A new challenge to Muslim world

The challenge to the Muslim world’s stability presented by the Islamic State, earlier known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), has become quite serious over the past few days.

Baghdadi’s organisation comprising the breakaway extremist faction of Al Qaeda has made significant gains in Iraq. Following its capture of minor oil fields and demolition of quite a few heritage monuments it has seized control of the large dam on the Tigris and the international media is now warning of the possibility of a catastrophic flood.

These fears may appear exaggerated but the conflict in Syria continues, an incident has been reported on the border of Lebanon and according to an agency report, Saudi Arabia is strengthening its defences along the border with Iraq. The Arab fratricide is obviously taking a heavier toll than expected earlier.

The people of Pakistan should be concerned that the slogan of caliphate has spread to India. NewAgeIslam, a well-known online forum for debate on Muslim affairs, has disclosed a charter of demands presented by a leading Muslim scholar, Maulana Salman Husain Nadvi, urging Saudi Arabia to establish a caliphate.

The people of Pakistan should be concerned that the slogan of caliphate has spread to India
Maulana Nadvi is reported to have pleaded for a world Islamic army and argued against branding the religious militants as terrorists. Instead, these “sincere Muslim youth fighting for a noble cause” should be united in a confederation of jihadi organisations for worldwide action under the guidance of the ulema.

Maulana Nadvi is quoted as saying: “As for the issue of Qadianis, particularly Safavids [meaning Iran?] and those who abuse the sahaba [meaning Shias], we should not be afraid of them and we do not need to go to the US or Israel to ward off threats from them. Just recruit the Ahle-Sunnah youth from the Indian subcontinent [does that include Pakistan?] and form a powerful Muslim army of the Islamic world. After that there will be no need of the so-called army of the sick youth of the Gulf states.

If you are sincere towards the true faith, true path, Sunnah and for the protection of the true path of Islam, then simply make an appeal, a call. Five lakh youth from the Indian subcontinent will be provided.”

Maulana Nadvi is also quoted as saying: “Military training among the Muslim youth should be stressed. Every effort should be made to save them from freedom and social evils.”

Pakistani religious circles should not be unfamiliar with Maulana Nadvi. His grandfather, Syed Suleman Nadvi, a close associate of Shibli Naumani, was at one stage adviser to the Pakistan government. It is not easy to believe that Maulana Nadvi is unaware of the contradiction between his call for an all-powerful khalifa and the Quranic dictum that Muslims decide their matters through mutual consultation, or that he does not realise the consequences of his posturing for the Muslim world, the Indian Muslims in particular.

The logic of Maulana Nadvi’s letter, if it has been correctly reported, leads to the politics of religious exclusivism that has already caused the Muslims of the subcontinent colossal harm. Regardless of their reading of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) rise to power the best course for the Muslims of India, as indeed for Muslims anywhere else, is to adopt non-theocratic, inclusive political ideals.

Apart from the fear that Maulana Nadvi’s policy will exacerbate Shia-Sunni differences in India and elsewhere, the Indian Muslims’ relapse into communal politics, and revival of their suicidal tendency to look for succour beyond the national frontiers, will strengthen the rabid communalists in India’s majority community, especially among the BJP and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh hawks, and further undermine the state’s secular assumptions. Any such development is bound to strengthen conservative and anti-democratic elements in Pakistan.

The need to repel the arguments of the new advocates of caliphate cannot be gainsaid. Unfortunately, the question of caliphate, its justification or otherwise, has not been seriously debated in Pakistan. The Muslims living in the Pakistan territories in the 1920s took the Khilafat agitation (1919-1924) perhaps a little more seriously than their co-religionists elsewhere in the subcontinent. They fought for the Turkish caliphate with more passion than reason and cursed the British for not heeding their prayers for saving the caliph though his own community had had enough of him.

The subject was discussed by Allama Iqbal in the last of his 1930 lectures, published under the title The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, and he defended the decision of the Turkish Grand National Assembly that the functions of the caliph could be performed by democratically elected representatives of the people.

Iqbal quoted Ibn Khaldun to argue that there was no unanimity among Islamic authorities on the idea of a universal caliphate; two other views were that caliphate was “merely a matter of expediency” and that there was “no need of such an institution”.

Allama Iqbal described Ibn Khaldun’s argument in favour of changes in the concept of caliphate as the first dim view of international Islam that was taking shape in the 20th century. The lecture was marred by some contradictions Iqbal did not notice but it did offer a memorable warning to Muslim scholars “that a false reverence for past history and its artificial resurrection constitute no remedy for a people’s decay”.

The point that needs to be grasped is that the upholders of liberal Islam, for which the subcontinent’s scholars used to enjoy a clear distinction, in both Pakistan and India, must equip themselves now to meet the challenge to peace, democratic development, gender justice and love of heritage the storm in Iraq and Syria is posing.

For all one knows, Baghdadi may have supporters in Pakistan too. This country is in no position to bear the cost, in lives and material resources, of an intra-religious conflict that is being extracted from the Arab family.
By I.A. Rehman    Dawn.com

Gaza blockade must end by Jimmy Carter and Mary Robinson

‘There is no humane or legal justification for how the Israeli Defence Force is conducting this war, pulverising with bombs, missiles and artillery large parts of Gaza, including thousands of homes, schools and hospitals.’ Photograph: UPI /Landov / Barcroft Media
Israelis and Palestinians are still burying loved ones killed during Gaza’s third war in six years. Since 8 July, more than 1,800 Palestinian and 65 Israeli lives have been sacrificed. Many in the world are heart-broken in the powerless certainty that and despite the latest ceasefire, it seems that more willcould die yet; that more are being killed every hour.This tragedy results from the deliberate obstruction of a promising move towards peace, when a reconciliation agreement among the Palestinian factions was announced in April.

This was a major concession by Hamas, opening Gaza to joint control under a consensus government that did not include any Hamas members. The new government also pledged to adopt the three basic principles demanded by members of the International Quartet (UN, US, Europe, Russia): non-violence, recognition of Israel, and adherence to past agreements. Tragically, Israel rejected this opportunity for peace and has until now succeeded in preventing the new government’s deployment in Gaza.

Two factors are necessary to make the unity effort possible: at least a partial lifting of the seven-year sanctions and blockade that isolate the 1.8 million people in Gaza; and an opportunity for public sector workers on the Hamas payroll to be paid. These requirements for a human standard of life continue to be denied. Instead, Qatar’s offer to provide funds for the payment of employees was blocked by Israel and access to and from Gaza has been further tightened by Egypt and Israel.

There is no humane or legal justification for how the Israeli Defence Force is conducting this war, pulverising with bombs, missiles and artillery large parts of Gaza, including thousands of homes, schools and hospitals, displacing families and killing Palestinian non-combatants. Much of Gaza has lost its access to water and electricity completely. This is a humanitarian catastrophe.

There is never an excuse for deliberate attacks on civilians in conflict. These are war crimes. This is true for both sides. Hamas’s indiscriminate targeting of Israeli civilians is equally unacceptable. However, two Israeli civilians and a foreign worker were killed by Palestinian fire as opposed to an overwhelming majority of civilians among the Palestinians killed more than 400 of whom were children. The legal need for international judicial proceedings should be taken seriously, to investigate and end these violations of international law.

The UN Security Council should vote a resolution recognising the inhumane conditions in Gaza and mandate an end to the siege. The resolution could also acknowledge the need for international monitors who can report on movements to and from Gaza, as well as ceasefire violations. It should then enshrine strict measures to prevent the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. Members of the Elders, a group of independent leaders working together for peace and human rights, hope that these will continue and reach fruition.

At the Palestinians’ request, the Swiss government is considering whether to convene an international conference of the Geneva Conventions’ signatory states. This could pressure Israel and Hamas into observing their duty to protect civilian populations under international law. We sincerely hope all states – especially those in the west, with the greatest power – attend and live up to their obligations to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention governing the treatment of occupied territory.

Unity Between Fatah and Hamas is stronger than for many years. As Elders, we believe this is one of the most encouraging developments of recent years and welcome it warmly. This presents an opportunity for the Palestinian Authority to reassume control over Gaza – an essential first step towards Israel and Egypt’s lifting of the blockade.

The Palestinian Authority cannot manage that task on its own. It will need the prompt return of the EU Border Assistance Mission to cover not just Rafah but all Gaza crossings. Egypt and Israel would, in turn, cooperate with international monitors backed by a UN Security Council mandate to protect civilian populations.

The initial goal should be the full restoration of free movement of people and goods to and from Gaza through Israel, Egypt and the sea. And the US and EU should recognise that Hamas is not just a military force but also a political one.

It cannot be wished away, nor will it cooperate in its own demise. Only by recognising its legitimacy as a political actor – one that represents a substantial portion of the Palestinian people – can the west begin to provide the right incentives for Hamas to lay down its weapons. Ever since the internationally monitored 2006 elections that brought Hamas to power in Palestine, the west’s approach has manifestly contributed to the opposite result. Ultimately, however, lasting peace depends on the creation of a Palestinian state next to Israel.

Leaders in Israel, Palestine and the world’s major powers should believe that these policy changes are within their reach and would move Israelis and Palestinians closer to a day when the skies over the Holy Land can forever fall silent.
Gaza blockade must end
by Jimmy Carter and Mary Robinson, theguardian.com

• Jimmy Carter is a former US president. Mary Robinson is a former president of Ireland. Both are members of The Elders, a group of independent leaders working together for peace and human rights

Israel: winning yet losing

THERE is justified global outrage at the slaughter and maiming of innocent children, women and men in Israel’s latest ruthless military campaign in Gaza. As a Muslim, it is difficult not to feel ashamed at the indifference of most Arab and Islamic governments to the suffering of the beleaguered Gazans.

This fourth Israeli incursion into Gaza in 10 years has once again demonstrated Israel’s considerable military prowess. Hamas’ asymmetric resistance is heroic but militarily puny. Israel’s sense of impunity has been enhanced by the preoccupation of its Arab neighbours with preserving themselves from Islamist movements within their own polities. Any concessions Hamas secures will be on humanitarian grounds and at a high cost.

Yet, Israel’s military success is unlikely to yield sustainable security. There are four broad trends which portend more difficult times for the Jewish state.

Israel’s military success is unlikely to yield sustainable security.

First, Israeli extremism. Over the past decade, Jewish religious parties and the 250,000 Israeli settlers on the West Bank have emerged ascendant in Israeli politics. They believe the occupied territories are part of historical Israel — Judea and Samaria — and cannot be returned to the Palestinians. Today, Prime Minister Netanyahu, when compared to the likes of Foreign Minister Lieberman, is considered a ‘dove’!

No Israeli leader is bold enough to advocate the removal of the West Bank settlements. On the contrary, and despite US pressure, Netanyahu has allowed additional settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Palestinian towns, villages and communities there are like apartheid South Africa’s ‘Bantustans’ — separated by increasingly large Jewish settlements connected to each other and ‘mainland’ Israel by a network of roads closed to the Palestinians. Meanwhile, Gaza remains blockaded by Israel (and Egypt).

As a consequence, there are diminishing prospects for the two-state solution that all have agreed is the only basis for a settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Since Israel will not oblige the settlers to leave the West Bank, not accept East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state, nor agree to the return of Palestinian refugees expelled in past conflicts, a viable and geographically contiguous Palestinian state appears impossible to achieve. Israeli occupation is thus likely to continue indefinitely.

Second, demography. Israel will have to rule over a Palestinian population which is growing rapidly; while Jewish immigration to Israel has petered out after the post Cold War inflow of Russian and East European Jews. Controlling a growing, hostile and increasingly radicalised Palestinian population will become, literally, a bloody business.

There is a body of opinion emerging among the Palestinians which holds that a two-state solution is no longer viable and thus Palestinians should focus instead on securing equal ‘democratic’ rights within the (Israeli) state. Reportedly, even the Fatah leader, Mahmoud Abbas’ son, subscribes to this view. Were this view to gain wide support among the Palestinians, it would revive the original debate at the time of Israel’s creation — whether it should be an exclusively Jewish state or one in which Palestinians and Jews live together with equal rights.

Given that Palestinians would be in the majority in a unitary state, Israeli leaders would be hard put to respond to such demands if they cannot offer the two-state option.

Third, Palestinian and Arab radicalisation. The plight of the Palestinian people is often, and rightly, cited as the core cause for the initial rise of religious radicalism in the Arab and Muslim world. Over the past 70 years, Israel has faced ever more ideologically ‘difficult’ adversaries: initially its neighbouring Arab states; then the PLO and Fatah, now Hamas.

Israel’s declared aim is to destroy Hamas, militarily and politically. The present regime in Cairo shares this objective because of Hamas’ affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood. If Hamas is discredited in the current or subsequent confrontations, influence over the Palestinians is unlikely to revert to Fatah; it is more likely to move to even more ‘radical’ groups, similar to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham or Al Qaeda.

Today, ISIS is not only at the gates of Baghdad but also on Israel’s border with Syria. It has gained adherents in Jordan and Lebanon. Egypt’s suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood may result in the rise of more militant ISIS-like groups operating in the Sinai. At some stage, such extremist groups could turn from pursuing their largely sectarian wars in Syria and Iraq to promoting the ‘sacred’ cause of the Arab and Islamic world: the ‘liberation’ of Palestine.

In sum, Israel may have to deal with a growing and increasingly militant Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank which receives active cross-border support from militant groups located in every one of its Arab neighbours. As evident in Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, it will not be easy for Israel to put down such an ideologically motivated and battle-hardened insurgency.

Fourth, eroding Western support. Israel has been justifiably condemned for its disproportionate response to the largely ineffective rockets fired by Hamas from Gaza. The images of dead and wounded Palestinian children have stirred revulsion even among Israel’s staunchest Western supporters. A US poll indicates sharply reduced support for Israel among younger Americans.

If the Israeli occupation of the West Bank continues, if Gaza-like operations become endemic, if future conflicts with th e more militant Palestinian groups become even more brutal, Israel is likely to see the hitherto unconditional Western support erode dramatically. Israel could face international isolation and penalties from which it has been protected so far.

Israel’s leaders should look into the future. Do they want to consign their people, the Palestinians and the region to never-ending violence and war?

There is a narrow window of opportunity to reverse their disastrous course and agree to the concessions required to achieve a two-state solution. Fatah will obviously accept such a solution. Despite its formal refusal to recognise Israel, Hamas displayed pragmatism in the past and would accept a fair settlement too.
Israel: winning yet losing
by Munir Akram, dawn.com
The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.