Taj Hashmi in Honolulu, Hawaii

It is indeed lamentable that some people in Britain are considering the introduction of the regressive and misogynous Shariah law. What on the surface appears to be non-discriminatory and "pro-Muslim", for the promotion of multiculturalism, is actually a big step in the opposite direction.
   Shockingly enough, while advocating the introduction of the Shariah for British Muslims on February 7, 2008, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams said: "It seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system". Dr Williams believes the introduction of Shariah law to Britain will help maintain "cohesion because some Muslims do not relate to the British legal system"; and that "its introduction would mean Muslims would no longer have to choose between the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty". He further stipulated that his proposal would only work if Shariah law was "properly understood, rather than seen through the eyes of biased media reports".
   What is even more distressing is the ambivalence in the Prime Minister's official stand on the issue. Gordon Brown's spokesman insisted that while British law would remain pre-eminent, concessions to Shariah could be made on a "case-by-case basis". One wonders if Shariah and British Common Law are compatible, especially with regard to marriage, divorce and inheritance rights for women.
   We do not find the Archbishop's following assertion comforting either: "It would be quite wrong to say that we could ever license a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general. But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them. In some cultural and religious settings they would seem more appropriate."
   One is not sure if once accepted on par with British law, it would be ever possible to modify the Shariah to make it look more civil, modern and humane. There is more evil in the Shariah code than, to paraphrase the Archbishop, "seen through the eyes of biased media reports".
   While liberal Muslims (including this writer) have been striving hard for quite sometime to modify the Shariah by scrapping many draconian codes sold as divine commandments, this silly concession to the obscurantist mullahs (and their non-mullah adherents in Britain) is going to be more divisive, counter-productive and most importantly, discriminatory against Muslim women.
   
   Draconian code
   This "concession" would eventually embolden the proponents of Shariah in Muslim majority countries and in countries with substantial Muslim populations, such as France, Germany and Spain, Canada and the US to demand this draconian code to regulate Muslim personal law in the name of Islam. On the one hand, it would further segregate and marginalise Muslims and on the other, by sharply polarising the adherents and opponents of Shariah it would incite intra- and inter-racial conflicts and terrorism within and outside Britain. In sum, Britain's adopting the Shariah may legitimise the excesses of the code committed elsewhere in the Muslim World.
   
   Shariah is not Quranic
   Problematically, both the adherents and opponents of Shariah believe that the code was derived from the Quran and is as old as Islam itself. Ordinary Muslims also consider it as divine law. Contrary to these assumptions, Shariah is hardly Quranic in origin as the Quran contains 80-odd verses, which are prescriptive or regulative. The main sources of Shariah are thousands of unauthentic Hadiths or "sayings" of Prophet Muhammad, collected haphazardly more than 200 years after his death. Muslim jurists' legal opinions collected during the 8th and 12th centuries based on their understanding of the Quran, traditions of the Prophet, local customs and above all, common sense, are collectively known as the Shariah.
   Once we consider the following facts, we come closer to resolving the Shariah debate:
   1) Shariah is authoritative, not infallible;
   2) The Sunni Shariah code went through major transformation and changes, but only up to the 16th century;
   3) Shiite Shariah is still subject to changes and modifications; and,
   4) The moral principles of the Quran outweigh its legal principles (for example, while slavery, concubinage and polygamy are tolerated in Islam for a specific historical era, the Quran does not promote or encourage these practices).
   It is quite puzzling that secular Britain should toy with the idea of incorporating Shariah into its legal system while several Muslim countries are gradually replacing it with secular codes and some have already done away with it.
   Britain should be even more cautious about implementing Shariah, as there are very few Islamic scholars in the country, qualified enough to interpret the Quran and the teachings of Islam. And again, whose Shariah are we talking about? There are at least four Sunni and scores of Shiite sects, each with its own Shariah. While the Wahhabi and other Muslim sects sanction female genital mutilation in the name of Islam and Shariah, the official Iranian Shiism endorses temporary marriage (mutah or segha) between a man and a woman for a day, week, month or year.
   Some Muslims, on the basis of wrong interpretations of the Quran, justify polygamy and even consider wife beating permissible in Islam. Are the British willing to allow the implementation of these varying versions of Shariah in their country? Once they allow it to meddle with the conjugal problems of Muslim couples, the government would simply fail to protect half-educated, uninformed and dependent Muslim women from being abused in the name of Islam.
   
   No arbitration by outsiders
   All concerned should learn that what the Quran has given to women, Shariah has taken away from them. Examples abound. While men and women are equally held responsible for adultery in the Quran, which prescribes 100 lashes for the offenders each, the Shariah is particularly harsh on the sinners, prescribing the death penalty for both the offenders. Again, as it appears in the Quran (Chapter 4), only immediate family members of Muslim couples may arbitrate in matters relating to divorce and custody, there is no room for outsiders to arbitrate.
   Since Shariah is not infallible and is subject to change and modifications, there is no need for its implementation anywhere -- let alone Britain -- until the emergence of a Muslim Martin Luther. Unless Islam goes through its Reformation and the Muslim World undergoes a total transformation to adapt to modern, liberal democratic, secular and urban cultures of enlightenment and tolerance, no one should advocate the cause of Shariah anywhere in the world.
   However, the Government alone cannot stop the introduction of Shariah in Britain; civil society in general and liberal Muslims in particular should come forward to stop this vice, which is neither Islamic nor British in character and spirit.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Palestine issue and UN's role

Muhammad Afsar Ali Farajee

There are at least 150 crore Muslims and 57 independent Muslim countries in the world. But the whole Muslim world is plagued with national and international disputes among which the issue of independence of Palestine is significant for the world's Muslim community. The holy city of Jerusalem was the first 'qibla' in the early period of Islam. Subsequently this 'qibla' was changed during the time of Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him -- pbuh).
   Palestine was a part of Byzantine Empire of King Heracleas. During the reign of second pious Caliph of Islam Palestine became part of the then Islamic state of Madina. The city of Jerusalem is also holy both for the Christians and the Jews. Historically speaking the Jews, who were the followers of Hazrat Musa (Alihe salam) [Moses according to the Bible] migrated to Palestine from Egypt in order to get rid of the oppression of the Pharao (Ramses II) subsequently the Jews started living in Palestine as permanent settlers.
   
   Crusades, Christians, Salahuddin
   During the reign of the Ottoman Turks, Palestine became part of Turkish sultanate. As the city of Jerusalem is also holy to the Christians, the Eorupean Christian powers fought crusade to capture Jerusalem and Palestine but they were defeated in the hands of King Nuruddin and Gazi Salahuddin.
   Due to Anglo-Christian and Jewish conspiracy Turkey was defeated in the First World War in the hands of the allied powers and the British captured Palestine, Jordan and Syria. The British got the power to rule over as a mandated territory.
   In 1948 the British forces were withdrawn from Palestine territory and Israel unilaterally declared independence. Within 24 hours of declaration of independence Israel was recognised by USA, UK. USSR and France. Major portion of Palestine was captured by Israel by force; Jordan captured a part of Palestine which is known as West Bank territory west of the river Jordan. The Arabs fought at least four full-fledged wars against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. In all these wars the Arabs were defeated. In 1967 in a six-day war (June, 1967) Israel occupied the entire west bank area under Jordan, entire Sinai peninsula of Egypt, Gaza strip and Golan Heights of Syria. In 1982 Israel started a full-scale war against Lebanon and occupied a large portion of Lebanon. Fighters of PLO were driven out of Lebanon and PLO had to shift its headquarters to Tunisia.
   Lebanon is a very small and militarily weak country. Her army of about 65,000 lack modern weapons and logistic support. Lebanon does not possess any air force.
   
   Heroic Hizbullah
   It has been proved beyond doubt that the Arabs are not capable of gaining a military victory over Israel. Only in 2006, in the Israel-Hizbullah ( a Shia guerrila force of Lebanon ) war the Hizbullah army proved its worth and fought a heroic war against well-equipped Israeli Army, though Israel captured up to Liteni river but it was a military defeat for Israeli army. Hassan Nasrullah became the hero of Lebanon and of the Middle East. Lebanese army did not fight this war.
   It is now a well-known fact that Israel already possesses nuclear weapons capable of heavy destruction to other countries of the Middle East including Iran. The UN is the greatest debating society of the world; it has already proved its failures to bring any peace in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world.
   Though the Muslims constitute at least 25 per cent of the world population yet none of the Muslim countries has representation in UNSC as permanent member with veto power. Cold War period was far better than the unipolar world led by USA.
   
   For durable peace
   For durable peace in Palestine, Middle East including Iraq and Afghan war against the Talibans of Mollah Omar a special conference for peace should be held in which the five big powers, the Arab states, the Palestine authority, Syria, Iran and Afghanistan should participate. Israel too should also participate in this special Middle East peace conference. The venue should be a neutral country. Israel has to vacate all illegally occupied territories including West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights of Syria.
   Meanwhile, UN peacekeeping forces must be stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. All the US-led multinational forces and NATO-led forces must be withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan. Negotiations should be held with all the insurgent groups of Iraq and the Talibans of Afghanistan under the auspices of United Nations. Any attack on Iran either by USA or Israel is sure to make Middle East more intractable. China, France, Russia, Germany, Italy, Egypt and Saudi Arabia should play their vital role in resolving the problem.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Voluntary donations versus graft cases

Dear Editor:
   The bosses in the big political parties have been saying lately that they take donations for running their parties and never ever resorted to graft for personal gains.
   Can we try to develop a treatise on the subtle difference between 'voluntary donations' and 'forcible graft cases' in money both cash and kind?
   Political parties need money to run their parties. The members themselves, no doubt, donate to party fund. The question is how many of them subscribe and to what extent they individually subscribe. It may be presumed that they seek money from outside sources as well.
   Well, outsiders, particularly, having likely vested interest come forward to subscribe; many in such cases wish to keep their identity secret, simply because, the other party or parties might seek to have more money from them. In such cases of clandestine identity, it is very difficult for outsiders like me to clearly identify voluntary donation from forcible graft of money. The matter becomes more difficult to identify if the grafts/donations are made in cash.
   It is well-known that the parties maintain their muscle power, terrorist gangs etc. not only to seek graft but also for intimidation of parties, should they do not yield to pressure tactics. Thus the whole world of voluntary donations as against coercive craft cases for money by political parties in Bangladesh remains unknown to others, even to rank and file of the parties concerned.
   It, therefore, remains very difficult to identify the real difference between voluntary donations and coercive graft cases.
   I have a hunch that the alternative for identifying the culprits could be through taking an account of the assets and properties of the main bosses of all parties and to compare the estimated amount with their known legal income, and sue them in speedy trial court.
   M.T. Hussain,
   Dhaka.

Dear Editor:
   It has become a 'fashion' for the official visitors from the west, particularly the EU, to pour unsolicited advices to the Government specially on political matters such as lifting of emergency etc. I cannot figure out what is the problem of those people if such measure adopted by our Government was due to exigency of the circumstances and for the best interest of the country. It is the Government who should decide which measure would be beneficial for the country and not the aliens. Do they want instability in our country so that they could pour more big brotherly advices and try to fish in the trouble water? After all what additional benefit it would yield towards our road to election has not been spelled out by them in specific terms. Yet being our donors perhaps they thought they have the right to poke their nose into our internal affairs. Unfortunately till we achieve our economic self-sufficiency perhaps we will have to swallow such advice.
   Political opportunists are already in the field to brew up student unrest as we noticed at Dhaka University and lately at Charmicael College in Rangpur. Are we ready to take the risk to put the election roadmap in jeopardy? Politicians are already threatening that there would be no election without the two women leaders who are now under-trial prisoners. Therefore, those who are talking of lifting emergency before the election are either pressing for it with sinister motives or without taking lesson from the past ignoring politicians' irresponsible activities in the past that led to anarchy and murder.
   The Government should act in the best interest of the country  without giving in to the unreasonable external and politically motivated internal pressures. At the same time the Government may remove any such provisions in the emergency rule which would impede holding of a free and fair election. Therefore there is no reason whatsoever to lift emergency before election. After the election is held and an elected government is formed, then the lifting of emergency can be considered by them when the time and atmosphere would be congenial for such move.
   Mohammad Ataul Hoque,
   Dhaka.

---

Bottomline is appearing again

Dear Editor:
   The people know what brutality happened in Bangladesh before one-eleven in 2007? I doubt whether the world has ever seen such a barbaric incident. When the people were deeply shocked and bewildered, emergency was proclaimed to the rescue of the innocent and peace loving people and protect them from being slaughtered.
   Now is the opportune moment for honest, good and virtuous men to come forward and participate in the coming election to take the responsibility of ruling the country with people's mandate and thus protect the country from the hands of corrupt and vicious people.
   All the peace loving people have the same views and are eagerly waiting to see that everything goes properly according to the roadmap announced by the Election Commission. Last but not least, if all concerned people fail to co-operate with the authority all efforts so far taken by the Government for holding free and fare election will be ineffective. So let us all make the best use of this opportunity so that election is held peacefully according to the roadmap which will give us a guarantee of better future.
   A very interesting and encouraging article in a humorous style came out on 25th January 2008 in its usual place in the elite weekly Holiday paper. I read it with full concentration of mind and found some inspiring messages in it. In all the articles that appear in the said column carry messages for the reader. Here the writer tried to depict the current happenings in the country well. He spoke about the dream of a peaceful country free from black money, muscle power and corruption.
   Agreeing to all that has been said in the letter I would like to add some points for those who are desirous of contesting in the coming election. It cannot be denied that some men in the past Government were desperately engaged to satisfy their insatiable greed forgetting what oath they took in presence of several distinguished persons including foreign dignitaries. Many of those corrupt people are either in jail or facing trial in the court. Yet there is nothing to be disappointed as we have lots of educated, honest and patriotic people to give us correct leadership and make the country prosperous.
   As has been stated by Group Capt. Taher Quddus, we got to bring the corrupt people to book and all roads, lanes and by-lanes have to be closed to stop recurrence of misdeeds in future. Possibly that is happening in the country.
   Thanks to bottom line writer, thanks to elite Holiday paper.
   M. A. Alim,
   Dhaka.

---

A rare example at DU

Dear Editor:
   A Bangla daily recently reported that a Dhaka University (DU) teacher was fined Tk. 35,000 only for illegal connection of electricity at his residence at Fuller Road. The teacher illuminated his residence for 10 days on the occasion of the marriage ceremony of his daughter. He was fined not by DESA or mobile court, but by the finance committee of the Dhaka University. When it came to the notice of the finance committee the members of the committee held a meeting and took the decision to fine the teacher for such illegal consumption of electricity. (the Naya Diganta, December 13, 2007)
   This is a rare example of taking action by the committee against the offender. If such system can be introduced in all organisations, there is no doubt about it that corrupt practice of employees will be reduced to a great extent.
   Almost all the Government, semi- Government, autonomous bodies and factories have associations and collective bargaining agents (CBA) or trade unions to fight for the legitimate claim of employees and workers of the organisation. A trade union or CBA works as a bargaining agent between the owners and the employees and workers in respect of their wages, increment, transfer, promotion, posting etcetera. They fight with the management to fulfill their charter of demand as and when necessary. They work all along so that none could be oppressed and harassed unnecessarily. In short they look after the welfare of the members.
   If management takes any action against an employee on charge of corruption, trade union leaders fight against the management. They even observe strike and put barricade on the road and damage vehicles and property of the government unnecessarily. The opposition political parties also support them. Leaders do it in exchange of 'something' for the offenders, it is alleged. They generally lead a luxurious life.
   The Government should make provision that the associations and unions will be held responsible for corrupt practice of the members while the Government gives affiliation to the associations and CBA unions.
   This will help enable the leaders not to encourage illegal activities of trade union members.
   A M K Chowdhury,
   Narayanganj.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE