country.
-- K. G. Kannabiran, President People's Union for Civil Liberties. | Click
A letter to Hindustan Times by Sandeep Vaidya, 25 Dec., 2006. | Click
Afzal Guru’s hanging will reinforce the perception of two sets of legal
norms prevalent in a society polarising fast on communal lines,
says Ram Puniyani By Ram Puniyani, Combat Law, Nov - Dec 2006 | Click
It will remind Kashmiris once again how communal and biased
Indians are when it comes to Kashmir. By Inam ul Rehman, Kashmir Affairs | Click
Kashmir sees another son being hanged
When a Delhi court awarded death sentence to the Kashmiri
Muhammad Afzal Guru, what first came to minds of the
agonized Kashmiris was a previous hanging in Delhi’s Tihar jail.
That hanging changed not only the course of Kashmir history,
but also resulted in a drastic change in the political thinking of
Kashmiris says Pervez Majeed.Kashmir Affairs | Click
The Very Strange Story of the Attack on the Indian Parliament
-- By Arundhati Roy, Outlook, 30 October 2006
"To invoke the 'collective conscience of society' to validate ritual murder,
which is what the death penalty is, skates precariously close to valorising
lynch law.It's chilling to think that this has been laid upon us not by
predatory politicians or sensation-seeking journalists (though they too have
done that), but as an edict from the highest court in the land."
The case of a Kashmiri Muslim convicted for terrorism raises serious
questions about the operation of Indian democracy, says Shubh Mathur Link
. Unfortunately no one from both the sides, for as well as against
the execution, is looking at the real background of the whole episode.
It is a pity that even those who have been continuously protesting
against this execution and claim to stand for the rights of Kashmiris
have not been able to project their case in the right perspective,
says M. Ashraf. Article | Greater Kashmir Online
"I don't know how many of you are aware of the Intelligence Bureau or
Home Ministry again making attempts to use media as a tool."
By Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal, Executive Editor of Kashmir Times. Click
The Supreme Court acknowledges that Mohammed Afzal Guru is not a
terrorist and that they have no direct evidence against him. Is he on
death row on the basis of a shoddy probe? Mihir Srivastava looks at
critical questions still unanswered. Link
The Economic and Political Weekly, September 17, 2005
Three judicial pronouncements have been made on the Parliament attack case
including the latest Supreme Court judgment. But certain questions are still
unanswered: Who attacked Parliament and what was the conspiracy? On what
basis did the NDA government take the country close to a nuclear war? What were
the roles of the state task force of Jammu and Kashmir and special cell of Delhi police
investigating the cases? Given the momentous nature of these questions, for the
future of Indian democracy nothing less than a Parliamentary enquiry is necessary
to provide the answers.
IT is often stated that the real reason behind the world’s perennial financial, economic and political crises is the lack of ethical leadership.
If one ponders over the state of affairs in Pakistan as well, it becomes clear that it is also the singular lack of leadership that is driving the country into the abyss.
Leadership can be commonly defined as directly or indirectly influencing others, by means of formal authority or personal attributes, to act in accordance with one’s intent or a shared purpose.
There is an emphasis on the role of ‘transformational’ leadership in academic circles these days. It has been preferred as a better mode of leadership than ‘transactional’ leadership, which is characterised by a swapping, trading or bargaining motive in an exchange process between a leader and the led.
Transactional leadership lacks lasting engagement between the two sides as both ‘use’ one another as we commonly see in material exchanges. On the contrary, transformational leadership involves the mutual ‘raising’ of both sides to higher levels of motivation and morality.
It is acknowledged that authentic transformational leadership must rest on a moral foundation of legitimate values. The difference between authentic and pseudo-transformational leadership lies in the presence or absence of such a moral foundation of the leader.
In addition, leaders in different spheres of life may impart ethical values to followers who seek guidance from authorities they respect and trust. However, if the values spread are unethical, these authorities are pseudo-transformational, as we commonly see in Pakistan. Ironically, although still eyed with suspicion, spirituality at the workplace has gained currency in the West and there is even talk of spiritual leadership in Western academic circles.
Spirituality based leadership, academically, does not differ much from leadership, but rather proposes that leadership must be based on self-realisation, personal character, and foster integrity and character throughout the organisation. Besides virtuous behaviour, spirituality looks for transcendence in human life. Consciousness and affirmation of the higher self is considered essential in spiritual leadership behaviour for engendering care for others.
The moral development of the leader, thus, embraces the individual, familial and spiritual dynamics of the personality. Small wonder, then, that transformational leadership incorporates terms such as ethics, character, transcendence etc. Such leaders receive power without seeking it.
We can find accounts of these leadership styles in spiritual and religious traditions. We find authentic transformational leadership to be more consistent than transactional leadership with Islamic traditions. In Islam, the general philosophy of life centres on Tawhid — the oneness of the Creator.
From this unity of the Creator follows the unity of creation, and unity of purpose in the life of a human being. In the Islamic concept of the universe, man has been appointed as a vicegerent (khalifah) on this earth by God and everything has been given to him in trust (amanah).
As part of society, he has to perform his duties while being conscious of that trust. In fact, there are verses of the Quran pointing to the same concept: “Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: “I will create a vicegerent on earth. …” (2:30).
Leadership in Islam is considered a trust. A leader is entrusted with leading a group of people or managing an organisation. The leader is responsible as well as accountable. There are two levels of trust: responsibility and accountability. Trust goes with responsibility and accountability as is depicted in the following verse: “O David! We did indeed make thee a vicegerent on earth: so judge thou between men in truth (and justice): Nor follow thou the lusts (of thy heart), for they will mislead thee from the path of Allah: for those who wander astray from the path of Allah, is a penalty grievous, for that they forget the Day of Account” (38:26).
Islam acknowledges that leadership is exercised at different levels. A well-known prophetic tradition outlines the concept of multi-level leadership: “Each of you is a guardian and is responsible for his subjects. The ruler, who has authority over people, is a guardian and is responsible for them. … So, all of you are guardians and are responsible for your charges” (Muslim, 2000, 663).
Thus, leadership has to be exercised at the level of the family, community, organisation and country. A leader is accountable to God primarily, but he/she is accountable to the people/follower as well. The Prophet (PBUH) has been quoted to have said: “If a person dies having cheated the people he/she was entrusted with, he/she will not smell the scent of paradise” (Muslim, 2000).
In fact, one should not seek a leadership role in Islam for the sake of power but only when one has the expertise to help others in a crisis situation. Interestingly, it is quite contrary to what we see these days when all and sundry make a beeline for the corridors of power for any potential benefit.
Many prophetic traditions emphasise that appointments to leadership positions should be mainly based on qualifications and the ability to do the job. A Quranic verse states: “…Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. …” (49:13).
The preceding discussion informs us that the world in general and Pakistan in particular urgently needs transformational leadership bordering on spiritual leadership which must rest on moral foundations.
More importantly, only those must be considered for positions of leadership who are competent and qualified for the job and who are not only conscious of their immense responsibilities but also mindful of ultimate accountability to the higher (divine) self.
The writer is member of the adjunct faculty at Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Scotland.
Egyptian society remains polarised, two years after the start of the country's popular uprising.
Mass street protests in Egypt have marked the second anniversary of the country's revolution, as many promises remain unfulfilled and the population is still bitterly divided.
"What we have seen is basically the military holding on to power and possibly even striking a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood so that it cements these powers ... and the Muslim Brotherhood have long abandoned revolutionary goals over the past two years and they have fed the public nothing but lies." - Wael Eskandar, journalist & political activist
January 25, 2011 was the start of 18 days that shook the Middle East when hundreds of thousands of people filled Tahrir Square, demanding new jobs, education, the right to form political parties, a free press, and the end of dictatorship.
That uprising swept President Hosni Mubarak from power and brought democracy to what is the region's most populous country; but two years on, many Egyptians feel they have little to celebrate about.
While some of their demands have been met, the country is still grappling with big problems. And Egyptians are more divided than ever on how to fix them.
In the last two years, Egyptian society has become increasingly polarised, with liberals, leftists and secularists on one side and President Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood, and a government dominated by Islamists on the other.
Part of that divide is the perception that the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to keep as much power as it can. The challenge for Morsi is convincing the Egyptian people that he is a leader for all Egyptians.
He has had a turbulent seven months in office but his party is keen to highlight the government's achievements, including bringing an end to military rule and the election of Egypt's first civilian president.
"I would question, as I have from the outset, whether there has been actually a revolution in Egypt at all. I never thought there has been one and I still don't think there has been one exactly. What you had was a popular uprising that forced regime decapitation by the military and then you have had a process of a very delicate dance between certain political parties ... and the military about a form of power sharing." - Hussein Ibish, foreign policy contributor
The elections also produced a house of parliament, though the lower house has been dissolved.
A new constitution was written and endorsed by the people in a popular referendum. But much of what is in that constitution is also one of the opposition's biggest grievances.
Mubarak was put on trial but his case hit a hurdle after he was granted a retrial.
And despite Egypt's deep economic problems, the government says foreign investment is starting to trickle in.
Samsung recently signed a $1.7bn deal to build its first Middle East factory in Egypt. And regional neighbours like Qatar have earmarked billions of dollars in grants and loans.
But, two years after the revolution, Morsi will still have to address the demands that brought people on to the streets: better wages, more job opportunities and a more just society.
To discuss the state of Egypt's revolution, Inside Story with presenter Hazem Sika is joined by guests: Wael Eskandar, a blogger, journalist and political activist; and Hussein Ibish, a regular political contributor to publications such asForeign Policy magazine, The Atlantic, and Al Hayat.
It is well known that the critics and enemies of Islam after failing to find any logical, rational argument against true teachings if Islam indulge in mud slinging against the person of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). For this purpose they try to twist the historic narratives from Islamic sources. As you know that history has its … Continue reading»
Fatimah bint Asad, was the mother of ‘Ali bin Abu Talib, and the mother-in-law of the Prophet’s daughter, Fatimah bint Muhammad. Her grandsons, Hasan and Husain are to be the leaders of the youths of Paradise. Besides ‘Ali, she had two other sons, Ja’far Tayyir who was a famous General. He led the forces of Islam in the battle of Mu’tah and was martyred in the same battle.
When the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] grew up and proclaimed himself to be the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] and Last Messenger of Allah, she still stood by him. All the relentless persecution did not deter her in any way. She was exceptionally fond of her son Ja’far, but for the sake of Islam she bore the separation from him and his wife, Asma bint ‘Omais, when they migrated to Abyssiniah on the Prophet’s orders with the first group of migrant Muslims.
Fatimah bint Asad, being one of the first to swear allegiance to Islam and its concept of the Oneness of Allah, faced the economic and social boycott of the Shi’ab Abi Talib for those three terrible years. She was also a member of the privileged group who migrated to Madinah.
‘Abdul Muttalib, who was a very discriminating man, had assessed her nature, her intelligence and her capabilities from the very beginning and proposed for her for his son, Abu Talib. When the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] was told by Allah to spread the Message of Islam among his kith and kin, it was she who immediately accepted this invitation and swore allegiance and entered the fold of Islam. When the Prophet’s grandfather, ‘Abdul Muttalib, passed away, the guardianship of the orphan Muhammad [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] passed on to Abu Talib . His wife, Fatimah bint Asad, looked after him, loving him as if he were her own. He remembered in his later life that she would go hungry to feed him. He respected her so highly that whenever she visited him he would stand up and receive her with great love, addressing her as ‘Mother’.
His uncle, too, loved him deeply. Muhammad [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] in his childhood was so well mannered and so fastidious about his personal cleanliness that Abu Talib would hold him up as an example to his other children. Normally boys would be dirty and tousled from playing rough games with the other boys, but Muhammad [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] was always dignified with a neat appearance. People were impressed when they saw him. Abu Talib liked all the children to eat together because he felt that whenever Muhammad [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] ate with other children, food would be sufficient, and when the children ate alone, they would remain hungry. Abu Talib often told his nephew that he was specially blessed, as there was plenty when he was around.
Fatimah bint Asad did not spare any pains and looked after the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] in his infancy, boyhood and youth. Once in his childhood he accompanied his uncle on a business trip to Syria. Some very unusual and surprising incidents took place on the journey, and Abu Talib described these to his wife when they came back.
The Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] placed the invitation to a religion with a new and rational perspective before the Quraish of Makkah, the worshippers of all the false idols in the Ka’bah were infuriated. They could not dream that the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] would dismiss their gods as useless helpless creatures, and they became his bitter enemies for propagating a new faith that did away with their traditional and inherited practices. They adopted a very antagonistic attitude and swore to crush him and Islam. During this period they resorted to the most cruel and sadistic forms of torture to make the converts give up the new faith and return to their old barbaric practices and rituals. It was only the power and influence of Abu Talib that prevented them from doing any harm to Muhammad. He stood by him with all his love and carried out the responsibilities of a guardian faithfully by giving him his protection. No enemy could dare to do anything to him as long as he was under the mantle of his uncle’s protection.
Fatimah bint Asad cooperated with Abu Talib wholeheartedly and she was a mother, pure and simple, where the safety and well being of Muhammad [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] was concerned. No wonder he loved and respected her so highly. Considering the dangerous conditions which developed for the Muslims in Makkah, he thought it was better that the Muslims migrate to Abyssiniah where the ruler was known to be tolerant and hospitable. The leader of this first group of migrants was Ja’far bin Abi Talib, the brother of ‘Ali, and the favorite son of Fatimah bint Asad. She loved him more than the others because he resembled Muhammad [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] very much, and was extremely intelligent.
He seemed to have inherited the family’s mastery over language and was also an eloquent speaker who could win people over to his viewpoint. It was with this same skill that he had won over the king of Abyssiniah when the Quraish appealed to him to surrender the Muslims to them.
The Quraish now decided to restrict the Muslims to one small area, besiege them and boycott them. Social and economic sanctions were imposed, and these three years were perhaps the toughest that the followers of lslam faced. Economically, it was certainly the worst ever. Children could be heard on all sides sobbing with hunger, and the elders looked on helplessly with tears in their eyes. To satisfy their hunger they started eating the leaves of trees and grass; they even sucked on wet skins to slake their thirst. Fatimah bint Asad passed this terrible period with fortitude and patience, and did not waver in the smallest degree. Ten years after the first revelation to Muhammad [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] appointing him the Messenger of Allah, this harsh siege was finally lifted. It was in the same year that the Prophet’s wife and most faithful supporter, Khadijah, passed away. The pangs of separation from her were very strong for the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] . He had not yet recovered from her loss, when he was dealt another terrible blow – his best ally, Abu Talib, also passed away. This year is known as ‘The Year of Sorrows’ in Islamic history.
The torture and torment, atrocities and cruelties reached such proportions that Allah finally ordered the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] to migrate to Madinah. Fatimah bint Asad was among these migrants.
“So patience is most fitting. And it is Allah Whose help can be sought against that (lie) which you describe.” (12:18)
Anas bin Malik says that when the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] got news of the death of Fatimah bint Asad, he immediately went to her house, sat beside her and prayed for her.
“My dear mother, may Allah keep you under His Protection. Many times you went hungry in order to feed me well. You fed me and clothed me on delicacies that you denied yourself. Allah will surely be happy with these actions of yours. And your intentions were surely meant to win the goodwill and pleasure of Allah and success in the Hereafter.”
He gave his shirt to be used as part of her shroud, saying he prayed to Allah to forgive her and give her the dress of Paradise.
‘When the grave was prepared the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] himself examined it and with his own hands placed her into the grave.
Thus, she was one of the few blessed people whose graves the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] himself examined.
“Fatimah bint Asad is that great lady for whom he gave the glad tidings that she would be blessed with a place in Paradise. He said that he shrouded her with his shirt, praying that Allah would give her the dress of Paradise. Allah pleased with them and they pleased Allah.”
Taken from the book: Great Women of Islam (Who were given the good news of Paradise) By: Mahmoud Ahmad Ghadanfar Revised by: Sheikh Safur-Rahman Al Mubarak puri which may be purchased at :http://www.dar-us-salam.com/store/main.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=Dus&Product_Code=125&Category_Code=Eng_Womenas well as other places.
