The making of the modern maulvi By Ajmal Kamal Tribune Opinion & Analysis

Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi opposed the Khilafat movement so fiercely that he was willing to sacrifice his life for the cause of opposing it. His Malfoozat have the following entry concerning the events. “During the peak days of the Tehreek-e-Khilafat, fiery people were in a state of great rage. There was fire all around. Matters came to such a pass that in addition to abuses, condemnations and sundry allegations, I began receiving letters containing death threats in case I did not join it. Hazrat Maulana Khalil Ahmad Sahib (RA), out of his extreme fondness for me, sent a special envoy to me with his advice that I should consider the dangerous times and if I decided to participate just a little bit only formally, there was room [in the religious sense]. I sent my reply that what he said certainly showed his affection, but the biggest threat was that of losing one’s life, for which I was prepared. However, I was neither willing to participate without being convinced [of the movement being correct] nor could I participate outwardly and remain aloof from the inside, as I considered it hypocrisy. So, behamdillah, I am alive and well before you today. These people have made it like a game for little girls: Either do as we do, or else get killed. During those days I went to the jungle as was my morning routine. On my way I met a Hindu Rajput old man, also from Thana Bhavan. The old-fashioned and elderly Hindus too have affection for me. He said, Maulvi-ji, do you have any idea what kind of things are being proposed for you? You should not come to the jungle alone like this. I said, Chaudhry, I know that, and I also know something that you do not know. He asked me what that was. I said, Without His order nobody can do anything. Despite being Hindu, he was so impressed by it that he exclaimed, Maulvi-ji, you may go wherever you feel like without any jokham (danger). For a man like you, jungle and mountains are no different from home.”

The leaders of the Khilafat movement, apart from collecting donations for the aid of the Ottoman Turks (which, according to reports, never made it to them), asked the Indian Muslims to quit their military or civilian jobs with the British colonial government because it was involved in a world war in which the Ottoman Khalifa had chosen to be in the opposite camp. Apart from producing a lot of sound and fury, such appeals remained largely ineffective, and the process of socio-economic change, initiated as a result of the policies of the colonial government continued. Thanvi, obviously, was opposed to any such adventure. Not only was his brother a district-level employee of the government, a large number of his mureeds and even khulifas, including his official biographer, were in the service of the government.

An offshoot of the same Khilafat movement was what is calledTehreek-e-Hijrat. Although Thanvi chooses to blame the Congress for it, fact is that it was the Deobandi maulvis belonging to Jamiat-ul Ulema-e-Hind (JUH) who, in their infinite wisdom, declared the subcontinent unfit for Muslims to live. They issued a religious fatwafor the shurafa Muslims, who could not undertake jihad against the British government for obvious reasons, to migrate to Afghanistan. The fatwa was obviously not directed at the vast majority of South Asian Muslims who were converts from lower castes and had no reason to feel any historical, ancestral or strategic affiliation with Afghanistan. Perhaps we could discern in this fantastic fatwa of the modern followers of Shah Waliullah an early version of what we today know as ‘strategic depth’, according to which it is presumed that the poor Afghans have a duty to let their land be used to enable ‘us’ to realise our regional, international, Pan-Islamic or whatever dream. Thousands upon thousands of starry-eyed Muslims sold their property and crossed the northwestern border into Afghanistan. The Afghans and their King Amanullah Khan, who could have no truck with the peculiar worldview of the Indian maulvis, felt that their country was unable to host so many uninvited guests, and so the borders were sealed to stop further migration. Those who had already landed there met a tragic fate, many of them even losing their lives.

When commenting on the ideas of Hijrat and quitting government jobs in his Malfoozat, Thanvis does not challenge the religious interpretation which provided the basis of the JUH fatwa. Curiously enough, he avoids even mentioning it. Instead he blames some ‘resolution’ (probably a Congress resolution) for it. He writes: “In the times of the Khilafat movement, a resolution was passed for Hijrat. Muslims stood up saying labbaik to it. Thousands of Muslims were made homeless as a result. Everyone knows its effect on the community (zaat) of Muslims. Then it was advised that they should quit government jobs. Those who had lost their minds (‘jin ki matain mari gayi theen’) left their jobs. The vacancies created by Muslims leaving their jobs were filled by Hindus. Many of them have still not found employment (‘ab tak jootian chatkhate phirte hain’). I receive letters in which people write that they had taken that stupid step then, and till now they are jobless and worried.”

Another tragic incident that took place as a result of Khilafat movement, which has been all but forgotten by our North-centric historians, was the armed rebellion of the Moplah Muslims in the southern region of Malabar in which around 10,000 people (including about 2,500 rebels) were killed, many more injured, and 20,000 deported to Kala Pani or the Andaman Islands. Thanvi comments on these events: “The nation (qaum) of Moplahs was destroyed by these leaders and the maulvis following them who lectured and flared them up. Their passions were aroused as they were of Arab descent. And then everyone knows what happened to them.”

Published in The Express Tribune, October 15^th, 2011.

Source: http://tribune.com.pk/story/273974/the-making-of-the-modern-maulvi--ix/

The pact of Hudaibya By Nilofar Ahmed

SOME time after the migration of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and his followers to Madina, the Makkans banned the entry of the believers in Makkah, even for the purposes of Haj or umrah. The Muslims yearned to visit the Kaaba to perform the pilgrimage. After about six years, the Prophet and some 1,500 of his companions started out for Makkah on Ziqa’ad 1, 6 AH, (628 CE), with the intention of performing umrah. They put on the ihram, recited the intention and thus entered the state of consecration.

They did not carry any weapons but the Makkans came to know of their approach and decided to block their path, even if it meant having to go to war. The Prophet decided to avoid confrontation and bloodshed, and to take a very rough and circuitous route. The Muslims camped at Hudaibya, located on the border of Makkah. They decided to negotiate with the Makkans to allow them the peaceful practice of their religion. The Makkans sent small gangs to attack the believers so that they would be incited to start a war. Otherwise they wanted them to turn back. The Prophet dealt with them with great patience and released the Makkans each time after arresting them. The Prophet sent Hazrat Usman as his envoy to the Makkans to convince them to send Suhail bin Umro to talk to him. After negotiations, the final pact, whose scribe was Hazrat Ali, was agreed upon and came to be known as the Sulah Hudaibya (the peace pact of Hudaibya). Some of its clauses were as follows: there would be peace for 10 years in which both parties would refrain from fighting; when a believer came to Makkah and Taif for the purposes of pilgrimage or trade, his life would be protected; if any Qureishi passed through the Muslim territory of Madina, his life would also be protected. The most difficult point to accept was that of one-sided extradition, and which stated that if a Qureishi who had converted to Islam was to escape from his guardian and reach the Prophet in Madina, he would be forced to go back, but if a Muslim renounced his faith and escaped to Makkah, the Makkans would not be obliged to return him.Besides these points, it was also declared that both parties would remain true to the pact; that they would not commit treachery and remain neutral in their wars with other parties; that the Bedouin tribes would be free to make friends with whichever party they pleased; that sacrificial animals would be sacrificed in Hudaibyah and not brought to Makkah; that rights and duties of both parties would be equal. It was also agreed that Muslims would return to Madina without performing umrah that year; that they would be allowed to come back the next year to perform the pilgrimage and be allowed to remain in Makkah for three days; that they would carry only a traveller’s weapon, and not weapons of war; that the Makkans would leave the city for those three days; and that when the Muslims returned, they would not be allowed to take anyone along with them. In this pact, the Prophet, through his wisdom, was able to keep the higher, far-reaching goals in mind. Some of his companions were outraged and found the accord degrading. They resisted coming out of ihram. The Prophet consulted his wife, Umme Salma. She advised him to go ahead and perform the acts needed to come out of the state of ihram himself. He followed her advice. As soon as his companions saw that, they followed suit.The Prophet was always true to his word. While still at Hudaibya, he encountered a difficult decision. Abu Jandal, a new convert, broke his fetters and came crying to him asking that he be rescued from the Makkans who were torturing him. Seeing his condition all the companions were enraged. But the Prophet kept his word and offered him no help, except taking a promise from Abu Jandal’s father that he would not be tortured. On their return to Madina, Muslims met Abu Busair, another new convert who had escaped from Makkah. His relatives demanded his return and the Prophet complied. Abu Busair later managed to escape again, hid in a gorge near Badar and kept attacking the caravans of the Makkans going to Syria.

Many other converts joined him and made it impossible for the caravans to pass that way. Frustrated, the Makkans themselves approached the Prophet to cancel the clause of one-sided extradition. The converts were now able to join the believers in Madina. While on his way back from Hudaibya, the Prophet received the revelation of the first verses of Surah Al-Fatah, in which Allah declared this pact to be a victory (48: 1). The companions later realised that the pact had had far-reaching, beneficial effects. That the Makkans signed an agreement with the Prophet showed that they had accepted him as the legitimate leader of a people and a state. Thus, through his wisdom, patience and farsightedness, the Prophet commanded respect, established his moral authority and brought about a peaceful settlement between people of different faiths through non-violence and sincere negotiations. n

The writer is a scholar of the Quran and writes on its relevance to contemporary issues.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/14/the-pact-of-hudaibya.html

US cannot abandon Pakistan relationship: Clinton

WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday the United States cannot abandon Pakistan but that the South Asian nation must help solve Afghanistan’s difficulties or it will “continue to be part of the problem.”

US Cannot Abandon Pakistan: Hillary Clinton

Her comments were the latest in a series by US officials exposing the difficulty of the relationship with Pakistan, particularly after Washington publicly accused its powerful Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of supporting a militant attack on the US embassy in Kabul on Sept. 13.

The head of the ISI, Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, has denied the US accusation.

Answering questions after a speech sponsored by the Center for American Progress in Washington, Clinton said the United States had no choice but to work with Pakistan in trying to stabilize neighboring Afghanistan.

“This is a very difficult relationship but I believe strongly it is not one we can walk away from and expect that anything will turn out better,” she said.

“Pakistan has to be part of the solution or they will continue to be part of the problem,” she added.

“And therefore, as frustrating as it is, we just keep every day going at it and I think we make very slow, sometimes barely discernible progress, but we’re moving in the right direction.”

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/13/us-cannot-abandon-pakistan-relationship-clinton.html

CNN: U.N. peacekeepers killed in Darfur

(CNN) -- Three United Nations peacekeepers were killed in an ambush in a camp for displaced people in Sudan's Darfur region, the global body said Tuesday.

Two of the dead were soldiers; the third was a police adviser for the joint U.N. and African Union mission in the troubled region. Another six peacekeepers were injured in the incident.

They came under attack at 10:15 Monday night in the Zam Zam camp in North Darfur while the security unit was on patrol. One of the assailants was also killed, a statement from the joint mission said.

It was unclear why the attack occurred.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon "strongly condemns" the attack, the U.N. said in a statement. The attack was carried out by unidentified armed men while the peacekeepers were on a "confidence-building patrol," the statement said.

Ban "appeals to the Sudanese authorities to investigate the incident and to bring to justice the perpetrators as soon as possible," according to the statement.

The peacekeeping mission in Darfur is the world's largest at 20,000 authorized troops. Since it began in 2008, 33 peacekeepers have been killed.

"I condemn in the strongest terms this attack on our peacekeepers who have worked selflessly to bring security to the internally displaced persons of Zam Zam camp where so many Darfuris have sought refuge," said Ibrahim Gambari, head of the mission. "An attack on international peacekeepers is a war crime and we will ensure that justice will be served."

Darfur is among the most dangerous areas of operation for U.N. personnel. The region remains a tinderbox. At least 300,000 people have been killed and 2.7 million others driven from their homes as a result of fighting between Sudanese rebel groups and the Khartoum government and its allied armed militia.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/11/world/africa/sudan-peacekeepers-killed/index.html?hpt=wo_c2

Nuclear disarmament and the youth: View from India - Dawn Blog

President Obama’s Prague speech, in which he laid the foundations of a renewed quest for a world free of nuclear weapons, was greeted around the world with both awe and skepticism. Analysts all around the world dissected his words, ruminated over his intent and commented on his vision, I found the speech intriguing for completely different reasons. When President Obama said that the goal of nuclear disarmament will not be accomplished in his life time, for many political pundits around the world, it represented an act of buck-passing. However those words conveyed an essential truth: the need of an enabled posterity to understand the risks of a trigger-happy nuclear world and to continue the endeavour towards a world free of nuclear weapons and concomitant hazards. Yet at the altar of political interpretations, this foresight was sacrificed.

It is this characteristically different reading of his speech which allows us to see the importance of an enabled posterity which can understand fully the stakes involved in the project of nuclear disarmament and can convincingly argue the case of a nuclear weapons free world. If the goal of a nuclear weapons free world is to be pursued, one has to acknowledge the importance of youth, the shoulders which are going to bear responsibility for the future and who will make sure that the quest continues, until the ultimate goal of a global zero is achieved. 

In the context of South Asia, the need for involvement of youth in the nuclear discourse is being acutely felt. There is a paucity of institutions, both government backed or private, which can educate the masses specially students and develop a capacity among the youth in order to understand the nuances of nuclear weapons and issue of disarmament. Without an independent and matured understanding of the issue, critical reflection on the need and viability of nuclear weapons has become a casualty. Given the desperate socio-economic condition of the majority of the people in the region, the unwillingness of the state to allow a more informed understanding of nuclear issues and the incapacity of youth to question nuclearisation appear to constitute nothing less than a conspiracy to sustain the discourse of nuclear brinksmanship.

There are also very few avenues for students, who have genuine interest in the subject, to understand the minutiae of the debate and engage with these at both national and international level. Hardly any regional workshops or conferences are organised to bring the youth of the region at a single platform to discuss nuclear disarmament. Given the rapid proliferation of think tanks and NGO’s in the aftermath of 1998 nuclear explosions, such a scenario is an awful reminder that nuclearisation has been accepted as something normal in the subcontinent.

Fallouts of such a situation are many. First, even when most of the states in the region are democracies, the lack of expertise on nuclear issues is a serious handicap in openly debating the need and viability of nuclear weapons and subsequent opportunity costs. This lack of knowledge encumbers the development of strong civil society initiatives against the politically motivated weaponisation program of the national governments. This also allows the dominant narratives of the nuclear hawks and other bureaucratic lobbies in the region to be generally accepted by the uninformed citizenry, since the capacity for critical evaluation is lacking.  More so, such a situation also allows the use of overt weaponisation strategies by the political parties to garner an electoral base.

Second, the politics of nuclear weapons has allowed the building of militarist regional order where power hierarchies have dominated the issues of cooperation and development. The muteness or relative silence of the Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) on issues of nuclearisation of the region points in this direction. Even when the nuclearisation imperils the security of all the states in the region, NNWS have hardly acted as a cohesive pressure group within the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) to bring the agenda of nuclear disarmament at the negotiating table in various regional summits. Again the lack of expertise on the nuclear issues and active civil society in these countries has played a spoilsport.

Third, the lack of effective regional youth networks dealing with the issue of nuclear disarmament has not allowed the development of a collective identity of the region as a possible nuclear weapons free zone. The issue of nuclearisation of the region is still seen through the contours of national boundaries and the deficiency of interactions has stifled the possibilities of hearing the views of the others.

Yet to underscore the need for developing and shaping young minds in South Asia is to understand the fact that the thought process of strategic communities in South Asian region is still embedded in the experiences of the Cold War decades. For example, the Indian strategic mindset mostly perceives various arms control proposals through skepticism bred and nurtured during the Cold War years and it is hard to conceive a different approach until this staunchly embedded thinking is challenged. Most of the strategic analysts in the country are victims of this Cold War nuclear schizophrenia.

What is also to be noticed is that India has relinquished its stand on global nuclear disarmament for all practical purposes, though it still rhetorically clings to the past at times. Such a reinterpretation of Indian priorities is informed from a wrong perception of India’s rise. The need, therefore, is to reverse this trend of great power mimicry and to provide a new discourse in which priorities are not the amount of fissile material production but the alleviation of poverty and illiteracy.

In the case of Pakistan, on the other hand, the anti-India security discourse has helped the political elite specially the military to secure its sectional interests over the years. Nuclear weapons are only a new avatar, though much more potent and aggressive, of this contrivance of Pakistan’s military to perpetuate its hold on Pakistan’s polity and society. Interestingly, in both the states, people have come to love the bomb rather than detest it. The atomic publics of India and Pakistan, as Itty Abraham puts it in his new book, have embraced the weapons of their own destruction rather emphatically.  

In this backdrop, it is important to understand the crucial role which young, independent analysts can play in ameliorating the situation. There is a need to question and challenge the current discourse which eulogises nuclear weapons as acceptable instruments of political and social life. The collective wisdom – that nuclear weapons make us safe – is not what the youth of the region have decided for themselves; it is rather an imposition on younger generations from above, from the nuclear hawks who have sworn their life in the service of nukes.

The time is appropriate for thinking of a new collective future for South Asia, a future without nuclear weapons and only the youth can do that because in all legitimacy, the future belongs to them and them only.

Yogesh Joshi studies international politics at the Center for International Politics, Organisation and Disarmament (CIPOD), School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). New Delhi. He is a youth representative of Global Zero – an international NGO working towards a nuclear weapons free world – and runs a Global Zero Chapter at JNU.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/08/nuclear-disarmament-and-the-youth.html