Islam: Environmental Protection

By: Professor Dr. Farooq Hassan
President Pakistan Ecology Council

(Presidential Address to the Pakistan Ecology Council at the Karachi Hall, Lahore High Court Bar Association, 6 October, 2006, Lahore)

I am grateful to be invited to give this year's main Annual address on the highly important subject of Islam and protection of the environment. As Chairman of the Bar's Environmental Committee as well, I am pleased to be here at this historical Karachi Hall, the venue for many events dealing with this country’s constitutional history. To days talk is even more significant since it deals with the survival of the human race. My interest in this subject is not new. Let me at the outset take a brief moment of your time to submit to you that as far back as 1975, that is thirty years ago, I was elected amongst a handful of Third World delegates to the First International Ecology Congress in Vienna, in which I presented my views on a subject which was in some ways similar to the one today but without reference to the available Islamic conceptions about it. [1]

The current debates on environment and its much needed protection seems to be at the center of many controversial aspects of US foreign and domestic policy. Conservationists feel that exploitation of earth’s resources for commercial goals is leading the entirety of human race into an uncertain future. On the other hand, many Western governments, led by Washington, maintain that this threat is over exaggerated and that putting an end to useful acquisition of such resources by latest scientific methodology would be tantamount to impeding human progress.

It is the purpose of this presentation to examine this debate from an Islamic perspective. My research indicates that although some aspects of this topic have been handled by a few scholars mostly in the Arabic language, this appears to be a pioneer effort to do so in an exhaustive manner. I request therefore, that you give the message of this address, the needed significance for an adequate dissemination to the people of this country. Not only third of world countries are comprised of Muslims, a number of them are pivotal in enunciating policies with respect to oil exploration.

In this context, we may keep in mind the peculiar environmental controversy intertwined with fossil oil which Muslim states have in abundance. Their rapid utilization at the urging of mostly Western states, and by the US in particular, causes serious pollution hazards and also emission of gases that are a cause of acute danger to the ozone protection of the world’s atmosphere. This has resulted in clearly the single most dangerous pollution hazard, namely, global warming to which I shall revert to later in this presentation.

The ensuing analysis examines the Islamic injunctions, if any, on this subject. This is with a view to see the philosophy of the Muslim faith towards this most crucial of current topics of human concern. Islam is considered a comprehensive way of life whose teachings, directly or indirectly, cover every possible human relationship including what today is described as “environment”.

These teachings are primarily available in the revealed knowledge which comprises the Quran and in the teaching of Prophet as handed down in the Sunnah. In articulating and expounding the thesis of these presentation two further sources, namely Ijma and Qiyas, have been kept in mind by me. But, as they are dependent on the first two primary sources, it is not necessary to go into them in detail.

In what follows, therefore, reference will be mainly made to those verses that define the epistemological parameters of the Quranic teachings in this respect. In support, I would refer to some sayings of the Prophet through which the quintessence of the Shariah may be perceived. In sum, I would rely on the highest form of sources from Islamic Shariah to present my conclusions and analysis.

To begin with at the beginning of Sura Al-Baqarah, the Quran is presented to mankind as a book of guidance: "This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear God" (Quran, 2:2). God furthermore says that the Quran encompasses the foundations for knowledge and ethics: “Nothing have We omitted from the Book…" Quran, 6:3. In addition, the Quran announces that Islam, as a Din (Faith), has been perfected by God. It is considered a comprehensive way of life which accommodates every aspect of it. The Islamic world-view is established upon the very notion of Islam as a perfect religion:

"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion" Quran, 5:3

In the light of these Divinely ordained articulations, it can be justifiably submitted that a jurisprudence of the environment can be discerned and should be locatable from the confines of the metaphysical and practical messages in the Quran.

It should be equally self evident that all aspects of the environment's protection cannot be summarized in this limited initiative of mine. But sufficient coverage in depth would be provided to see if the current controversies can be resolved by applying the message of God for Muslims. This much however, is clear. That norms relating to environment from within the Muslim theological foundations would have an Islamic world-view of this topic. Once a Quranic injunction is located, it has to prevail and applied.

Depletion of resources

Before a more direct mandate about environment is referred to, it would be helpful to expound the general guidelines that may be usefully kept in mind while understanding the Islamic philosophy on ecology. Moderation is one of the main attributes of Islam. Islam furthermore discourages self indulgence, lavish living and waste. Those peoples in the past that did so were destroyed by the Almighty. The Quran says in Sura Al- Isra 17:16:

“When we intend to destroy a township, we permit its luxury loving people to commit wickedness therein. Then the word is proved true against it and we can destroy it utterly.”

Therefore many sayings of the Prophet towards modesty in living have to be kept in mind. Excessive indulgences of any kind are likely to inflict incalculable damage to our surroundings. It is manifest that such a tendency has to be stopped and discouraged by the Faithful through all forms of available legal recourse, influence and intellectual dissemination. Once it is grasped that human beings essentially remain care takers of the earth, it follows that they must preserve the environment in which they dwell. Humanity should behave in such a way that would maintain the balance that exists within the kind of environment that we inherited. In fact it is incumbent as a moral duty to restore and even retrieve the balance that had existed before we caused, collectively, many ecological disasters( See Quran: 15: 19):

"And the earth We have spread out; set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance."

The earth and its countless bounties have been created for mankind. It is also manifest that God made such natural bounties for all human beings in perpetuity. This huge reservoir is available for human use, without abuse or misuse. The circle of naturally available blessings for the benefit of humanity has to be kept alive for all generations to come.

“Environment”, as a term of art as we use it, has to be in the forefront of all such human thinking, policies and actions. There are numerous verses in the Quran that could be cited in this respect, but it suffices to mention three of them:

"And He has subjected to you, as from Him, all that is in the heavens and on earth: behold, in that there are Signs indeed for those who reflect.” Quran,45:13

Again the Quran says that His bounties to Mankind are always there: 


"Do you not see that God has subjected to your (use) all things in the heavens and on earth. And has made His bounties flow to you in exceeding measure, (that are essentially both) seen and unseen?" Quran, 31:20



 In another part the Quran maintains that:

"He has made subject to you the Night and the Day; the Sun and the Moon; and the Stars are in subjection by His command: verily in this are Signs for people who are wise." Quran:16:12.

There are other verses in the Quran that emphasize the point that mankind has merely a temporal use of nature and over other similar environmental elements. So tremendous is the ability of Man that God made night and day, stars, moon and the sun subject to his potential control. Therefore the primary reason for highlighting the temporality of things is to remind people of the Hereafter and to focus upon the non-permanent character of human existence on this earth. It is hoped that once people are conscientious of the limitation of life on earth, they will behave in a positive and constructive way. As a result, it is anticipated that the environment itself will benefit from the proper behavior of people.

The cosmic order of things seen or unseen and natural phenomena ultimately come to an end, as is reflected in this verse:

"…He has subjected the sun and the moon (to his Law)! Each one runs (its course) for a term appointed. He does regulate all affairs, explaining the Signs in detail that you may believe with certainty in the meeting with your Lord." Quran, 13:2

The subjection of the elements that make up the environment is spoken of in many chapters of the Quran:

"It is He who has made the sea subject, that you may eat thereof flesh that is fresh and tender., and that you may extract there from ornaments to wear; and you see the ships therein that plough the waves, that you may seek (thus) of the bounty of God and that you may be grateful." Quran:16:14

Concept of Vice Regency

Mankind and the human being are perceived as the trustee of the earth. The notion of trusteeship implies specifically that he is not supposed to cause corruption in any form on earth (i.e. the environment). Life on earth entails great responsibilities. This test implies accountability. It is followed by either reward or punishment. These concepts are mentioned both in the Quran and in the Sunnah. The Quran says in the following verse:

"It is He who has made you (His) vice regents, inheritors of the earth: He has raised you in ranks, some above others: that He may try you in the gifts He has given you: for your Lord is quick in punishment: yet He is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." Quran, 6:165

This verse proclaims with clarity that mankind in this vice regency role is subject to a natural system of reward and punishment. If the cosmic order is preserved in good order, human beings are better of; if they interfere adversely with such natural order of things, punishment shall surely follow. The Quran further says in famous verse which ordains the preservation of environment:

"Then We made you heirs in the land after them, to see how you would behave!" Quran, 10:14

I feel that this verse of the Quran may be said to be the simplest magna carta of the genesis of a law of environmental protection in Islam. The same message is implied in the Sunnah of the Prophet:

"Verily, this world is sweet and appealing, and Allah placed you as vice regents therein; He will see what you will do. So, be careful of [what you do in] this world and [what you do to/with] women, for the first test of the children of Israel was in women!" [2]

These emphatic commandments of the Quran make it clear that the Islamic perspectives of mankind’s vice regency on earth forms a test which includes how human beings relate to the environment. Is it going to be based upon divine instructions, or based upon personal desires, greed or commercial exploitation that might lead to the destruction of our environment? If the latter condition prevails, then vice regency will be entrusted to another and different people or generation. The possibility of this kind of a change over of the inheritance of this earth to another set of people is understood from the following two verses:

"Call in remembrance that He made you inheritors after the people of Noah…" Quran,7:69


 Again the Quran says at a different place about changing the “inheritors” of this earth: 


"And remember how He made you inheritors after the 'And people and gave you habitation in the land…" Quran, 7:74

These verses of the Quran contains the philosophy that God can and does switch the vice regency on earth to different peoples if the ones who are incumbent fail to honor their Divine commandments. This would be particularly relevant to those set who alter the human environment for the simple reason that with damage to such natural legacy by a certain set of people they would appear to lose that mantle of leadership of incumbency.

Maintenance of Natural balance

This leads me to the next issue which in terms of the epistemology of this matter deserves our consideration. How does one maintain the natural legacy of mankind as is implied in the verses of the Quran cited above? Clearly it seems to me by the continued adherence of a “balance” in the natural order of things that exist in this earth since the dawn of civilizations.

Therefore, mankind’s dominium over the earth is based upon knowledge that enables human beings to remain care takers of the environment in which they live and have inhabited it for thousands of years. Humanity must, a fortiori, behave in such a way that would maintain the balance that exists within the environment ultimately for the survival of the human race. Efforts must indeed be made to retrieve and redress the balance that has existed before any current generation may have caused collectively ecological disasters of great magnitude (see Quran: 1519):

"And the earth We have spread out; set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance."

The earth should remain therefore available for human use; its use without abuse or misuse has to avoided, indeed shunned as it is tantamount to a breach of trust imposed by God on the believers. The following verses may be cited from the Quran that support this perspective:

"And He has subjected to you, as from Him, all that is in the heavens and on earth: behold, in that there are Signs indeed for those who reflect." Quran, 45:13

In another verse already cited earlier we may re-emphasize when God tells mankind that all things in heavens and earth are in abundance and care must betake to part-take of such bounties with prudence and care: Quran 31:20. God further ordains in yet another well known verse:

"He has made subject to you the Night and the Day; the Sun and the Moon; and the Stars are in subjection by His command: verily in this are Signs for people who are wise." Quran: 16:12.

We can see the same message in other verses that point to the temporal nature of the natural elements. The reason behind highlighting the temporality of things is to remind people of the Hereafter. It is hoped that once people are conscientious of the limitation of life on earth, they may respond in a positive and constructive manner. As a result, it is anticipated that the environment itself will benefit from the proper behavior of people. Even the cosmos and the natural phenomena remain subject to this balance and ultimately come to an end when they go against the Divinely ordained course:

"…He has subjected the sun and the moon (to his Law)! Each one runs (its course) for a term appointed. He does regulate all affairs, explaining the Signs in detail that you may believe with certainty in the meeting with your Lord." Quran, 13:2

The Quran contains an elaborate identification of the natural order of this universe by pointing that nature’s elements too are governed by norms of the cosmos. As such the elements that make up the environment are spoken of in many important verses:

"It is He who has made the sea subject, that you may eat thereof flesh that is fresh and tender., and that you may extract there from ornaments to wear; and you see the ships therein that plough the waves, that you may seek (thus) of the bounty of God and that you may be grateful." Quran: 16:14.

The Quran again reminds us:

"It is God who has created the heavens and the earth and sends down rain from the skies, and with it brings out fruits wherewith to feed you; it is He who has made the ships subject to you, that they may sail through the sea by His command; and the rivers (also) has He made subject to you." Quran:4:32

Then yet at another place the Quran tells us that Man has been even given the ability to: 


"Then We subjected the Wind to his power, to flow gently to his order, whithersoever he willed …" Quran: 38:36

These verses highlight the simple point that natural facilities that are available to human beings must be utilized in manner that genuinely furthers the nature’s design of human progress and not in way that bedevils that scheme. Whether it may be the utilization of the strength of animals or be it natural elements, all these measures of human assistance have to be used with prudence and care so that natural balance remains in tact:

"That has created pairs in all things, and has made for you ships and cattle on which you ride, In order that you may sit firm and square on their backs, and when so seated, you may celebrate the (kind) favor of your Lord, and say, "Glory to Him Who has subjected these to our (use), for we could never have accomplished this (by ourselves), And to our Lord, surely, must we turn back!" Quran, 43:12-14

Clearly humanity was not restricted to the use of ships and animals to move from one place to another. There are many other modes of transportation that are subjected to our use. The utilization and use of natural phenomenon and elements that mankind uses has to be undertaken in a humane and visionary manner.

Focus of Islamic on natural eco-system

The above discussion may be summarized as under:

(1) That Islam gave to mankind a message which is complete for guidance for all times to come. This message contains injunctions against human misconduct or excesses including, it is submitted, about utilization of nature and the elements.

(2) That in the support of this thesis we find numerous quotations from the Quran about harnessing the natural elements such as wind, water and the produce that comes from the land. The design of Almighty being to provide reasonable comfort and well being of the human race for all times to come.

(3) It is also clear that in such exploitation of nature and its resources and the elements there is depletion of such natural heritage of mankind.

(4) That as such God ordains Muslims to maintain a balance in these exploits so that the natural equilibrium is kept aloft as we inherited it.

(5) It is well to remember, as the Quran emphasizes, that those peoples who did not obey these natural laws were changed.

(6) On this earth God has appointed mankind as trustee and vice regent to oversee the affairs of its earthly existence. It is a trust that needs to be faithfully executed.

The above summary succinctly provides us with the fundamental philosophy of Islamic provisions of the earth’s eco-system and its conceptions relating to the environment. While there are many aspects of this environmental attitude of Islam, this exploratory analysis is only intended to concentrate on one particular aspect of this otherwise large subject. Do the injunctions of Islam address the current critical problem of global warming which is arising as a consequence of excessive fossil fuel burning and emission of carbon at the expense of the earth’s ozone environmental protective layers? I particularly refer to this problem as by itself it is quite sufficient to wreck havoc on the current living patterns of all kinds of living species on our planet.

Irreversible environmental damage

There has been an increasing worldwide clamor against this non-abating and irreparable damage to the earth’s environment through this peculiar form of “pollution”. At the international scene European countries have been generally in the forefront of this visibly active movement at both the governmental and at the NGO level.

This international furor finds support in a recently made powerful statement from a notable American personality. It would be instructive to refer to a memorable passage from the address of former Vice President of the US, Al Gore, who in a speech to the New York University on 18th September 2006 in which he said:

“A few days ago, scientists announced alarming new evidence of the rapid melting of the perennial ice of the north polar cap, continuing a trend of the past several years that now confronts us with the prospect that human activities, if unchecked in the next decade, could destroy one of the earth’s principal mechanisms for cooling itself. Another group of scientists presented evidence that human activities are responsible for the dramatic warming of sea surface temperatures in the areas of the ocean where hurricanes form.

A few weeks earlier, new information from yet another team showed dramatic increases in the burning of forests throughout the American West, a trend that has increased decade by decade, as warmer temperatures have dried out soils and vegetation. All these findings come at the end of a summer with record breaking temperatures and the hottest twelve month period ever measured in the U.S., with persistent drought in vast areas of our country. Scientific American introduces the lead article in its special issue this month with the following sentence: The debate on global warming is over.”

Manifestly, this quotation gives a capsule summary of the major assaults on the existing environment by and under the guise of exploitation for “scientific progress” through this process referred to as “global warming”. These “assaults” to which I refer have been noted most contemporaneously by the international community when analyzing the Kyoto Protocols. However, Islam examined the philosophical genesis of this danger fifteen hundred years ago. The fundamental genesis of this fear is that this ceaseless drive to deplete the fossil fuels’ reservoirs of the earth for purely commercial goals is at the expense of the eco-system and environmental balance that was identified above.

Message of Kyoto Protocols

Let us initially focus our attention on one basic facet of this contemporary debate. It seems to be beyond any doubt that mankind is faced with a huge danger because the Kyoto Protocol was not put really into effect by the all the relevant actors of this pollution drive on account of the commercial aims of a few but important international actors. This inability of the world community to act in unison has resulted in a potential disaster of incalculable proportions. The acute and impending damage to the earth, inteneded to be averted through the Kyoto Protocol, continues to loom large on all of humanity. We would initially briefly examine the contours of this controversy. Once the fundamental issues are realized we would with advantage visit the corresponding position of this topic from the confines of Islamic theological formulations.

Kyoto Protocol was signed in Japan in 1997 initially by 165 countries but that number now stands at over 180. The ideas behind Kyoto were aimed to achieve that state of affairs that existed as far back as in 1972, when human development and environment initially came under serious international discussions. This was at the Stockholm U.N. Conference on Human Development. Twenty years later, in 1992, came the famous Anniversary meeting of the UN at what is known as the “Earth Summit” when the UN Conference on Environment took place in Brazil.

Its landmark contribution was the signing of Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration. In these international instruments the UN brought together conflicting interests of development and environment firmly into public view for an evaluation. As a consequence, two binding international texts were produced. These international texts of far reaching influence were the agreement on Biological Diversity and the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCC).

The quintessential elements of the Kyoto Protocol were that it committed the 38 most industrialized countries of the world to cut their emissions of greenhouse gasses between 2008 and 2112 to levels that are 5.2 percent below those that existed in 1990.

The simple question that arises, therefore, is why is the danger still there if nearly all countries of the world are in favor of abiding by it? The answer, regrettably, is that the US, possessing the world’s largest economy, and Australia, are holding out and refusing to ratify this crucial treaty engineered and crafted for the future survival of the human race on this planet. This danger is directly connected with the emanation of the greenhouse gasses by the industrialized states and pollution caused by transport vehicles by fuel emissions.

How are greenhouse gasses produced? What is the disastrous impact they produce on the environment?

Greenhouse gasses are a term that means those gasses like carbon dioxide which are mainly generated as a result of burning fossil fuels like coal, petrol and diesel. While burning these resources have been greatly beneficial to gigantic oil corporations producing them trans-nationally, they have simultaneously resulted in raising the level of carbon in the atmosphere. This has been the chief cause of world-wide pollution. Scientists predict significant global warming as a consequence of this process by warming the earth by about 5 degrees Celsius. This could potentially be disastrous to ecology by changing environment, expanding deserts, melting ice, causing sea levels to rise and engulf low lying coastal areas of the world. Were this to occur, many well known cities and seaports of the world would be submerged for ever under the oceans.

Islamic theological perspectives

(a) Basic terms

Before proceeding further to analyze the relevant Islamic perspectives, let me make a lexicographical submission of far reaching impact. We must, a priori, make a basic philosophical distinction between the concepts of “environment” and “ecology” or eco-systems”. Both these terms are interchangeably used in contemporary literature on this subject. However, there does exist, prima facie, a clear difference between the two terms. Intellectual exactitude requires that we keep it in mind for appropriate application the relevant term when necessary.

Both terms are employed in Muslim texts of authentic value. Indeed, it can be said that there exists a branch of jurisprudence (fiqh) about 'environment' (bi'ah). It may be described as the Fiqh al-biah al Islam. This would be the equivalent of Islamic jurisprudence of the environment.

On the other hand, the word “ecology” does appear to be utilized in lexicographical and epistemological semantics through out Islamic texts of the highest validity. Ecology in its lexicon sense means a branch of human knowledge that deals with living organisms, habits and modes of life.

Historically, therefore, it is necessary to comprehend that whereas the term ecology or co-systems have a direct base in the Quran, “environment" is newer addition to the classical texts on this subject. This is invariable. Not long ago, such a term was not even used in Western legal parlance.

It should be thus emphasized from the above analysis that Islam does advocate the protection of the environment as a matter of “law”. At the same time the preservation of earth’s ecology is equally mandated as the Quran normatively contains literally dozens of verses about keeping the natural balance that prevails on this earth. The quotations from the Quran cited earlier were clearly of this category and import.

The various verses of the Quran cited at the outset were towards establishing the thesis that Islam does have an in ecological sense. We tried to establish that Islam does have:

(1) A broad set of guidelines towards nature that calls for preservation of this earth.

(2) In these guidelines there is the warning that there must be avoided damage to this human legacy.

(3) There is the allegorical reference to the past history of mankind that those that did not obey such guidelines were removed and replaced by another people.

It may further be noted that the term “environment” per se, along with its diverse connotations, gradually evolved in recent times through interpretation provided by essentially jurists. This important development is predicated on the premise that all concepts that owe their genesis to the Quran are of an injunctive kind. Hence, I used the phrase of “towards jurisprudence of the environment.” Islam clearly has a high regard for the environment as support for such a proposition, as submitted above, is found in the Quran and the Sunnah.

(b) Basic norms

However, this should also be noted that by emphasizing that nature must be preserved does not mean that there has to be no human progress! In fact, it may be necessary to undertake the contrary route involving scientific advancement for the preservation, protection and for alleviating the difficulties of the human race itself. According to one Hadith, the Prophet is reported to have said that a person who uprooted a tree (which formed an obstacle) in the path of people, ended up in heavens. In other words, the object of interfering in nature has to be higher and nobler than mere exploitation for economic gain of the relevant actor.


The fundamental postulate in this context is thus the “balance” we adverted to earlier and to maintaining a course that keeps nature as purified as we inherited it, but subjecting it to mankind’s use intelligently with prudence. That this is the role and responsibility of a Vice Regent on earth is reiterated again and again in the Quran. It is incumbent on all peoples at all times to so perform their assignments in this world that nothing impinges or adversely affects on the natural state of scheme of such matters.


Islam modulates a middle path between human behavior that has disregard for the environment and those who practically want the environment or certain parts of it to remain untouched. While the Islamic world view supports the protection of environment from the greedy behavior of human beings, it also allows room for sustainable development.

At this juncture let me pause and introduce you to a term “I’mar”. Generally this term is given the conception of “to inhabit”. It is useful to comprehend the wider conception of this word. Such meaning includes spreading and settling all over the earth, inhabiting every livable quarters, building and undertaking civic projects that benefit the community at large. In short, it includes every positive activity that would make life on earth prosperous. If an activity diverts humanity from the right path which means against the Shariah, then it cannot be considered as I'mar.

It is clear from a study of the Quran that the earth is our habitat and that we are required to dwell on it, work it out and establish a balanced way of life without excesses or deficiencies. The Quran says:

"To the Thamud People (We sent) Salih, one of their own brethren. He said: "O my People! Worship God: you have no other God but Him. It is He Who has produced you from the earth and settled you therein: then ask forgiveness of Him, and turn to Him (in repentance): for my Lord is (always) near, ready to answer" Quran, 11:61


A well known commentator on Muslim theology says on this verse:

"And Salih reminded them (the people of Thamud) about their origination from earth, the creation of every individual from the nutrition of the earth or from its components that make up their bodies. Despite being (created) from this earth and its elements, Allah appointed them vice regents so that they may inhabit it! He wanted them to be vice regents as a species, and as individuals to replace those who came before they did!" [3]

In advocating the cause of preservation of inherited human environment and the prevalent eco-systems, the Quran reminds us with this warning that those who did not heed such messages before were wiped out of existence themselves.

"Do they not travel through the earth; and see what the end of those before them was? In strength they tilled the soil and populated it in greater numbers than these have done: there came to them their apostles with Clear (Signs), (which they rejected, to their own destruction): it was not God who wronged them, but they wronged their own souls." Quran, 30:9

The I’ mar of the earth should be in areas and projects that could benefit humanity and not harm it. This means that projects and activities that destroy the environment are excluded from permissible human enterprise. The brute form of the capitalist system encourages such “destructive” industries as drilling oil as long as the earth’s reservoir lasts. They find imaginative ways to counter the facts of pollution of the air, destruction of human health, lost energies and funds in combating and treating the resulting diseases, misuse of the land which could be used otherwise for other humanely beneficial purposes for mankind.

Protecting environment

Every act, as long as it is good in protecting the environment and done for the sake of generating and assisting life and also preserve the earth is allowed by Islamic teachings. A middle road between two extremes is the proffered solution; neither there should be a total disregard for the environment’s integrity nor an abandonment of the justifiable progress that mankind may achieve through sustainable development and evolution.


The total disregard for the environment is detrimental for the human being is not to be encouraged. Similarly it is equally true that the adoption of a position on the other end of the spectrum of protecting the environment in an absolute sense must not adhered to. 



The Islamic position forms a middle path between human behavior that has disregard to the environment and those who practically worship the environment or certain parts of it. While the Islamic world view supports the protection of environment from the greedy behavior of human beings, it allows room for sustainable development.

The oft quoted Hadith mandate on this point is in the following verse:

"He who cuts a lote-tree (without justification), God will send him to Hellfire." [4]

The lote-tree grows in the desert and it is very much needed in an area which has scarce vegetation. A well known Muslim theologian, Dr. Al-Qaradawi, is of the view that this Hadith provides us with the most vivid illustration in terms of protecting the natural resources and preserving the balance that exists between the diverse elements of nature in the environment. [5]

In this background, where the continuity of even one tree is appreciated, one can visualize what would be the Islamic position towards destroying millions of trees, or depleting the earth’s resources, or the destruction of the ozone layer of this planet? Non preservation of the natural environment of mankind or the habitat of the human race as a result of humans directly acting upon nature (e.g. deforestation) or indirectly (e.g. acid rain) cannot possibly be contended by Islamic dictates.

In this context there is much, for instance, on plants and the activity of agriculture in classical Muslim teachings. The Prophet indeed encouraged people to work hard under all circumstances in maintenance of the earth’s natural heritage. He explained that people should plant and undertake all kinds of plantations. This trend is particularly focused upon for those plants that bear fruit particularly a palm-tree seedling. So much is this emphasis that it is enjoined upon all Muslims, even if it is the Day of Judgment and that the world is coming to an end, they should still do it!

It is for this reason that it is prohibited by Islam to let the land set idle for a long time without working it out. Reviving a "dead" or “barren” land could lead, under customary Islamic law, to creating a legal right to use it indefinitely, as long as it was continued to be planted. This was a direct incentive from the state and the community to encourage cultivation of barren land. Hence it is obvious that Muslim jurists from the very inception had been brought up to frame normative norms of positive law which were helpful to environment.

Protecting Land

Protection of land finds many verses in support thereof by emphasizing that it must be kept clean and free from rubbish. It is reported by a famous Hadith that God likes cleanliness. [6] Further, the Prophet is said to have warned Muslims not to throw refuse in public or near the fruit trees. The message that this Hadith sends is that cleanliness is something desirable, good and reflects an act of necessity towards the environment. As such it is submitted that if cleanliness is something good, then it should be reflected everywhere.

Islam has thus created a bond between faith and cleanliness, rendering the latter as a part of faith. The Prophet’s sayings on this point illustrate that solid waste of any kind must not pollute the grounds that produce food or which forms parts of the dwellings. It is obvious that cleaning such places means, in this context, the removal of material obstacles or solid waste which constitutes a kind of pollution in contemporary perspectives of this matter.

The prohibition in such Hadiths is thus intended to prevent pollution. The direct human polluting activity presently is manifestly to extend to indirect sources of pollution as well, such as through sewers. The natural pollutants of any given time conceptually extended to include the chemical pollutants or other activity which is connected, for instance, with industrial production. The language of another Hadith which prohibits the pollution of water may further be cited to support the thesis just articulated by me that, in a contemporary context, pollution of any kind is impermissible in Islam. It is mandated that a Muslim should keep the channels of drinking water clean. We know already those chemicals such as pesticides, insecticides, or herbicides which are detrimental to the health of humans, and we know that much of these chemicals reach the reservoirs of drinking water. Analogical reasoning will justify, therefore, from the perspective of the Shraiah, that such activity be also prohibited and not allowed to be undertaken. 



The Shariah aims at protecting the environment, and while the individual is asked to help in this respect, the ultimate responsibility is in the hands of the state. When Abu Musa was sent to Al-Basrah as the new governor, he addressed the people saying:

"I was sent to you by 'Umar Ibn Al-Khattab in order to teach you the Book of your Lord [i.e. the Quran], the Sunnah of your prophet, and to clean your streets." [7]

The function of the governor who represents the authority of the state, in the narration about Abu Musa, tends to establish that keeping the environment clean is amongst the responsibilities of the Administration. This position should be highlighted, because it obligates the governments, as much as the Muslims themselves, to keep their civic environments and amenities clean and free of pollution.

Preserving Water

The above analysis would have already stressed the significance of water for various human needs. It is God's will that all living beings on earth are dependent for their existence on water:

"…We made from water every living thing…" Quran, 21:30

Furthermore, there are many verses in the Quran that reflect the direct involvement of the Divine Will whenever it rains. Following are typical of these verses from the Quran:

"And God sends down rain from the skies, and gives therewith life to the earth.” Quran:16:65

And again Quran mandates to Muslims: 


"…and He sends down rain from the sky and with it gives life to earth…" Quran: 30:24

Yet another instance of this philosophy this contained in this verse:


"And We send down from the sky rain charged with blessing, and We produce therewith gardens and grain for harvests." Quran: 50:9


In addition to the protection of water from pollution, the Sunnah emphasized the proper use of water without wasting it. One more Hadith regarding the protection of water is related to the use of clean still water. The Prophet said: "No one should bathe in still water, when he is junub (impure)" [8] In a Hadith that reflects the future scene regarding the said issue, the Prophet said according to Abu Dawud:

"There will be a people amongst this Ummah who will transgress in their supplication and ablution."

It is obvious that the transgressing in wasting eater even in ablution means the use of excessive amounts of water or it misuse even for an ostensibly laudable purpose and objective is disallowed by Islam. This is contrary to the Islamic ethos of maintaining the healthy balance between need and waste.

Preventing air pollution

Protecting the air from pollutants can be deduced from many sayings of the Prophet. There are many Hadiths that tell us that the Prophet , discouraged or prohibited activities that result in offensive smells and odors, from taking place in certain public places. 
Another Hadith aims at protecting the Muslim community from offensive smells that result from eating garlic or onion. The Prophet said:

"He who eats from this tree - meaning garlic - should not get close to our mosque." [9]

According to another Hadith:

"He who eats garlic or onion should stay away from us, or he said: "should stay away from our mosque and stay at his home." [10]

The period which one should stay away from the mosque is limited to the duration of the smell. This is understood from the Hadith narrated by Abu Dawaud :

"He who eats from this wicked plant, should not get close to our mosque, until its smell goes."

Al-Qaradawi refers to a religious ruling (fatwa) upon the fact that smoking is detrimental to the health of primary and secondary smokers. It is the harm that results from releasing anything into the air which forms the fundamental basis of al-Qaradawi's reference. By analogy, anything that pollutes the air and is detrimental to the health should be prohibited. This includes indirect harm such as in the case of CFC which depletes the ozone. Harmful fumes that cannot be prohibited all together, should be reduced and alternatives should be made popular. The emission of Carbon Monoxide would certainly be a target of this prohibition. A case is also made out to find out alternative sources of energy to ward off, if possible, the damage by way of global warming phenomenon by a continued use of fossil fuels.

Injunction against noise pollution

Islam took care of the human being and made sure that he should not be subjected to loud and annoying noises to prevent harm to him both physically and psychologically. There are multiple Hadith that point out that loud noise is tantamount to foolish conduct and is basically harmful. In the Quran, Luqman advised his son saying:

"…and lower thy voice; for the harshest of sounds without doubt is the braying of the ass." Quran, 31:19

The Islamic Shariah, it is interesting to note, does not contemplate loud voices or sounds being made even in the mosques. The right of others to pray peacefully, or to recite the Quran quietly on their own, during times other than the obligatory prayer, which is performed by all present at the same time together, should be respected. The argument in favor of preventing pollution by noise is that reciting of the Quran by voices is not encouraged because it may distract others from reflection; if this be the case then any other sources of noise pollution deserve the same evaluating criteria; they are all seemingly prohibited. It is established by modern medical sciences that if one is subjected to loud noise over a long period of time, it reduces the ability of a healthy person to react normally; such noise can adversely affect the hearing ability of some and possibly also result in psych-somatic problems.

Islamic objectives in environment protection

There are said to be five major aims (maqasid) of Islam in life. As mentioned many times by most scholars through out of its history of mankind the Shariah aims to:

(1) The protection of life,

(2) The protection of religion,

(3) The protection of the mind,

(4) The preservation of one’s offspring and progeny, and

(5) The protection of property.

A well known recent authority of the Islamic theology, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Tahir Ibn 'Ashur went beyond the original five and added another two objectives as aims of a good Muslims life:

(6) The maintenance of equality and (7) the right to remain and keep freedom in life. [11]

Quite clearly, the protection of Environment may be said to exist as a part of the quintessential nucleus of many such objectives. Indeed the right to life itself becomes a meaningful reality only if mankind’s environment is capable of living as we know of it presently and as known to us historically. I think I can refer with advantage to a well know case from the Supreme Court of India on pollution. In Sachidananda Pandey VS. State of West Bengal12 AIR 1987 SC 1109, in which Justice Reddy remarked on a public interest Petition against the construction of five star hotel next to the historical Calcutta Zoo by saying:

“How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land, or the life that goes along with it since long time? It is not a question of only buying or selling land; we have to see the totality of the ecology involved when the matter involves invasion of the nature by man’s desire to go on building”

The thesis presented in my address today is that protecting the environment and eco-systems of the earth are a major concern of the Islamic Faith. It is therefore a major aim of the Shariah. Hence it has rightful place as a norm of rule of jurisprudence for Muslims. If the situation of the environment keeps deteriorating at the present rate, there will ultimately be no life, no property and no religion left.

The environment encompasses, it is submitted, the totality of the other aims of the Shariah. The destruction of the environment prevents the human being from fulfilling the concept of vice regency on earth. Indeed, when the very existence of humanity is at stake here, as in the case of the destruction of the ozone layer, this phenomenon assumes special significance.

It is an established scientific fact that excessive pollution of the air might lead to serious deformities, abortion and chronic diseases. It is in evidence from advanced Western countries that highly polluted industrial cities might not have clear sunlight for days, resulting in deep depressions which affects a person's ability to rationalize properly. Certain radiation might also produce results that can affect adversely the quality of human and animal brain power. The attempt to protect any kind of property rights will also be in vain if, in the context of a highly polluted environment, the cities and dwelling places become uninhabitable. There are already many rivers and lakes that are considered dead with no marine life. This is a direct result of acid rain which also destroys forests. These forests and water sources form the natural habitat of many species; their death means the possible extinction of some of the signs of natural life that we presently know of.


To consider the protection of the environment as one of the major aims of the Shariah will, hopefully, enable the neo-model of Islamic civilization a chance to be advanced as an alternative to the already existing western model, which is the primary source of pollution. Adopting this position makes it imperative for the Muslim governments to establish laws for the protection of the environment and implement them. Internationally also, serious efforts are required by them to achieve these objectives.

End Notes

∗ D.Phil.; B A Juris, MA. M.Litt, (Oxon), DCL (Columbia), DIA (Harvard), Of Lincoln’s Inn, Barrister at Law, UK, Attorney at Law, US, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (QC) of Pakistan; David M. Kennedy Visiting Scholar & Professor of International Studies, Kennedy Center & Visiting Professor, Fellow, Center for International Affairs, Harvard University. The author has been Advisor to four Pakistani Prime Ministers on Foreign Affairs & Law, Member & Delegate to the UN Human Rights Commission, and the UN Sub Commission on Human Rights, Geneva. He has also represented Pakistan delegations to the UN GA and was the leader of Pakistan Delegation to the International Criminal Court (ICC); He is currently the UN Special Ambassador for Family, the President of the American Institute of South Asian Strategic Studies, Boston; President Pakistan Ecology Council and Chairman Pakistan Bar ‘s Committees on International Affairs and Environment, 2004-2005; he was awarded the highly prestigious King Faisal Memorial Award for 2002 by Saudi Arabia and in 2003 he received the International Professor of the Year of Human Rights Award in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia In 2004 he became the first Pakistani scholar to be appointed a distinguished Visiting Professor by JNU in Delhi, & to give Memorial Lectures at the Benaras Hindu University, University of Mumbai and at Ambadkar University in Auranagbad. In 2006 he was given the London World International Islamic Award for Family.

1 See: Proceedings, International Human Ecology Congress, Vienna, Austria, September 15-19, Present day Shortcomings of Environmental Law, Suggestions for Improvement, Dr. Farooq Hassan, pages 829-833, Georgi Publishing Company

2 See Muslim, Sahih

3 See See Fi Zilal al-Quran, Sayyid Qutub, 12th Edition (Dar al-Shuruq) Vol. 12, p. 1907

4 See: Al-Tirmidhi, # 5239

5 See: Al-Qaradawi, al-Sunnah Masdaran Lil-Ma'rifah wal-Hadarah, 143-144

6 Al-Tirmidhi # 2799

7 See: Al-Darimi, # 560

8 Narrated by Muslim

9 See Al-Lu'lu' wal-Marjan, # 331, 332

10 See Al-Lu'lu' wal-Marjan, # 333

11 See Isma'il Al-Hasani, Nazariyyat Al-Maqasid 'ind Al-Imam Muhammad Al-tahir Ibn 'Ashur, p. 16

12 AIR 1987 SC 1109

Women’s Position in Muslim Family Laws: Needed Reforms

By: Dr. Farooq Hassan

(Synopsis of address presented at World Islamic International Awards ceremony
16th September, South hall, London, 2006)

It is my great honor to be invited here to receive the World Islamic International Award for Family from the London based World Islamic Family Coalition. As a networking coalition of Muslim NGOs our host today is involved in diverse matters including the family. This NGO is designed to provide resource services and to act as a caucus for Muslim institutions internationally. Although barely set up less than a year ago, it has begun its work with some degree of earnestness with institutions in the Islamic world. I thank the Secretary General Dr. Malik for his pioneer efforts in this regard.

But I must add that much work needs to be done by them if they have to make a mark in this field as an Islamic international NGO in Family matters. All the reputable institutions that are operating presently in the field of the family are invariably Western in origin. They are primarily organized for alleviating the misfortunes and woes faced by this basic human institution in their societies. I am not aware of a single non Western NGO in the field of the family to have embarked upon a venture such as our hosts have done with any significant impact.

I have endeavored to work in this movement to substantively (not merely rhetorically) combat, many policy and cultural issues that presently sadly exist in the Muslim milieu. My aim is to recommend appropriate improvement legal measures and to encourage the implementation of needed reforms if possible. Respectfully I am surprised for being nominated for this exclusive recognition which any Award carries! Many distinguished scholars in the Family movement are far ahead of my own humble efforts towards the goal of having this fundamental human institution gain its rightful place in the current evolution of our society’s dominating norms. Let me, therefore, have the privilege to name a few inspiring icons whose valuable time, energies and vision in this noble pursuit are apart of contemporary history of Family studies. Premier amongst such stalwarts of family protagonists being Dr. Allan Carlson of the Howard Center who has pioneered a global coalescing of thinking on this subject by convening World Congresses of Family. I am also most impressed by my learned friend Professor Richard Wilkins, who single handedly set up the foremost University related think tank on this matter when he created the World Family Policy Center at Brigham Young University[1]

My address today to this learned gathering deals with “needed” reforms in Muslim Family laws with respect to the status of women in many Islamic societies. It is a theme that often gets neglected in the philosophical avocations of most writers on family matters. The Doha Conference of 2004 was prima facie held in an Islamic cultural environment. While providing tremendous momentum to this thematic topic in international dynamics and at the UN, nothing specific emanated from its impact for the “reform” aspects to which I refer. The matter of “reforms” in the exiting laws relating to Family particularly with reference to the status of women in Muslim countries thus needs a focused attention.

What is needed therefore is a carefully devised legal endeavor to find out the broad areas of concern to the affected or concerned people or institutions. Then we must examine how it is best to remove such perceived deficiencies. Ex hypothesi this can only done by trained constitutional and comparative lawyers since both the identification of the malaise and its correction requires a priori expertise in comparative legal systems

I have myself written over two dozen articles and given interviews on many aspects of this subject which are available on the internet and in the press op ed columns of newspapers in countries as diverse as the US, England, India, Gulf States and Pakistan. In these works I have already critically and hopefully objectively, analyzed various aspects of international legal matters and issues of general jurisprudence associated with the institution of the Family. I have respectfully pointed out in these works the glaring omission of any substantive or serious analysis of issues relating to the status and position of women within this larger institution of the Family within the Muslim communities. Despite the lofty doctrinal importance of women in Islamic theology, practically and as a cultural reality their status requires substantive improvement within the ambit of even the traditional family.

Recently in my address at the World Family Center of BYU Law School in Provo, Utah, I delivered a similar message. In this address which essentially dealt with the Family Conference in Doha I emphasized the philosophical need to focus more deeply on women issues while talking of this subject.[2] This was respectfully by me submitted as nothing was really canvassed on this issue in this otherwise landmark international conference.

Protagonists have been evidently enthusiastic about the process regarding the recognition of the Family as a fundamental human institution generated at the Doha International Conference in November 2004. Significance of what was achieved at the Doha Conference continues to attract attention from legal scholars[3] and journalists[4] of note with startlingly different evaluations of what Doha conference actually or purportedly achieved. Any one interested in this matter will thus find a fair deal of research material on this matter. Islamic counties generally have supported as a policy, pro-family activities at the international level.

Debates within Islamic Thinking on “Reform”?

Throughout its history Islamic faith has been both deeply cherished and misunderstood for its emphasis on enveloping the entirety of a person’s life with its normative structure of rules of conduct and precepts. Amongst the major norms of such expected behavior are those that are devised to apply to the institution of the human family, children and women.[5] Simultaneously, the jurisprudence and moral philosophy of the faith also acutely focuses on the larger matter pertaining to the subject of human rights of mankind.

But in recent times there is an ostensible tussle in progress between the conservative elements of such societies and the advocates of modernistic attitudes. The modernistic thinking to which I refer is grounded on secular postulates which “indicate” that some traditional norms of accepted behavior qua the Family are in “violation” of the current relevant norms of the philosophy of human rights. It is also maintained by other elements, in particular the governments in important Islamic states, that it is necessary for economic progress to “modify” previously held views on issues of contemporary significance.

Reference can made as an illustration to “reproductive health” which means family planning. For instance as Rapporteur of two major international UN sponsored conferences on the “rights” of the Family and the Child in Islamabad last May in 2005 I frankly reported that “rules” of “law” and not merely soft international law was being made by Islamic nations and major Asian countries. The areas that were focused upon pertained to “rights” that were of “reproductive” kind and those loosely referred to as “spanking” practices. I think that there is little doubt that most Muslim countries are in progress towards embracing “family planning” practices. In countries such as Pakistan or Turkey where there is very vocal presence of conservative Islamic environment, the State apparatus is already busy devising strategies to counter such opposition. In Pakistan, as I have reported in my Report on the May 2005 UN Regional Family Conference, the Federal government obtained “fatwa’s” from pliable Muslim clerics of nondescript note, to vouchsafe the absence of any such dogma in the Shari’a on it.

Regrettably the Western NGOs, who are otherwise very active in such matters, did nothing of any note to counter this kind of propaganda. Literally there was little help or support from such friendly NGOs to guide us in third world countries to devise modalities that would go some way to meet the policy declarations by the governments of several Muslim and other Asian countries. I do not know exactly why, but could it be that it was unconsciously thought as such developments had little impact in the West, it was best to politely ignore such Declarations? [6]

Such secular attitudes are on the other hand manifestly evident in the policies and state declarations of several advanced Western countries.[7] It is equally obvious that to exert friendly pressure on many such Islamic nations, mostly belonging to the developing category, substantial investment of funds is in progress. This is bound to affect the mores of such societies while certainly influencing their governments. Compared to such current “liberal” Western thinking on moral issues concerning the Family, the humanitarian postulates and dogmas of Islam are heavily grounded on principles of high morality. It is this quality of fierce attachment to these ancient teachings that keeps the Islamic family together in almost the same moorings with which it began its traditions hundreds of years ago. But are the about to change? What effect did the Doha Declaration have on such an evolution? I will answer such inquiries after noting the fundamental norms of the basic principles of this topic.

But I must hasten to add that any dilution in the ethos of traditional Islamic norms would be a disturbing to the religious practices of its millions of adherents. Such thinking would also affect the peoples of other Nations that direly need such ethical mores to keep afloat their own cultural value systems in an international social milieu rapidly losing such values in the wake of contemporary “progress”. But regrettably, as it would be noticed, such “dilution” within Islamic countries seems already in process.

Islam’s contributions to this subject are a living tribute to the strength of the Faith to protect and enhance the status of the Family as the crucial nucleus of our civilization’s civic life. The Quran contains many direct commands for the purpose of keeping the Family in tact. Such mandates apply regardless of geography or ethnic specificity as such instructions are binding on everyone.[8] Furthermore, apart from ethical and moral injunctions, Islamic compendium of teachings on matters connected with the concept of matrimony and man-woman relationship, have a codified criminalization of laws relating to what may be described as wrongs qua this status of traditional marriage.

As such, same sex union, howsoever described, will be a serious legal and not merely a moral objectionable conduct in an Islamic society. In the Indian Penal Code 1860, initially drafted by Lord McCauley, vide Section 377, this “deviant” action is said to be an “unnatural offence.” This is still the position in Pakistan, India and many countries of the erstwhile Commonwealth counties where the said Code has been adopted verbatim. Hence both by the weight of the teachings of Islam and the contents of the prevalent legal systems, philosophically and by jurisprudence, Muslim countries would seem to stand for the institution of the traditional Family.

Even a cursory look at the performance of Muslim states in the international arena will provide us with over whelming evidence of this attitude and commitment. In the General Assembly of the UN whenever it mattered, it was the Islamic states that gave the required numerical support to defeat the agenda of activists of anti Family protagonists.

Most recently in the UN Human Rights Commission meetings in Geneva, it again fell to the Muslim countries to defeat a highly organized move of the biggest coalition of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgender group sever gathered at a UN meeting to cater for the adoption of the “sexual orientation” resolution which, if adopted, would wreck the steadily achieved advance in pro Family world-wide efforts. This impressive contribution began at the end of the 59th Session of the UNHRC in 2003 when five Islamic countries led by Pakistan (the others being Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia) after delaying a vote by moving several Amendments had the Resolution debate adjourned to 2004.[9] In 2004 during the 60th Session once again it fell to the Muslim countries to force Brazil on the 29th March to seek postponement of this measure until 2005.

I feel that all these matters from a normative perspective and of state practice deserve to be fully noted, chronicled and duly analyzed. My standard legal texts constitute a kind of work in this field which would be helpful for those trying to go deeply into a number of issues raised in today’s address.[10] But it would be helpful to see the extent to which such inherited values of the Muslims as contained in Shari’a have been really implemented; a brief reference to the Islamic position on family needs therefore a priori re-iteration.[11]

Islamic normative conceptions on Family

The first question that needs some explanation from me would be the scope and vires or validity of the Shariah laws. Islamic Law, or Shari’a, is derived from the Quran and the Hadith. The Quran is considered to be direct revelation from God through Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam. The Quran contains Meccan Surahs that were revealed from the year 611 A.D to the year 622 A.D. The Medinan Surahs were revealed from the year 622 A.D until Muhammad’s death in the year 632 A.D. The Hadith are traditions, revealed by Muhammad, not God, but are considered divine since Muhammad was the Prophet. It is important to note that Hadith are described as authentic, inauthentic, or even weak, depending on who they came from

In the context of Islamic family obligations this status is defined as “a human social group whose members are bound together by the bond of blood ties and or marital relationship”[12] The Quranic injunctions created the basic framework of such obligations. The major thrust of such injunctions was to ameliorate the position of women and to grant to daughters rights and privileges ignored by the ancient customs which were present at the advent of Islam. “These Quranic reforms, as well as customary practice, constitute the substance of classical family law” in Muslim philosophy.[13]

The basic perception of marriage, which is considered to be the foundation of family life, is in the nature of “the strongest bond”[14] that exists in human relations. Surah 4: An-Nisa allows marriage of choice but forbids husband from inheriting the wife’s property against her will.[15] According to Quran men and women have equitable and proportionate rights and responsibilities in a family. In order to preserve the survival of the family unit and to ensure the viability of the institution it has been provided that the weaker elements in this unit have higher levels of protection. As such the Quran allows the rights of women not only in the context of marriage[16], protection from slander[17], maintenance[18], and care of children.[19]. The cumulative quintessence of these diverse injunctions regarding the family as a social unit signifies that laws of Divine origin are in place to ensure the integrity of this unit.

In this scheme of the preservation of the family as a unit in a society described briefly above, the Islamic message seems to be to: -

Make marriage based on free consent.

Preserve the economic viability of the wife.

Make the off spring, with great emphasis on the females of this union, an integral part of this unit in which they not only owe various duties of loyalty and respect to their parents, in return the parents must exert their best moral influence on them..

The position of women is specifically deserving of attention as it is enjoined upon Muslims to care, cater and look after kindly the females amongst them

In light of such lofty principles, it must not be concluded that such indeed is the practice amongst Muslims generally. This is sadly not the case at all. I am myself an ardent critic of Islamic leadership because of its visible failings on many matters that are of significance to Muslims as human beings. So what areas of Family require “reform”? Does it mean to bring at par with tradition if it is short of that level? Or does it mean reformative recourses in fields that are established but “need” change to be in accord with our current notions of fairness and justice?

Needed legal “reforms” in Islamic countries?

Islam’s message on the Family is prima facie very comprehensive yet from contemporary Western societal standards in a number off areas somewhat austere and even considered against “liberalism”. While it is not really possible to give an exhaustive enumeration of such illustrations, I will endeavor to point to the major failings in which “reformation” from Islamic societies would be most welcome.

The oft quoted instances of critiques offered on Islamic conceptions as generally perceived relate to:

(1) Polygamy,

(2) Mistreatment of wives,

(3) Discrimination of females in the Family,

(4) The rights of wives’ in marriage relating to divorce, inheritance and evidentiary value of women’s testimony, and

(5) The notion of “equality” of the two spouses of a marriage.

In all main these categories requiring “reforms” is thus manifestly the case of the plight of women within the traditional Muslim family.

Other major areas requiring attention would be the following.

(1) Under the Shiite laws, there is even the allowance of a “temporary marriage” known as “Mutaah”.

(2) Domestic violence is another horrendous phenomenon that needs current attention of both scholars and governments.

(3) Then in the field of children’s rights there is the disturbing practice, clearly against normal conceptions of current thinking on human rights, as being considered as a part of the father’s patrimony and expected to contribute financially to the household.[20] However female off spring in many traditional Islamic settings traditionally remain in grave perils. I have no doubt that such a sorry state of affairs is on account of local customs rather than Islamic predilections of the society. Yet serious concern should be given to such problem areas as found to be creating such an unhealthy situation.

It is beyond the scope of an article of this length to analyze all such areas as have been identified above. Some of these critiques are fairly raised whereas some are exaggerated or even misconceived. I shall thus focus on only some of these issues raised by me above per se as fundamental core areas requiring our “attention”.[21]

I am not aware of any actual statistics that can be used for using as criteria for selection of the areas requiring our focus. In the Islamic world there are few institutions of this kind to undertake any such research. In the Gulf region, however, there has been recently established one such center that is reportedly analyzing such kinds of data and statistics. This is the Batelco Care Centre for Family and Violence Cases, Bahrain. Since it was formally opened in August 2005 this support centre has reported just over 900 cases of serious violence within the Family until May this year. Almost 800 cases of family violence were sadly, however, that of women beaten or abused or battered or at least publicly humiliated by their husbands.[22] Wife beating is most regrettably generally acceptable as it is considered a common practice in those societies.

The Chairperson of this Center noted recently, when talking to the media including the TV journalists:

"According to the statistics of our reported cases, there were 61 cases in January, 79 in February, 179 in March, 51 in April and 109 last month," This is very alarming because these are only the reported ones. Just think of all the cases that are not being reported. Most of our cases are Bahraini women who are being very badly treated by their husbands. The children growing up in such environment will be affected, particularly their psychological balance in the long run."

It is a disturbing state of affairs. Most painful, however, is the realization that such reporting in Bahrain or elsewhere in Muslim countries is not undertaken by Family organizations per se, but by pro-Women mostly Western NGOs.[23] Realizing the special position of husbands in a Muslim societal milieu, the Center provides extra-ordinary counseling to the husbands by preaching the virtues of decency, toleration and kindness to their spouses. It provides, on the other hand, help to victims with relaxation therapy, hypnotherapy, cognitive therapy, counseling and anger management therapy.

It is very comforting to note that in dissemination of appropriate information, this Center has already provided public awareness programs including several on marriage counseling on the local television. There are specific programs for husbands to impart to them the highly respectful nature of respect owed to their spouses.

Another area of family laws which often have received tremendous notoriety in non Muslim cultures but is always “hidden” in the Islamic environment itself is the pernicious nature of ascendant male societal position in a marriage. No satisfactorily explanation has been forthcoming as to why this state of affairs is still permitted by different Islamic cultures to continue to exist. What is the foundation of Family? Without question it is Marriage based on equality of significance of both spouses.

While foundations of family remain the same through out the world, the super structure that sustains the existence of such fundamental and universal institutions can be different in diverse regions. Social values provide the foundation and foundation should be made stronger so that the super-structure can persist longer. For example justice should be foundation of all laws of marriage; all its appurtenant legal rules should be equally so. If this basic premise is correct as it seems to be self-evident let me focus on the following issues.

The broad subject pertains to Islamic classical laws and the current positions with respect to divorce and the allied question of plurality of wives in Muslim countries. Regrettably polygamy has become more important in Islamic world than the concept of justice emphasised by the Quran. Multiple wives have justified even if it violates concept of justice which is much more fundamental than polygamy. Thus the question of injustice to such wives is very important today but consistently ignored.

Philosophical foundations of Islamic Norms

The Islamic world began to see this problem around the 1960s, when most of the contemporary Islamic countries emerged. The gender relations in medieval ages were very different from what they are today. The Shari’a laws formulated in those days were based more on the prevalent societal gender relations than on a basis of transcendent concept of gender relations in the Quran. Practical customs came to be regarded as religious norms to justify local prejudices and cultural habits. This led to a fairly widespread impression in advancing a thesis of Islam encouraging a trend of male dominated family structure. It did exist in this manner; but not for reasons of Islam but by custom.

Hypothetically, Islam could have ignored gender relations obtaining in early days of the advent of the faith. But it attended to the gender question in marriage. This was done not merely on a realistic level but also on moral and transcendent planes. Importantly the Quran made marriage a contract between husband and wife. Legally this made it clear that in matters relating to matrimony, male domination was not accepted and women had been given a right which in all respects was equal to that of men.

But of equal significance is to realize that the Quran greatly improved upon the tribal customary law. While adopting it on realistic ground it made humane additions for compliance amongst the Muslims. In tribal customs of that age marriage was totally heavily weighted against woman. She could not negotiate her own marriage except through the agency of her male guardian who happened to be her father or grand father or elder brother or uncle in the absence of her father. The institution of marriage guardian (wali) was very fundamental in tribal customary law.

But Quran does not mention the institution of guardian in marriage and gives this right directly to women. Secondly, meher (dower) amount was negotiated by the guardian and was taken by him whereas Quran gives woman the right to negotiate meher amount and it is she who is entitled to it (and not her guardian). Invariably in most Islamic societies where it is practised this seems to be the case.

Thus important reforms are needed to have the law of marriage more just and convey the essential moral and ethical foundations of a marriage. The Quran elevates marriage to a higher moral plane, despite its basic contractual nature, by invoking moral values like love and ihsan. In verse 7:189 the Quran says:

“It is He Who created you from a single soul
and of the same did He make his mate,
that he might find comfort in her,
(in love). So when he covers her she bears a light
burden, then moves about with it.
Then when it grows
heavy, they both call upon Allah, and pray to their Lord:
if Thou givest us a good one, we shall certainly be of the grateful.”

Thus husband and wife are to find comfort in each other to cherish and have happiness. This verse clearly refers to woman getting pregnant and then both pray to Allah to give them a good child (salih). Thus marriage is lifted to a moral plane and made to develop firm bonds so that husband can find solace in wife and together create good children to perpetuate human progeny. Marriage is thus not merely for satisfying sexual urge but much more than that, a bond of love and an instrument for perpetuating human progeny. It is thus well to keep in mind that the production of children remains an essential and integral part of the process of marriage and having a family.

Thus marriage, according to the Quran, is both a contract and also a moral bond. Quran says in 30:21:

“And of His signs is this
that He created mates for you
from yourselves
that you might find tranquillity in them
and He put between you love and compassion.

Marriage without love and compassion cannot be lasting bond between husband and wife. It is the task of Muslim governments to create socio-economic conditions to ensure that the ethos of the Quran in such matters is respected. Muslim countries are faced with huge reconstruction to even begin to think of making such a state of affairs prevalent. So far I do not see any of the 60 Muslim nations that exist approaching any thing like the levels of desirability needed to move ahead with satisfaction in this regard.

We have now to see the added and difficult subject of eventualities that regretfully arise in all societies. The Quran does not overlook the situation in which in a marriage a man and woman can no longer carry on with each other and divorce becomes necessary. Hence it approves of divorce in such situations and here contractual nature of marriage comes to their help. In some religions marriage is treated as sacramental and thus the bond can never be broken.

That makes lives of both spouses somewhat difficult to endure. The Quran while treating marriage more than contract, does permit divorce. But it does not make divorce a bitter rupture between husband and wife and advises man to live with her in ma’ruf (kindness) or leave her with kindness, not with bitterness. Thus whatever meher or gifts he has given to her, become her property and cannot be recovered. Thus verse 2:231 says:

“And when you divorce women
and they reach their prescribed time
then retain them with kindness or set them
free with kindness
and retain them not for injury.”

Thus we see the moral plane to which marriage and divorce have been lifted by the Quran. Regrettably over several centuries of Muslim development of jurisprudence, most leading schools of law overlooked this moral aspect of marriage and divorce as ordained in the Quran. It is maintained by many such jurists that divorce can materialize by utterance of a word a number of times! Such interpretations were made that allowed marriage to be broken by pronouncing thrice the word “talaq” (meaning severance) even if it uttered in anger and bitterness. It is my view that such a belaboured interpretative approach and interpretation misses the moral nature of Quran on divorce as I believe that triple saying of divorce has no place at all in God’s scheme of this matter.

Indeed so detailed is the treatment of this topic in the classical Islamic theology that it can said that God created the first known system of arbitration in this respect. Indeed the Quran actually instituted the institution of arbitrator to make living together or separation a humane and a healing process. The arbitrator could look into issues after hearing from man’s and woman’s side. Thus in verse 4:35 the Quran says:

“And if you fear a breach
between the two
appoint an arbiter
from his people
and an arbiter from her people.
If they both desire agreement
Allah will affect harmony (reconciliation) between them.”

Thus the Quran does not like a sudden rupture of relationship between husband and wife in a state of anger, but requires harmony and agreement as far as possible. This purpose is totally defeated by allowing triple divorce in one sitting. Divorce should not be seen merely as a breaking of contract in an arbitrary fashion but bringing about separation as a last measure after all efforts to bring about harmony between the two. Thus any law of divorce should be based on moral approach of the Quran. Thus marriage and divorce should not be treated merely as legal contract to be entered into and broken at will without any regards to moral values involved in these acts. Unfortunately as I see it the Western jurists and legal systems treat marriage and divorce as strictly legal matters devoid of moral values.

Pakistan became the first Islamic country in modern times to effect such changes in the positive laws. By enactment of West Pakistan Family Laws Ordinance, 1962, important changes were effected. Both Quranic aspects referred to above were incorporated in the statute, viz: divorce had to be made in written form with copies supplied to the Union Councils. Then it created official Arbitrators to accomplish the task of reconciliation. Not only it had the oral triple talaq law redundant but also created the institutions of Arbitrators at all the basic civic levels of governance.[24]

The next point requiring my careful attention is the misconception that legally speaking Islam gives a secondary place for women as it relates to wives and daughters. Similarly, Quran treats gender question not merely as of husband and wife as two partners having different sexes but as human and spiritual partners. Functionally at a realistic level some jurists misinterpret to contend that women have a subordinate position. This verse 4:34 says:

Men are the protectors
And maintainers of women

It is my feeling that it is only descriptive of a world wide economic and societal fact and not the enunciation of a religious dogma. At deeper and spiritual level gender relationship is described further in the verse 33:35. This verse treating the question at spiritual level says:

“Surely men who submit and the women who submit,
and the believing men and believing women,
and obeying men and obeying women,
and the truthful men and truthful women,
and the patient men and patient women,
and the humble men and the humble women,
and the charitable men and the charitable women,
and the fasting men and fasting women,
and the men who guard their chastity
and the women who guard,
and the men who remember Allah much
and women who remember,
Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward.”

Thus gender relationship between a husband and wife is on a spiritual level and is quite equal and without any discrimination in its evaluation. The nature of relationship in the verse 4:34 is purely functional and therefore, not applicable permanently. It will change with the function but the relationship described in 33:35 is on an elevated and spiritual level and permanent. Thus men and women are equal in every respect in the eyes of the Quran. Her humanity and human dignity in no sense is lesser than that of man.

The Islamic jurists, it is argued by some thinkers, treated women as unequal on the basis of certain verses like she being half witness or she receiving half the share in inheritance. Such verses in no way prove her inferior to man as far as her human dignity is concerned. It would be out of place to discuss in this presentation this exhaustive topic of economic laws of Islam on such issues. But I must say that there is great misunderstanding about these verses also. It is wrong to designate her as half witness as it pertains only to financial matters as she had no financial experience and moreover it is not at all obligatory but recommendatory in nature. Today women also are financial experts and head even banks, corporations and even have risen to be he heads of governments. Therefore why or how can women are treated as half witness in financial matters only? There is manifestly merit in the argument that the verse was of recommendatory nature in conditions of those times. In no way it can be cited to prove her inferiority.

Some Islamic jurists have treated women as unequal on the basis of certain verses in which it may be well perceived as being treated as only as a “half witness” or she receiving half the share in family inheritance. The reasons for such legal postulates are available but it is not necessary to be expounded here. It is sufficient to say that these verses in no way prove a woman’s inferior status to man. Those verses are basically functional and were articulated for guiding a primitive society with some moral criteria for issues of evidence and family distribution of wealth. Without such guidelines, women legally had nothing by way of rights of any kind. There is evidently another misunderstanding about such verses. It is patent that all such verses in the Quran are essentially recommendatory in nature and it is wrong to interpret them as utterly binding literally. Today women have tremendous financial prowess and some even head banks and multinational institutions. How can a woman be treated as half of man in all such matters involving status of significance?

To give you the best example of the pivotal position that women have come to acquire let me give you the most recent example, and that too from an Islamic country. Shaikha Haya bint Rashid Al Khalifa on 12 September 2006 took over the presidency of the UN General Assembly from the outgoing president of the 192-member body, Swedish Foreign Minister Jan Eliasson. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was quoted as saying it was a step “that will portray a positive picture of Arab women. There are many challenges that we need to face and with Shaikha Haya’s wisdom and cooperation I am sure many issues will be solved.”[25] Shaikha Haya is the third woman and the first from the Middle East who has been elected president of the UN General Assembly in 60 years. Vijay Lakshmi Pandit of India was the first woman president in 1953 while Liberia’s Angie Brooks presided in 1969.[26]

Even a lesser portion in inheritance of family property of daughters is logically no proof of her inferiority.[27] It was entirely due to her being a non-earning member of the family in those days which necessitated her dependence on father and on husband after marriage. But the Quran had made her maintenance obligatory on her father before marriage and on her husband after marriage and on her sons after death of her husband, if she had grown up children. It has nothing to do with her being woman. Today in many cases she earns herself and contributes to the family wealth and there is a need to possibly examine this matter further.

The Quran created for women right to inheritance in three capacities: as daughter, as wife and as mother. Before Islam she could not inherit at all. Since in those days she was not contributing to the family wealth and was merely dependent on male members of the family. This (i.e. creation of right to inheritance in three capacities) itself was a revolutionary step. Thus this right could be further advanced today in the changed condition. It will in no way injure the spirit of the Quran; on the contrary it will enrich it. I strongly advocate on ethical and moral principles that the kind of changes I am hinting at are due for being implemented. In actual practice, some Islamic countries today are on way to achieving such results[28]. However it has been accomplished without much publicity for fear of arousing a religious reaction movement. In Pakistan for instance there is an open campaign to cancel from the statute books Hudood laws[29]. How far this evolution is successful remains to be seen.

So it is not only the matter of Shari’a laws not being applied in Family related questions, there is the more difficult and complex inquiry of how to meet the debris of centuries of interpretation to assist particularly the attitude towards women within the family institution. The task ahead for Islamic societies is thus very difficult. I find it almost disheartening as I feel that the trans-national realities are so delicate right now that vast number of uneducated people in Islamic masses is being driven towards adopting the more rigid approaches to important questions relating to Family, marriage and divorce.

Before concluding this survey, I should says something about some other aspects of this matter which are not well known. Apart from the genuinely difficult sociological and legal issues there are some peculiar problems dealing with Muslim family traditions in different countries connected with family and marriage issues. In the Sub-Continent, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, there exists amongst the Muslims the tradition of “wani” This means giving in betrothal one or two young female children in marriage to another family for some kind of a quid pro quo or simple bonding. Fortunately, however, the practice of wani is not widespread.

But another very disturbing phenomenon is the so-called urfi marriage. Social activists and experts working on broad family issues and human rights have warned of the dangers of a general lack of information regarding urfi marriage, a phenomenon that is becoming increasingly common in Egypt. “It’s the lack of understanding of what exactly urfi marriage entails that ends up creating a host of problems for the female party,” said Heba Loza, an expert on broader family issues wrote recently with semi-official newspaper Al-Ahram.[30]

Urfi marriages, commonly defined as marital unions lacking an official contract, are often carried out in secret. For the most part, those who choose to be married by way of an urfi contract are young couples who do not have parental consent or who cannot afford a wedding. “In reality, most of those who resort to urfi marriages are young couples seeking to legitimize a sexual relationship,” said Heba. “Many cannot afford a wedding, while many others don’t have the consent of their parents. To them, urfi marriages provide an alternative.” The basic question is that are urfi marriages sanctioned by Islam? Islam is after all Egypt’s majority religion. It seems that the view is generally that it is so even though conducting them in secret – without the consent of couples’ families – is not.

In urfi marriages, conducted by a Muslim cleric and usually in the presence of at least two witnesses, only two copies of the marriage contract are produced – one for each party. “Hence, there is always the danger that one party will deny the marriage ever took place,” said Heba. “In most cases, it’s the man.” I had already mentioned that there is the concept of temporary marriage in Shiite notions of Islam and is chiefly practiced in Iran. But to have this kind of acceptability in Sunni Muslims is quite unnerving.

Conclusions

Throughout the history of Islamic faith, it has been a deeply cherished objective to emphasize on enveloping the entirety of a person’s life with its normative structure of rules of conduct and precepts. Amongst the major norms of such expected behavior are those that are devised to apply to the institution of the Family. Islam has also a considerable amount of substantive rules that govern the matter of human rights. But, whereas in Western legal evolution the weight of such human rights’ normative seems to be developing evidently an anti-Family philosophy, the thrust of Islamic jurisprudence and Shari ‘a seems to clearly accommodate both the corpus of human rights ideology and those basic necessary rules that create for the flourishing of the Family.

The evolution of these norms and concepts in the international legal field has been such that, in respect of crucial details, there is a visible tendency to have the rights of the Family give up some of its historical and inherent hierarchal position and status in the society to specific and newly developed “rules” in the broader field of human rights. The problem that we are thus faced with is simple. Some of the “changes” that are currently advocated by a sizeable segment of liberal based ideologues are such that they aim to denude the very foundations and grundnorms of the institution of the family as to adversely affect its well-being and character. These challenges emanate from principally two sources, viz., the liberal facets of contemporary thinking about human rights and perceivable trends at the UN while codifying newer evolutionary norms of this law.

Undeniably the positive role that Faith and Religion play in the public life of any community is tremendously immense. Even amongst the most “progressive societies” of modern times the relevance of Faith can never be exaggerated. Given the peculiar political and societal realities of this millennium, in the Third World context Islam’s significance needs to be specially noted. The perennial support that Family as an institution has evinced from confines of doctrinaire Islam is by itself comprehensive both legally and sociologically! An understanding of this fact would provide us with a true glimpse of the rationale why Muslim countries are always advocating the continued historical continuity of the Family as the core and fundamental group unit of our civilizations, regardless of the nature of Religion of the concerned communities[31].

These are a few prominent areas within the Family laws requiring attention of scholars, experts, religious leaders and governments for undertaking “reforms”. The “reform” movement that is needed has to be well coordinated and of course led by profound scholarship. Anything less than quality would be self defeating. So this reform movement has to be undertaken with lot of planning, and a determined yet sincere effort to have the kind of imagination that achieves dynamic advances without creating the expected opposition from adversary ideologies.[32]

The recent defeat of reform laws in Pakistan and the Government’s failure to enact the women’s human rights law shows that when motivation is not to undertake improvement but to simply appear to be “moderate” in policy, the measure is likely to fail as it lacks the bona fides to do so.[33]

In all societies, when religious dogma is intertwined with local culture and prejudices, it is not easy to move ahead with alacrity. It is without question clear to me that the rights of women need manifest exposure and resultant improvement to realize the niche of equality of genuine advancement for both genders of the human race. The rightful place of women in a family thus needs a determined projection.

Please see the attached Academic Paper file for Footnotes.

WUNRN

Dr. Farooq Hassan, D.Phil.;
BA (Juris),MA,M. LiTT (OXON);
DCL (Columbia),DIA(Harvard);
Sen.Adv.Sup.Ct. (Pakistan),
Barrister at Law (UK), Attorney at Law(US)

60 Seconds to Steal an Election

This is a cross posting of a Marty Kaplan note posted originally on The Huffington Post.

09.14.2006
How to Hack a Diebold (Ivy League Edition)

Watch this video

Princeton computer scientists have figured out how to hack into a Diebold AccuVote [sic] TouchScreen voting machine. The subversion of democracy takes a coupla minutes, a screwdriver or paperclip, plus a floppy with the malware they've written.

This is no comedy video; it's a bone-chilling, blood-pressure-raising, citizen-outraging rebuttal to all the calming unctuous bromides you've heard about the safety of our voting technology.

The authors of this paper may be geeks, but they don't wear tinfoil hats. The P doesn't stand for Paranoia; it stands for Princeton.

I'd upload the Princeton video so you could watch it right here, but the Creative Commons non-commercial license it's copyrighted under precludes wrapping it in an ad. As long as you attribute it and don't profit from it, you can post the video on any site you'd like. If the hotlink to the video doesn't work for you, here's the URL:

http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/videos.html

The complete paper can be found here.

Had enough?

End Game behind Lebanese War?

By: Dr. Farooq Hassan

Harvard University

A major puzzling question agitating many is how to evaluate the end game behind this huge military onslaught that is destroying Lebanon? On 3rd August the Senate Armed Services Committee gave the Defense Secretary a difficult time when he appeared in a public debate to explain the Administration’s stance on the war situation in Iraq and Lebanon.

These exchanges quintessentially centered on Rumsfeld’s earlier upbeat assessments and what has actually occurred. It was an ex post facto analysis of the recent past: the aim being to demonstrate the short sightedness of the US polices. Senator Hillary Clinton categorized the Administration’s policies in Iraq as faltering failures and their execution incompetent. Embarrassing for the Administration, its two top generals, who had been frequently describing American fortunes in Iraq’s war in reserved yet clearly platitudinous semantics, frankly admitted that Iraq was near enough a civil war. Manifestly the army’s think tanks have now come to adopt the same perception of events in Baghdad that the public has known for many months! For many months, with nearly a hundred deaths a day, there is little that any sophisticated spin of concepts could possibly otherwise accomplish.

What is, however, the ultimate goal of the current state of continued bombardment of Lebanon that clearly has Washington’s support? To realize this end game scenario a number of fundamental questions need to be raised. In pursing Hezbollah, why was the high degree of damage to Lebanon’s infrastructure and people acceptable to the US? Did Secretary of State’s repeated assertions that “sustainable peace” was the US goal, implicitly permit the devastating civil toll? If, for a moment, we accept the underlying rationale of this perspective on account of its possible strategic implications, we still are not told why this was a necessary element in this process. Hasn’t such a policy politically strengthened Hizbollah? If the aim was to destroy their military might this objective has failed. Indeed, this war, now in its fourth week, put an end to the myth of invincibility of Israel’s armed forces.

Alternatively, was this apparently destructive bombardment conducted with the aim of demoralizing the Lebanese government and the people? Or is it to use it as a prelude to attacking Iran? Is an attack on Syria similarly a possibility? And if Israel, hypothetically speaking, succeeds in all these aims, or one of them, how does that advance US interests when political loss of its standing in the Muslim world is obvious? The OIC Declaration in Kuala Lumpur on the same day, 3rd August, affirmatively said as much. What is the US role in the Lebanon War? Is she a party on Israel’s side, or is it neutral? If so, what credence can be given to such avocations by Washington that both Lebanon and Israel are its friends when the former is being physically wiped out of existence by the latter?

The war has not gone well for Israel. Even Hassan Nassullah, despite heavy bombing efforts, could not be prevented from appearing five times on public TV! On the 23rd day of this war, claims of down grading the military potential of Hizbollah were belied when over 200 rockets landed in northern Israel, killing 9 civilians besides four solders during combat. On the same day Beirut was fiercely hit by air attacks and the Lebanese Premier announced that over 900 civilians had been killed by these Israeli bombardments, about one third of the country’s structures demolished, many thousands injured, and over a million made refugees in their own country.

While discussing Lebanon, one should not over look the Iraqi situation. That war, despite worldwide opposition, was started at Washington’s urging to destroy WMD. When they were not found, it was canvassed that it was necessary to continue the military operations as democracy was at stake. As hostilities have still continued, it is now also said to be war against terrorism.

Why this transformation of semantics? Or is it a difference in concepts?

The most affirmative awareness of this phenomenon came recently through a speech delivered last week by premier Tony Blair in Los Angles. Signaling a clear break with American neo-conservatives, and arguably with President Bush, in this address there was no mention of there being in existence now a “war on terror” in Lebanon and possibly in Iraq. Blair remarked:

"We are fighting a war, but not just against terrorism but about how the world should govern itself in the early 21st Century, about global values. We will not win the battle against this global extremism unless we win it at the level of values as much as force, unless we show we are even-handed, fair and just in our application of those values to the world."

Tony Blair now seems to accept that some of the approaches have been wrong. He was not repudiating the war in Iraq but was saying that not enough emphasis has been put on solving underlying problems, like the Israel/Palestine issue for one. There is thus a muted and belated reference to causation and the need to address it on moral principles.

"Unless we re-appraise our strategy, unless we revitalize the broader global agenda on poverty, climate change, trade, and in respect of the Middle East, bend every sinew of our will to making peace between Israel and Palestine, we will not win. And this is a battle we must win,"

he said.

True neo-conservatives might consider that Tony Blair is going soft, especially in his call for the US not to use "unilateral action" as a "preference". But the time has come to ask seriously about the goals of the end game in Lebanon.

500 PPM CO2 & An Inconvenient Truth

My wife and I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" recently. Good audience, even if not quite sold out. Great film. As I told my friend Dewayne, if Al doesn't run for president, I'll be extremely disappointed.

Clearly, the implosion of the environment is THE defining challenge facing us. It trumps terrorism and all of the issues that Bush and Rove have used to define their agenda. It actually makes a mockery of them. The collapse of the environment as we have come to utterly depend on it is THE national security issue of the 21st century. It will be the organizing principal of the next effective political party with an agenda that ignites passions in its members.

Who lost the Environment? Who lost 8 precious years that could have made a real difference?

The Bush party of me, myself, and my money ignored Global Warming -- worse, they denied it.

Where is the party of we and I? The party of environmental stewardship? The party of cooperative gain?

Clearly, if the market must work for humanity and if humanity depends on the CO2 levels being held below 500 PPM, then the market must work to help humanity reach its environmental stewardship goals. To understand the importance of the 500 PPM of CO2 threshold, see Joe Romm's presentation at MIT's Energy 2.0 confernece on May 13, 2006.

My friend Dewayne also made a really good point in a conversation we had about the Gore movie. Back in the day, he worked for Buckminster Fuller as a programmer on his "World Game." And se this and especially this this.

Dewayne's point was why not use the World Game approach as a matrix for the information and challenges in Al's movie? The Inconvenient Truth version of the World Game could then give hands on experience manipulating the data to 10s of thousand school students. Manipulating the data with your own hands is the best way to internalize the learning it offers. It is their future, after all.

This World Game could also include the National Budget Simulation that Robert Steele writes about.

As my new company, Biomass Commodities, says: "It takes a village to raise a child, it takes the children to change the village." Education was the key to making "recycle" a powerful force. It will be a key to making "Environmental Stewardship" powerful enough to mitigate global warming.

Taking a closer look at one proposal for reducing CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, a question that needs to be asked is this: Where and how will the electricity for plugin hybrids be made? Releasing sequestered carbon to make this electricity is a non starter. This rules out all current power plants, with the exception of Nukes, which get ruled out as we have not yet solved their 20,000 year radioactive waste storage problem.

My answer is micro-CHP in 10s of millions of American homes. Micro-CHP fueled by biomass with 14:1 net energy gain - not ethanol with a mere 7:1 energy gain. Why would we throw away half the energy just to reduce the biomass to ethanol?

Think of the powerful economic forces that we would unleash in the process of inventing, building, installing, fueling, and servicing 10s of millions of micro-CHP units.

Micro-CHP will help us make the transition from making releasing sequestered carbon a prohibitively expensive option to a banned option. As we come to grips with the nature of the transformative threat of global warming, banning the release of sequestered carbon will not only be seen as obvious common sense but also a matter of preserving our national security.

Gore and Rommm have persuaded me that it is past time to move beyond carbon to the possibility of a future with even more rewards. Please watch their presentations and then take action not just to simply save any future but to create a better future for our grandchildren.

RFK Jr. on the 2004 Election

Speaking of the "the corruption of democracy, itself", as Tom Atlee does below, consider tnis:

Friend Bob Weber forwarded this note to me. It is very much worth reading. How will we counter election fraud, apparently a fundamental and essential tactic of the Bush administration, in 2006 and 2008? Election fraud is both necessary and sufficient for Bush to assure "victory".

If you read one thing this year, let it be the compelling article by RFK Jr. on the theft of the 2004 election.

And look at the accompanying 3 charts:

This one is going to be hard to ignore.

Depleted Uranium or DU

The Open Source Intelligence site has posted this news item:

News Flash: Depleted Uranium Reaches England?

Depleted uranium from the Iraqi campaign has evidently reached England.

A repeat of Gulf War syndrome, which put over a quarter million US veterans on disability, appears to be joining the massive number of amputees.

Some of the coverage of this new finding is quasi-hysterical, but what we find very interesting is the combination of policy acceptance of depleted uranium impacts on both our own troops as well as our downwind allies, and the larger discussion of deliberate depopulation strategies including genetically modified corn.

The post includes an interesting list of links.

I note that a search of the NY Times for "depleted uranium" turns up 135 results, the most recent which is from December 20th, 2005:

THE REACH OF WAR: DETAINEES; 24 Ex-Hussein Officials Freed From U.S. Custody ... effects of the depleted uranium used in American bombs ...View free preview December 20, 2005 - By JOHN F. BURNS (NYT) - World - News - 1110 words

It is certainly true that, if the allegations contained in the story about DU reaching England are proven, then we will be unable to claim ignorance of what our government has been doing in our name as an excuse. We did not fight the current administrations policies of secrecy above all else and now we may rue the years and days we did not.

For, if the story is true, then the Bush administration has plumbed unknown depths of moral depravity while we stood silently by. Do we honestly believe that our ineffectual protests will atone for the consequences of our willful ignorance?

It is time to take stock. We are now a debtor nation and have put our children and their children in debt for the foreseeable future. We are creating enemies faster than we are creating friends. We are destroying our middle class and shifting the burdens of society to those who can least afford it -- simply in order to make the rich richer. We have allowed the the wealthy elite to impose the notion that humanity serves the market, putting Mammon ahead of people. We now have more people in hunger, without jobs, without health insurance, and with no retirement security. Our only earthly environment is at risk while our government refuses to confront the issue. Our economy and our foreign policy are held hostage by our unrelenting reliance and unquenchable demand for imported energy. And the list goes on.

How much longer can we afford to remain ignorant and passive?

To Encourage or Stifle Wireless Economic Innovation?

That is the question.

I recently stumbled on an essay by Thomas Keane in the The Boston Globe Magazine of March 19th: Strings Attached .

Keane does a marvelous job of articulating a particular and very conventional point of view on municipal wireless projects: They are a bad idea as they represent government competing with the private sector. He even makes the tired, old joke about "Hi! I'm from the government, and I am here to help you.

This is, of course, only one possible point of view. There are more innovative points of view that I would have expected a venture capitalist, as a taker of risks in the name of innovation, to articulate and embrace.

My essay on Wireless Civic and Economic Development is an example of such another point of view. It supports the new joke going around: Hi! I'm from the private sector, and I am here to help you.

I have been engaged in an extended email conversation with a consultant who has also been articulating Keane's point of view. He and I have found a number of common areas of agreement. A key one is the need to strongly separate the transport of bits from the provisioning of services and content. Once we accept this premise, we move on to the fact that the supply of bits is infinite and the hauling of them is a very small margin business. Clearly, with a robust municipal wireless infrastructure, a for-profit service and content provider is no longer required to be engaged in bit hauling as a necessary component of its business plan.

Thus Comcast, Verizon et al should be thankful that they can use lower cost municipal bit hauling and off load, "Outsource" if you prefer, a very low margin operation they no longer need to burden themselves with. They do not build roads for their trucks -- they out source that to the public sector. They do not pay tolls to use roads either.

By shedding a very low margin sector of their operations, Comcast & Verizon can improve their profits. So Municpal Wireless Networks are, in fact, fair, reasonable and democratic. They also support a healthy market place, which, I am sure you will agree, is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a robust, democratic, civil society in which the market serves humanity.

In this scenario, it would be logical for the for-profit vendors of services and content to work with the public sector to insure the most extra-ordinary municipal wireless outcomes possible.

Consider, also, that most models for municipal wireless plan to offer several tiers of service. The entry level tier may be for free, but the others will charge progressively higher fees. It is assumed that the government, which can support long time horizons that the market can not, will only provide bit transport and e-government. All other services and content will be provided by others as they see fit -- many on a for-profit business basis. VoIP, for example, is not free. I actually pay two VoIP service providers.

While Keane writes that he is quite happy with his badly over priced connection, on a cost per Mbps per month when compared to international prices, I am not. The current providers stifle innovation with their grossly inflated fee structures while at the same time driving the city of Boston deeper into the depths of the Charles River in terms of the International Digital Divide. Why would any modern company move to Boston with its approximately $9 per Mbps fees when they can move to locations which are charging $1, or less, for the same commodity bit transport?

While there are many other arguments on the topic of Municipal Wireless that could be discussed, I will only mention two more.

1] The technology for always on, ubiquitous, wireless connectivity is now able to move into the home in such ways that we must now talk about the First Mile Out from the homes of citizens. These modern 21st century citizens are fully, and all of, producers and distributors of their own content as well as consumers. The old business model of the last mile in to the home, occupied by a one dimensional, Pavlovian consumer, blinds people to the new opportunities and realities. Take a look at Apple's iLife suit. It is moving the printing press, the radio station, the TV station, the movie studio, the photo studio and more out of the old center and into the home on the edge of the network.

2] As you know, the PC revolution was fueled by individual decisions, freely made, to upgrade their personal equipment every three years or so for about another $3,000. This demonstrated the great economic power of leveraging end-user capital. To stimulate economic activity today, we need to find new ways to motivate individuals to voluntarily invest their capital in improving their personal communications infrastructure to better their personal situations. This requires that we give the citizens at the edges of the network the full power of choice to be effective producers, distributors and consumers. I suggest that a first mile out model, based on strong mesh networking at the edges, is the best way to do this.

I note, however, that the incumbents currently insist that consumers sign agreements preventing this powerful engine for economic growth from even starting: No sharing of end point connectivity. Comcast & Verizon make mesh networking at the edges illegal. As such, they stifle communications innovation and new economic activities that would strengthen our economy and spawn new clients for Keane's VC firm.

Now we can understand that only a municipal wireless network can fully support powerful mesh networking at the edges. Why? Simply because they are providing the best possible bit transport as a civic benefit and are not required by "The Street" to deliver Ponzi-like rates of return every 90 days. The upside is that the cost of the tolls on the bit paths to the private sector's for-profit offerings are no longer barriers to getting there. Consequently, the private sector, leveraging free, or very low cost bit paths, will be able to offer innovative new products and services no longer constrained by the Tiny Band offering of the current incumbents.

Tiny Band? Reality is said to be 40 Gbps of symmetrical connectivity. 10% would be 4 Gbps. 1% would be 400 Mbps. Broadband starts at 1% of reality: 400 symmetrical Mbps. Thus Comcast's best offering of up to 8 Mbps of asymmetrical bandwidth is really no more than Tiny Band.

Sandoval County, NM, on the other hand, is starting at a county-wide symmetrical 100 Mbps capable infrastructure. Soon to move to 1 Gbps. I can happily report that their economic development office is thrilled by the private sector's response to their initial 100 Mpbs municipal wireless offering.

Can Boston afford to do less?

Can the government, contrary to Keane's assertions, actually create value for civil society and its attendant market place? History is rich with examples that prove that it can and often does.

I was once from the government. In 1994 I was one of the team leaders of the project that put the White House on the Internet. The Internet was an innovation that only the government was able to sustain the development of over several decades. The private sector, with its time horizons constrained by the demands of the market's 90 day number, could not, would not and did not create the Internet. I suspect Keane's VC firm has made a great deal of money, thanks to the government's investment in, and development of, the Internet as a public good in a civil society.

In the end, Keane's commentary does not stand up to either close inspection or the historical record.

Horrendous Publication

By: Dr. Farooq Hassan
Published in The Nation

Barely seven months ago a number of leading American TV evangelists had some highly derogatory comments about the Prophet of Islam (pbuh). A leading Republican Party supporter of this category, referred to the Prophet as a 'terrorist'. The Muslims, the world over, were deeply offended. The Islamic populations protested as did their governments but as expected in a most respectful manner. In the wake of 9/11 it was considered to let this perfidy pass. Even the Government of Pakistan, conceivably the most important Islamic country, did not seriously protest to any one. Emboldened by the muted reaction of the Islamic world to such heinous moral invasions of the Muslim Faith this new found technique of hurting the Muslims has now emanated from Europe. This time a Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten has done so again. It came out with posters depicting the Prophet of Islam in a light that is unspeakable in a shocking affront to any civilised decent person in the international civil society so called.

It is reported that both the OIC and the Arab League are holding some kind of Executive Session to chalk out some strategy to lodge protest with the Danish authorities. What that means I cannot foretell. But if all that is designed to accomplish is to merely apprise the Danish Authorities that such publications are deeply offensive to the Muslims feelings, I am afraid it misses the point. Such routine diplomatic rumblings are taken in stride and really accomplish nothing. Already worldwide demonstrations by the people at large in the Islamic world have made this point abundantly clear.

Read the full essay here.

Religion & Islamic Extremism: Impact in South Asia

Dr. Farooq Hassan [1]

Brief thematic synopsis of Address given to
The Center for Society & Secularism, the Vikas Adhyayan Kendra and
The Pius College Seminary
Mumbai 29 October 2005

Religion has been a dominant factor in determining the history of the people’s of South Asia. It still continues to be the case. Today this region has several countries representing a diversity of faiths. Out of these countries, Pakistan was created, at least in an historical context, on the solitary basis of religion. Yet, despite this fact pertaining to the doctrinaire basis of the country in 1971, it was torn asunder by the political aspirations of the people of East Pakistan. At the same time, India, the world’s largest successful democracy, has had to face up to this phenomenon numerous times - sometimes with tragic consequences. More recently, even in Bangladesh, created on solid secular foundations, there are signs of emergent nuances of Islamic extremism.

At times it is very hard to distinguish between seemingly ethnic conflicts and more deeply held religious controversies. Generally, the minorities have had to face the brunt of unpleasant implications. But this is not invariable. Both in India and Pakistan, Hindus and Muslims have respectively suffered the effects of sectarian turmoil at the hands of their own followers of the same faith. A question thus naturally arises: does religion assume a secondary role of importance if political necessities of a given time, as perceived, are considered more urgent for redressal even at its expense? This realization is based on empiricism. Effects of far reaching significance affecting the geo-strategic realities of this region have been witnessed to occur presumably on such a foundation. Or, conversely, is the real question that religion is primarily used initially as a cloak or cover for wider political aspirations of the “relevant” people? If it is indeed so, then the enormity of the dynamics of the religion factor is evident. In sum, whether or not religion per se is the initiator of change, it continues be to a major matter propelling alterations of the status quo.

Most of the major religions of the world are present in South Asia, including hundreds of millions of Hindus and Muslims; this region also has a very large numbers Christians, Buddhists and even Jewish people. In addition, there exist several scores of other faiths in the peripheral areas of the main land mass of this vast and diversified sub continent, each possessing hundreds of thousands of adherents. While Pakistan was created on the basis of providing home land for Muslims, there still remain more Muslims in India.

Amongst the followers of these regions, some have ardently advocated frequently certain perspectives held in high esteem by them with emphasis. For some the effects of such partisanship are confined to their own locales. For others, such effects are of much wider application. [2] The emphatic focus envisaging changes of the status quo by such religious activists is often at variance with the thoughts of those constituting a majority. But hard liners often have an ascendant position in such controversies.

Over centuries, despite these sociological cum political differences, there was generally an overt appearance of acceptance of each others perspectives. Absence of homogeneity in the basic dogmas of diverse faiths was not by itself a major insurmountable hurdle for creating a healthy society of a pluralistic nature. Indeed, there existed pari passu with such discordant avocations a great deal of harmony in the Indian society.

It is my view that, in the wake of different political currents of ideology emanating from essentially non Sub Continental European and Western powers during the last century, the seeds of communal discord gradually appeared in South Asia. The fact of a difference in religion amongst very extensive populations was played up by skillful, vested, interests. This resulted in the creation of still more acrimony as the last century moved gradually towards the present day international infrastructure of modern times. Not surprisingly, therefore, the two most populous countries of South Asia, India and Pakistan, have seen regrettable acrimony of religious intolerance even after they separated to become sovereign countries at great human costs.

In Pakistan, there has been indeed serious sectarian violence between different sects of Muslims themselves. In India, too, there has been witnessed intra-faith discord involving Hindus, Muslims and even Christians. This analysis attempts to point out the extent of the conceptual impact of such religious pursuits have with the corresponding affects on the body politic and the public philosophy of the day.

I have already advanced my major conclusions on the broader theme of this subject in my accompanying talk today to the Indian Center for Society and Secularism entitled: “Islam & Extremism” (Now available on the net on the Greater Democracy site). What remains to be examined with a sharper focus is the impact of this phenomenon in South Asia; given my own familiarity, I will focus basically on Islamic issues in this presentation.

This audience, I am particularly happy to note, is a gathering of truly an inter faith variety. I see that this function is being held in a Christian seminary of great antiquity in the historic city of Mumbai. Also present amongst the sponsors of this event are the members of the Vikas Adhyayan Kendra, which is dedicated to promote religious harmony based on egalitarian principles of democracy and tolerance. I thank its Executive Director, Mr. Ajit Muricken, who has written enormously on the subject of religious harmony in India for being here this afternoon. Finally, we have amongst us the supporters of the Indian Center of Society of and Secularism which aims to achieve in the multi-religious Indian environment the attainment of the goal of a dignified civil society through the process of secularism. Its esteemed Chairman, Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer, is presen. His scholarship in Islamic learning stands on a pedestal of its own in this country and abroad. [3]

I may add that “secularism” has been variously interpreted in constitutional terms vis-à-vis its political connotations. One of the main authors in this field in the Sub Continent, Dr. Engineer, who is present today at this function, has described [4] this as an “attitude of respect for other religions" and has been summarized in the often quoted Hindu maxims “sarva dharma samabhava.” For my present analysis, this description, rather than a definition of secularism would do - as it is not necessary presently to delve into a number of controversial aspects of what this concept really envisages in constitutional law and in sociology.

There is no gainsaying the fact that the most notable manifestation of the religious phenomenon in the Sub Continent is the political divide of this region when Pakistan was carved out of British India as an autonomous country. For the first time in modern history, a country was created on the basis of a religion alone. It was almost a year later, in 1948, that the State of Israel emerged as a Jewish homeland in the Middle East becoming the second country to be so created by conferences and international diplomacy.

Thus, long before the contemporary controversy regarding the place of religion in a modern state, or that of the concepts and contours of religious extremism arose in its present form, the British Government, by lending a helping hand in the creation of both Pakistan and Israel, had demonstrated what it felt on such crucial issues. The British thinking, initially contained in the Balfour Declaration of 1916, was further solidified in its basic thematic content by the Cabinet Mission to India and the Mountbatten Plan of 3 March, 1947 regarding the independence and eventual division of India. These political ideas were carried into effect by the British through the then international community, consisting of just 55 Member Nations of the UN, to endorse and adopt the creation of new countries on religious basis alone.

The breakup of Pakistan in 1971, leading to the creation of Bangladesh, establishes that religion was not sufficient by itself to maintain the homogeneity of the country. Indeed, within Pakistan, it is still unclear whether the establishment of a separate homeland for Muslims also signified the creation of an Islamic state. Furthermore, what exactly is an “Islamic State” is far from a settled question. [5]

Given the political realities of the present millennium, such precedents may not be repeated for decades to come in the history of the world. Such an attitudinal metamorphosis is now manifestly evident. Contemporary de facto bashing of such ideas by the foreign policies of the Western states that matter is now beyond question. It has clear implications that over-indulgence of religion in an international context is not something to be lightly countenanced in future by the policies of significant Western powers. [6]

The policy to which I refer has been heavily underscored by the recent events in Afghanistan and Iran. In the former case, the Taliban regime, based on purely Islamic postulates, was overthrown by the U.S. led war, while the political cum strategic tensions against the Islamic Republic of Iran underscore this perspective as an illustration of the latter scenario articulated above. It is possible that, fearing this kind of a resultant turmoil in Pakistan, General Musharraf keeps on harping upon “moderate Islam” being the policies of the Islamabad military regime. This rhetorical repetition is as much an act of self preservation for an unelected ruler as it is to placate his newly found Western friends. Be that as it may, it is clear that a State based entirely, or mainly, on religious avocations is not likely to have many supporters in any significant Western Capital.

In South Asia, not merely religion, but ethnic antagonism based on historical acrimony, have compounded the tensions that have sadly been the cause of much friction. In Sri Lanka as well as in former East Pakistan, for instance, it was ethnic diversity and apparent exploitation (both economic and political) of a large segment of the society, which produced consequences of far reaching significance. Similarly events which led to the storming of the Golden Temple in the early seventies were predicated on similar aspirations of those that felt “afflicted” by those in authority. Thus hegemonic treatment within a state by those who posses the de facto elements of power vis-à-vis the disprivileged ones is also a malaise capable of producing deadly consequences.

I am very familiar with this phenomenon. In 1980, I was amongst six international jurists selected by UNESCO to frame the Third Generation of human rights. The right I outlined, “the right to be different”, was officially recognized in Mexico City in 1980 by the UN. It deals specifically with this problem. [7]

The minimum conceptual consequence that clearly emerges from this reality is that willingly, or by device, the continued presence of a state of “injustice” to a community, often by the majority, is the catalyst for eventual violence for change. [8] Stretched further, the hegemonic policies of foreign powers, whether real or perceived, gives rise to acts of extremism and terrorism. [9] In a broader sense, this is as true, in my view, of domestic South Asian events that have been noted above, as much as it is for international matters of grave significance affecting this region. For instance, the East Pakistan embroiled situation in 1971, or the current insurgency in Afghanistan, or Iraq, are directly the result of such perceptions and feelings. “Nationalists” naturally contest the external controls placed on their “independence” by domestic elements, or by governments emanating from abroad, and dominating them by presenting such fiats of and from outsiders. There is little doubt in my mind that “democracies” produced by armies, whether domestic or foreign, cannot easily succeed.

In this charged atmosphere, nationalism has assumed tremendous force. It is axiomatic that the emergence of this basic characteristic throughout the world is an addendum to the Age of Industrialism and Western expansion that led to colonialism in the 19th century. All serious analysts must surely realize this simple fact of history. Just as the industrialized West needed colonial possessions for it successful existence, nationalism dictates that foreign imposed rulers, howsoever beneficial they may actually be, be prevented from now arising. It is equally a truism that to not expect opposition to such a status quo by the affected people is utterly unrealistic.

In South Asia in addition, we have at the Government level a remarkable spectrum of different practices. India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka possess, despite cultural and systemic difficulties, representative institutions. Pakistan and Nepal, on the other hand, demonstrate the existence of military or authoritarian regimes which have a token or face saving pretense of being democratic. When this perversity is examined in a particularly a religious environment, autocratic regimes have a great deal to lose. Fascism, as such, is truly and historically allergic to any Faith. It is thus not surprising that Communism was always averse to any religion. Notwithstanding the different systems of government in various counties of South Asia, the presence of religion as a factor of great strength, with a potential for decisive change in the society, remains in tact.

While the topic of religious extremism is evidently vast and important in countries of South Asia, I am mainly concerned today in this analysis with the effects pertaining to Islam and Muslims. This topic has been in the center of all reverberating news, and developments manifestly impacting the foreign policies of states of great significance since 9/11. But, as I have said enough on this theme in my other accompanying article, nothing further need be noted here except its impact in the South Asian context.

The relationship of reason and faith requires a close examination. In terms of human values, one really cannot be understood by itself, without reference to the other.  We should also understand that religion and faith are inseparable, as the former derives from it validity via a norm of acceptance and consequential obedience to its core fundamentals. But once the initial dogma part of faith is traveled, the rest must surely be supported by reason. As such, it is only prudent to suggest that, while faiths of all types need to be respected, reason too should be utilized more extensively whenever it is so felt. This would lead to an over all more tolerant society. The underlying troubles of a sociological nature arise from an inability of contemporary political leadership to grasp such conceptual and historical niceties.

While the institutional part of the Faith may be dogmatic, there is a large reservoir of human addendum to it which must be:-

(1) In harmony with the divine mandate of the relevant religion, and
(2) It must, a fortiori, admit of change according to evolution and development.

Every Faith has a system of values and each prospers according to this accepted characteristic as such. In this context, changing hegemonic relationships and information technology are defining elements. Large populations in the Third World, particularly those of the Muslims, find it increasingly difficult that this process of “modernization” is gradually eroding their identity. The comprehensive Western hegemony in the cultural domain is producing this identity crisis among religious and cultural communities in South Asia, and much more so among Muslim communities. Thus, lack of cultural affinity with contemporary movements is another reason for much of South Asian anxiety against the perceived hegemony of the West. The recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have, in the short term, heightened these fears and apprehensions rather than toning them down.

In South Asia, as elsewhere, the religious rituals observed by Muslims are usually influenced by both history and local customs. It is also important to note that, though values and rituals are common to all religions, the former are really the cultural expression of the communities in which Muslims have lived for generations. As rituals are essentially the product of local custom, it is not surprising that Muslims in South Asia are largely influenced by local norms of behaviour of the Hindus. For such similarities to be accepted gracefully requires an attitude which is difficult to locate nowadays in quarters it should be vested in order to create a religious and communally harmonious atmosphere.

On most social issues, Muslims in Pakistan, for instance, have more in common with the Indian populations, regardless of religion, than with the Arabs or with the North Africa Muslim communities. Indeed, some Hindu social observances are observed with greater passion in Pakistan than even in India! [10] Such actual practice of local cultural practices of the dominant, or historical majority, has become, of late, not unnaturally, the cause of some friction. Even observances of minority cultural or religious practices has not failed to arouse local disharmony. [11]

Conclusions

This brief thematic expose has focused on specific issues of religious extremism in South Asia. In Pakistan, there is visible strife between Islamic sects, leading often to bloodbaths in mosques, of all places. This strife is recently also seen to arise in Bangladesh as well. In India too, despite its many successes in being a successful representative society, since many decades of regrettably tragic events of a communal variety have surfaced. Communal disturbances associated with the demolition of the Babri Mosque, and the more recent riots in Ahmedabad, are typical illustrations of such religious and societal discord.

It establishes that misplaced and demonstrative religious zeal, at times resulting in violence, is not totally under control of any government in this region; rational elements, however, are working hard to avoid the eruption of tragedies of horrifying magnitude. All prudent elements, individuals and institutions, must work to avoid these consequences. Some sceptics even maintain that the governments at the relevant times in different countries are conceivably involved in such terrible occurrences. [12] I am of the view that, while some evidence is available to justify such fears, on the whole, saner institutions and wiser elements in the overall structure of administration are at work to avoid such tragedies from erupting.

In line with these articulations, it is equally evident that similar developments on the basis of religion are taking shape in the rest of the world as well. It is clear therefore, that, not only in the South Asian context, but the world over, there is clearly, per se, a renaissance of religion. The more fervent this renaissance, arguably the more pronounced are its consequences and implications, including a corresponding reaction by those who feel threatened.

This phenomenon, according to some particularly foreign experts of American policies, is also noticeable in the U.S. itself. The strong showing in the last presidential elections, and the polling patterns, have established the manifest Bible belt support that President Bush obtained, compared to voting in the major urban civic centres. As cities like Los Angles, Boston or New York are representative of liberal attitudes, it is not surprising that they are apparently against him on the point of his adoption of a strong pro-war foreign policy. [13]

The U.S. emerged as the solitary World Power after the disintegration of the USSR in the late eighties. It is axiomatic that any major decision that Washington takes has genuine transnational effects and implications. What worldwide implications are likely to arise as result of a pursuit of Bush administration policies is, not as yet, clear as the purest might wish for. What political and strategic goals and aims have been achieved by the U.S. thus far, however, are still to be objectively evaluated. I am not going to go into this question as I am only concerned in this address with the effects of religious extremism in the Sub-Continent. But this much is clear to me: If, despite the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington does not take steps to ensure the creation of “true democracy” in countries other than India in South Asia, much that President Bush went to war for will be lost .

Communal and religiously based political activity operates at different levels. Its objective is to destroy the basic foundations of a pluralistic society. Why? Since it itself derives its dynamics on the basis of a monolithic elite. In military regimes, this corps of elites exists in the combined vested interests of the army and the feudal. In religiously led societies, this elitist element is epitomized by Mullahs and other kind of priestly classes. Since this aim is not easy to realize expeditiously, the process to obtain these goals is by a slow percolation and propagation of the social norms which suit the relevant society. In some ways, this phenomenon is found in all South Asian cultures. The only positive way to challenge this process is by producing a genuine participatory democracy.

Let me end these submissions by referring briefly to the ultimate goal of all religions. A genuinely religious human being, irrespective of his precise faith, should be devoted to freedom of person, freedom of conscience and compassion for all needing his care and assistance. Such a religious person invariably strives for truth and justice. In this respect, my detailed reference to the Islamic concepts of iman and adl (Faith and Justice) in my longer presentation needs to be properly comprehended. 

All religions basically advocate morality, tolerance and decency. Without such traits, they could not have survived for centuries. Where events take a course other than that of peace and harmony is when supervening factors and events outlined in detail in my longer text occur. As Mahatma Ghandi said, there is no religion higher than truth. Let us pursue this objective as it assures ultimate righteousness of human conduct.

The religious leadership of diverse institutions and parties in all South Asian countries must be vigilant against such possibilities that can create and have, with increasing velocity, caused tremendous damage to the multi-ethnic and multi-religious culture of the Sub Continent. It is also a phenomenon of current political evolution that religious based political parties are becoming tangible national or regional forces in their respective environments and societies. The great rise to political power of MMA in Pakistan and of BJP in India are the best examples of this trend. The real and perceived political and social victimization of some religious elements has created “extremism”. This situation must be attended to at the earliest, with respect to its causation, to prevent the deterioration of the law and order situation in these societies.

In any pluralistic society, the attainment of democracy, based of consensus and accommodation, is, in my view, the real, and ultimate only, end which can produce the desired results. India’s success in realizing this goal is, without question, a formidable achievement. True, it has still many socio-religious troubles, as evident from attacks such as those on the Bhandarkar Institute in Pune. But the wider reservoir of goodwill contained in its major state instruments of resolution of disputes, such as its judiciary, are still the best surety to proceed further in this regards.

Let me end this talk by bringing to your notice a unique consequence in the Sub Continent with respect to pursuit of religious bigotry in political or social affairs. Whereas terrorism is the normal result in such scenarios elsewhere, in the Sub-Continent the threat is of straight forward vandalism. In all major occurrences of this nature there is evidence of large scale destruction by mobs or gangs of a particular persuasion to achieve their avowed aims. The time has come for policymakers to devise appropriate modalities to combat this menace.

Clearly, a manifest attempt to achieve inter communal harmony is presently required. In all societies possessing multi-faith populations such a healthy evolution of attitudes would be invaluable. In a visionary spirit of looking at such matters, if inter-faith deliberations can occur, so much the better. It is imperative that in such a cultural attitudinal metamorphosis, past inter se grievances have to be over looked and focus should be on future betterment of the religious diversity. In more ways than one, the South Asian experiences on this subject have a tremendous role model potential. We have been victims of extraordinary religious bigotry and intolerance over a long time. We know too well how this has led to the most baneful consequences. I can only hope that, with a growing awareness of the immense benefits of peace and harmony, the time has arrived for turning a new leaf of history.

In this context, I am particularly keen to express my highest appreciation for my hosts, each of whom have done their share in contributing to this message of mine. The Center for Society & Secularism and the Vikas Adhyayan Kendra are leaders in this field. They have, to their credit, both vast publications and many activities devoted towards this goal. The Pius College Seminary is, likewise, an institution with a tradition of creating the kind of harmony which distinguishes a culture of toleration.

Thank you all!

Endnotes:

[1] D.Phil.; B A Juris, MA. M.Litt, (Oxon), DCL (Columbia), DIA (Harvard), Of Lincoln’s Inn, Barrister at Law, UK, Attorney at Law, US, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (QC) of Pakistan; Affiliate & Visiting Professor of International Affairs, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Special UN Ambassador for Family for the World Family Alliance, Advisor to four Prime Ministers of Pakistan on Law & Foreign Affairs; Delegate to the UN, NY, & to the Human Rights Commission on Human Rights & to the Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Geneva, Leader of Pakistan’s Delegation to the International Criminal Court Prep Coms., NY & Delegate to UN GA Sessions. Also, inter alia, on the Faculty of Law, Human Rights Program, Harvard University, Faculty of Political Science, Tufts University, the Secretary General, American Asian Institute of Strategic Studies, Boston. International Legal Counsel before transnational Tribunals & US Congress. David M Kennedy Scholar of International Studies, Kennedy Center, BYU 2003-4, distinguished Visiting Professor JNU, Memorial Lecturer at Benaras Hindu University, Mumbai University &Ambadkar Center, Auranagbad, 2004-5 ;President, Pakistan Family Forum, Chairman, Foreign Affairs Committee, Pakistan Bar Association at Lahore, 2003/4. Given King Faisal Memorial Award, 2002 and awarded in 2003 the International Professor of Human Rights Recognition from a galaxy of international professor by Saudi Arabia.

[2] The Islamic concept of Ummah connotes a world wide application of Muslim norms to all of Islamic peoples.

[3] Conferred the Right to Livelihood Awarded by Parliament of Sweden, 2004.

[4] See: Religion, State & Civil Society, p 2, 2005, Asghar Ali Engineer

[5] See the two works of the author: Farooq Hassan , The Islamic Republic, 1984 and The Concept of State in & Law in Islam , 1981 University Press of America, Washington DC.

[6] The policies of the Republican Present Reagan in supporting and eulogizing the Jihadist elements in Afghanistan against the USSR have been utterly reversed by another Republican President George W. Bush since 9/11.

[7] See UNSCO Doc.SS-80/CONF, 806/COL.7 (1980). Also Final Report SS-80/CONF. 806/COL.7 at 22 The Right to be Different., Dr. Farooq Hassan.

[8] Ironically, it was the East Pakistan majority province that felt afflicted by the minority Provinces of West Pakistan on account of the clear Establishment bias against it.

[9] According to one view that is what is in evidence in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

[10] For instance the kite flying festival of Basant announcing the arrival of Spring is observed with tremendous fanfare in Pakistan despite strong opposition to it from religious elements.

[11] In Pakistan where the majority is of the Sunni faith, the taking of Tazia, a practice of the minority Shiites to commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hussian, is not free from local disharmony or law and order situations.

[12] See e.g. Lessons from Gujarat, a Compilation of Essays, Mumbai, 2003,

[13] Engineer, op cit says: “Bush mainly relied on issues like danger of terrorism on the one hand, and Christian values and family values on the other” to push for “the propaganda that American right wing Christian politics (are needed) to enhance its security,” P 244-245.

 

A Minister Fights Back on Moral Values

Dr. Robin Meyers' Speech during the 11/04 Peace Rally at OK University

As some of you know, I am minister of Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City, an Open and Affirming, Peace and Justice church in northwest Oklahoma City, and professor of Rhetoric at Oklahoma City University. But you would most likely have encountered me on the pages of the Oklahoma Gazette, where I have been a columnist for six years, and hold the record for the most number of angry letters to the editor.

Tonight, I join ranks of those who are angry, because I have watched as the faith I love has been taken over by fundamentalists who claim to speak for Jesus, but whose actions are anything but Christian. We've heard a lot lately about so-called "moral values" as having swung the election to President Bush. Well, I'm a great believer in moral values, but we need to have a discussion, all over this country, about exactly what constitutes a moral Value—I mean what are we talking about? Because we don't get to make them up as we go along, especially not if we are people of faith. We have an inherited tradition of what is right and wrong, and moral is as moral does.

Let me give you just a few of the reasons why I take issue with those in power who claim moral values are on their side:

Read the whole speech here

Watching our Main Stream Media Squirm

It is fascinating to watch America's Main Stream Media's inability to admit their complicity in Bush's rush to war in Iraq. Now that we know he cooked the books - to get re-elected? - how else do we explain our MSM's failure to report on the official, state secret, smoking gun recently revealed in England? If it is not their fear of having to admit their complicity, what explains their silence? Their cognitive dissonance must be excruciating.

Published on Wednesday, May 4, 2005 by TomPaine.com
Proof Bush Fixed The Facts
by Ray McGovern

"Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy." Never in our wildest dreams did we think we would see those words in black and white—and beneath a SECRET stamp, no less. For three years now, we in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been saying that the CIA and its British counterpart, MI-6, were ordered by their countries' leaders to "fix facts" to "justify" an unprovoked war on Iraq. More often than not, we have been greeted with stares of incredulity.

----- snip

This new devlopment also raises the very serious question of how should we look at all our elected representatives who voted for the war? Dupes? Do we want a dupe as president? From either party?

Here is the actual memo as published in the Sunday Times.

BuzzFlash has posted this report by Greg Palast:
Impeachment Time: "Facts Were Fixed."

A BUZZFLASH GUEST NEWS ANALYSIS
by Greg Palast

Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.

Are Black Babies Morally Equivalent to White Women?

Oliver Willis has a great blog posting that exposes the hypocrisy of the Tom Delays of the Religious Right Party: Where Were the Republicans? This sad event took place in TEXAS last September 25th.

"I talked to him, I told him that I loved him. Inside of me, my son is still alive," Wanda Hudson told reporters afterward. "This hospital [Texas Children's Hospital] was considered a miracle hospital. When it came to my son, they gave up in six months. ... They made a terrible mistake."

Sun's death marks the first time a U.S. judge has allowed a hospital to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts.

snip...

View of Sin in the Early church

Ancestral Versus Original Sin:

An Overview with Implications for Psychotherapy

V. Rev. Antony Hughes, M.Div.

St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Abstract

The differences between the doctrine of Ancestral Sin—as understood in the church of the first two centuries and the present-day Orthodox Church—and the doctrine of Original Sin—developed by Augustine and his heirs in the Western Christian traditions—is explored. The impact of these two formulations on pastoral practice is investigated. It is suggested that the doctrine of ancestral sin naturally leads to a focus on human death and Divine compassion as the inheritance from Adam, while the doctrine of original sin shifts the center of attention to human guilt and Divine wrath. It is further posited that the approach of the ancient church points to a more therapeutic than juridical approach to pastoral care and counseling.

A young man called me recently to discuss his family’s movement toward the Orthodox Church. He told me a priceless story about how his seven-year old daughter helped him and his wife understand an Orthodox practice that is often a hindrance to inquirers. Although the family had icons in their home they could not grasp the reason for the practice of venerating (kissing) them. One evening after prayers with his daughter she looked at the icon in her room and asked, “Who is on those pictures, Daddy?”
He replied, “The Virgin Mary and Jesus.”

She picked up the icon, kissed it and hugged it to her chest exclaiming, “Oh, daddy, they love you so much!”

“Then,” he told me, “We understood. It’s all about affection.”

Love, in fact, is the heart and soul of the theology of the early Church Fathers and of the Orthodox Church. The Fathers of the Church—East and West—in the early centuries shared the same perspective: humanity longs for liberation from the tyranny of death, sin, corruption and the devil which is only possible through the Life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Only the compassionate advent of God in the flesh could accomplish our salvation, because only He could conquer these enemies of humanity. It is impossible for Orthodoxy to imagine life outside the all-encompassing love and grace of the God who came Himself to rescue His fallen creation. Theology is, for the Fathers of the Orthodox Church, all about love.

The Approach of the Orthodox Fathers

As pervasive as the term original sin has become, it may come as a surprise to some that it was unknown in both the Eastern and Western Church until Augustine (c. 354-430). The concept may have arisen in the writings of Tertullian, but the expression seems to have appeared first in Augustine’s works. Prior to this the theologians of the early church used different terminology indicating a contrasting way of thinking about the fall, its effects and God’s response to it. The phrase the Greek Fathers used to describe the tragedy in the Garden was ancestral sin.

Ancestral sin has a specific meaning. The Greek word for sin in this case, amartema, refers to an individual act indicating that the Eastern Fathers assigned full responsibility for the sin in the Garden to Adam and Eve alone. The word amartia, the more familiar term for sin which literally means “missing the mark”, is used to refer to the condition common to all humanity (Romanides, 2002). The Eastern Church, unlike its Western counterpart, never speaks of guilt being passed from Adam and Eve to their progeny, as did Augustine. Instead, it is posited that each person bears the guilt of his or her own sin. The question becomes, “What then is the inheritance of humanity from Adam and Eve if it is not guilt?” The Orthodox Fathers answer as one: death. (I Corinthians 15:21) “Man is born with the parasitic power of death within him,” writes Fr. Romanides (2002, p. 161). Our nature, teaches Cyril of Alexandria, became “diseased…through the sin of one” (Migne, 1857-1866a). It is not guilt that is passed on, for the Orthodox fathers; it is a condition, a disease.

In Orthodox thought Adam and Eve were created with a vocation: to become one with God gradually increasing in their capacity to share in His divine life—deification (Romanides, 2002, p. 76-77). “They needed to mature, to grow to awareness by willing detachment and faith, a loving trust in a personal God” (Clement, 1993, p. 84). Theophilus of Antioch (2nd Century) posits that Adam and Eve were created neither immortal nor mortal. They were created with the potential to become either through obedience or disobedience (Romanides, 2002).

The freedom to obey or disobey belonged to our first parents, “For God made man free and sovereign” (Romanides, 2002, p. 32). To embrace their God-given vocation would bring life, to reject it would bring death, but not at God’s hands. Theophilus continues, “…should he keep the commandment of God he would be rewarded with immortality…if, however, he should turn to things of death by disobeying God, he would be the cause of death to himself” (Romanides, 2002, p. 32)

Adam and Eve failed to obey the commandment not to eat from the forbidden tree thus rejecting God and their vocation to manifest the fullness of human existence (Yannaras, 1984). Death and corruption began to reign over the creation. “Sin reigned through death.” (Romans 5:21) In this view death and corruption do not originate with God; he neither created nor intended them. God cannot be the Author of evil. Death is the natural result of turning aside from God.

Adam and Eve were overcome with the same temptation that afflicts all humanity: to be autonomous, to go their own way, to realize the fullness of human existence without God. According to the Orthodox fathers sin is not a violation of an impersonal law or code of behavior, but a rejection of the life offered by God (Yannaras, 1984). This is the mark, to which the word amartia refers. Fallen human life is above all else the failure to realize the God-given potential of human existence, which is, as St. Peter writes, to “become partakers of the divine nature” (II Peter 1:4). St. Basil writes: “Humanity is an animal who has received the vocation to become God” (Clement, 1993, p. 76).

In Orthodox thought God did not threaten Adam and Eve with punishment nor was He angered or offended by their sin; He was moved to compassion.1 The expulsion from the Garden and from the Tree of Life was an act of love and not vengeance so that humanity would not “become immortal in sin” (Romanides, 2002, p. 32). Thus began the preparation for the Incarnation of the Son of God and the solution that alone could rectify the situation: the destruction of the enemies of humanity and God, death (I Corinthians 15:26, 56), sin, corruption and the devil (Romanides, 2002).

It is important to note that salvation as deification is not pantheism because the Orthodox Fathers insist on the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (Athanasius, 1981). Human beings, along with all created things, have come into being from nothing. Created beings will always remain created and God will always remain Uncreated. The Son of God in the Incarnation crossed the unbridgeable chasm between them. Orthodox hymnography frequently speaks of the paradox of the Uncreated and created uniting without mixture or confusion in the wondrous hypostatic union. The Nativity of Christ, for example, is interpreted as “a secret re-creation, by which human nature was assumed and restored to its original state” (Clement, 1993, p. 41). God and human nature, separated by the Fall, are reunited in the Person of the Incarnate Christ and redeemed through His victory on the Cross and in the Resurrection by which death is destroyed (I Corinthians 15:54-55). In this way the Second Adam fulfills the original vocation and reverses the tragedy of the fallen First Adam opening the way of salvation for all.

The Fall could not destroy the image of God; the great gift given to humanity remained intact, but damaged (Romanides, 2002). Origen speaks of the image buried as in a well choked with debris (Clement, 1993). While the work of salvation was accomplished by God through Jesus Christ the removal of the debris that hides the image in us calls for free and voluntary cooperation. St. Paul uses the word synergy, or “co-workers”, (I Corinthians 3:9) to describe the cooperation between Divine Grace and human freedom. For the Orthodox Fathers this means asceticism (prayer, fasting, charity and keeping vigil) relating to St. Paul’s image of the spiritual athlete (I Corinthians 9:24-27). This is the working out of salvation “with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12). Salvation is a process involving faith, freedom and personal effort to fulfill the commandment of Christ to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39).

The great Orthodox hymn of Holy Pascha (Easter) captures in a few words the essence of the Orthodox understanding of the Atonement: “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, And upon those in the tombs bestowing life” (The Liturgikon, Paschal services, 1989). Because of the victory of Christ on the Cross and in the Tomb humanity has been set free, the curse of the law has been broken, death is slain, life has dawned for all. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580 – 662) writes that “Christ’s death on the Cross is the judgment of judgment” (Clement, 1993, p. 49) and because of this we can rejoice in the conclusion stated so beautifully by Olivier Clement: “In the crucified Christ forgiveness is offered and life is given. For humanity it is no longer a matter of fearing judgment or of meriting salvation, but of welcoming love in trust and humility” (Clement, 1993, p. 49).

Augustine’s Legacy

The piety and devotion of Augustine is largely unquestioned by Orthodox theologians, but his conclusions on the Atonement are (Romanides, 2002). Augustine, by his own admission, did not properly learn to read Greek and this was a liability for him. He seems to have relied mostly on Latin translations of Greek texts (Augustine, 1956a, p. 9). His misinterpretation of a key scriptural reference, Romans 5:12, is a case in point (Meyendorff, 1979). In Latin the Greek idiom eph ho which means because of was translated as in whom. Saying that all have sinned in Adam is quite different than saying that all sinned because of him. Augustine believed and taught that all humanity has sinned in Adam (Meyendorff, 1979, p. 144). The result is that guilt replaces death as the ancestral inheritance (Augustine, 1956b) Therefore the term original sin conveys the belief that Adam and Eve’s sin is the first and universal transgression in which all humanity participates.

Augustine famously debated Pelagius (c. 354-418) over the place the human will could play in salvation. Augustine took the position against him that only grace is able to save, sola gratis (Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints, 7). From this a doctrine of predestination developed (God gives grace to whom He will) which hardened in the 16th and 17th centuries into the doctrine of two-fold predestination (God in His sovereignty saves some and condemns others). The position of the Church of the first two centuries concerning the image and human freedom was abandoned.

The Roman idea of justice found prominence in Augustinian and later Western theology. The idea that Adam and Eve offended God’s infinite justice and honor made of death God’s method of retribution (Romanides, 2002). But this idea of justice deviates from Biblical thought. Kalomiris (1980) explains the meaning of justice in the original Greek of the New Testament:

The Greek word diakosuni ‘justice’, is a translation of the Hebrew word tsedaka. The word means ‘the divine energy which accomplishes man’s salvation.’ It is parallel and almost synonymous with the word hesed which means ‘mercy’, ‘compassion’, ‘love’, and to the word emeth which means ‘fidelity’, ‘truth’. This is entirely different from the juridical understanding of ‘justice’. (p. 31)

The juridical view of justice generates two problems for Augustine. One: how can one say that the attitude of the immutable God’s toward His creation changes from love to wrath? Two: how can God, who is good, be the author of such an evil as death (Romanides, 1992)? The only way to answer this is to say, as Augustine did to the young Bishop, Julian of Eclanum (d. 454), that God’s justice is inscrutable (Cahill, 1995, p. 65). Logically, then, justice provides proof of inherited guilt for Augustine, because since all humanity suffers the punishment of death and since God who is just cannot punish the innocent, then all must be guilty in Adam. Also, by similar reasoning, justice appears as a standard to which even God must adhere (Kalomiris, 1980). Can God change or be subject to any kind of standard or necessity? By contrast the Orthodox father, Basil the Great, attributes the change in attitude to humanity rather than to God (Migne, 1857-1866b). Because of the theological foundation laid by Augustine and taken up by his heirs, the conclusion seems unavoidable that a significant change occurs in the West making the wrath of God and not death the problem facing humanity (Romanides, 1992, p. 155-156).

How then could God’s anger be assuaged? The position of the ancient Church had no answer because its proponents did not see wrath as the problem. The Satisfaction Theory proposed by Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033-1109) in his work Why the God-Man? provides the most predominant answer in the West. The sin of Adam offended and angered God making the punishment of death upon all guilty humanity justified. The antidote to this situation is the crucifixion of the Incarnate Son of God because only the suffering and death of an equally eternal being could ever satisfy the infinite offense of the infinitely dishonored God and assuage His wrath (Williams, 2002; Yannaras, 1984, p. 152). God sacrifices His Son to restore His honor and pronounces the sacrifice sufficient. The idea of imputed righteousness rises from this. The Orthodox understanding that “the resurrection...through Christ, opens for humanity the way of love that is stronger than death” (Clement, 1993, p. 87) is replaced by a juridical theory of courtrooms and verdicts.

The image of an angry, vengeful God haunts the West where a basic insecurity and guilt seem to exist. Many appear to hold that sickness, suffering and death are God’s will. Why? I suspect one reason is that down deep the belief persists that God is still angry and must be appeased. Yes, sickness, suffering and death come and when they do God’s grace is able to transform them into life-bearing trials, but are they God’s will? Does God punish us when the mood strikes, when our behavior displeases Him or for no reason at all? Are the ills that afflict creation on account of God? For example, could the loving Father really be said to enjoy the sufferings of His Son or of the damned in hell (Yannaras, 1984)? Freud rebelled against these ideas calling the God inherent in them the sadistic Father (Yannaras, 1984, p. 153). Could it be as Yannaras, Clement and Kalomiris propose that modern atheism is a healthy rebellion against a terrorist deity (Clement, 2000)? Kalomiris (1980) writes that there are no atheists, just people who hate the God in whom they have been taught to believe.

Orthodoxy agrees that grace is a gift, but one that is given to all not to a chosen few. For Grace is an uncreated energy of God sustaining all creation apart from which nothing can exist (Psalm 104:29). What is more, though grace sustains humanity, salvation cannot be forced upon us (or withheld) by divine decree. Clement points out that the “Greek fathers (and some of the Latin Fathers), according to whom the creation of humanity entailed a real risk on God’s part, laid the emphasis on salvation through love: ‘God can do anything except force a man to love him’. The gift of grace saves, but only in an encounter of love” (Clement, 1993, p. 81). Orthodox theology holds that divine grace must be joined with human volition.

Pastoral Practice East and West

In simple terms, we can say that the Eastern Church tends towards a therapeutic model which sees sin as illness, while the Western Church tends towards a juridical model seeing sin as moral failure. For the former the Church is the hospital of souls, the arena of salvation where, through the grace of God, the faithful ascend from “glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18) into union with God in a joining together of grace and human volition. The choice offered to Adam and Eve remains our choice: to ascend to life or descend into corruption. For the latter, whether the Church is viewed as essential, important or arbitrary, the model of sin as moral failing rests on divine election and adherence to moral, ethical codes as both the cure for sin and guarantor of fidelity. Whether ecclesial authority or individual conscience imposes the code the result is the same.

Admittedly, the idea of salvation as process is not absent in the West. (One can call to mind the Western mystics and the Wesleyan movement as examples.) However, the underlying theological foundations of Eastern Church and Western Church in regard to ancestral or original sin are dramatically opposed. The difference is apparent when looking at the understanding of ethics itself. For the Western Church ethics often seems to imply exclusively adherence to an external code; for the Eastern Church ethics implies “the restoration of life to the fullness of freedom and love” (Yannaras, 1984, p. 143).

Modern psychology has encouraged most Christian caregivers to view sin as illness so that, in practice, the juridical approach is often mitigated. The willingness to refer to mental health providers when necessary implies an expansion of the definition of sin from moral infraction to human condition. This is a happy development. Recognizing sin as disease helps us to understand that the problem of the human condition operates on many levels and may even have a genetic component.

It is interesting that Christians from a broad spectrum have rediscovered the psychology of spiritual writers of the ancient Church. I discovered this in an Oral Roberts University Seminary classroom twenty-five years ago through a reading of “The Life of St. Pelagia the Harlot.” My journey into Orthodoxy and the priesthood began at that point. These pastors and teachers of the ancient Church were inspired by the Orthodox perspective enunciated in this paper: death as the problem, sin as disease, salvation as process and Christ as Victor.

Sin as missing the mark or, put another way, as the failure to realize the full potential of the gift of human life, calls for a gradual approach to pastoral care. The goal is nothing less than an existential transformation from within through growth in communion with God. Daily sins are more than moral infractions; they are revelations of the brokenness of human life and evidence of personal struggle. “Repentance means rejecting death and uniting ourselves to life” (Yannaras, 1984, 147-148).

In Orthodoxy we tend to dwell on the process and the goal more than the sin. A wise Serbian Orthodox priest once commented that God is more concerned about the direction of our lives than He is about the specifics. Indeed, the Scriptures point to the wondrous truth that, “If thou, O God, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand, but with Thee there is forgiveness” (Psalm 130:3-4). The way is open for all who desire to take it. A young monk was once asked, “What do you do all day in the monastery?” He replied, “We fall and rise, fall and rise.”

The sacramental approach in the Eastern Church is an integral part of pastoral care. The therapeutic view frees the sacrament of Confession in the Orthodox Church from the tendency to take on a juridical character resulting in proscribed, impersonal penances. In Orthodoxy sacraments are seen as a means of revealing the truth about humanity and also about God (Yannaras, 1984, p. 143). After Holy Baptism we often fail in our work of fulfilling the vocation to unbury the image within. Seventy times seven we return to the sacrament not as an easy way out (confess today, sin tomorrow), but because humility is a hard lesson to learn, real transformation is not instantaneous and we are in need of God’s help. Healing takes time. Sacraments are far from magical or automatic rituals (Yannaras, 1984, p. 144). They are personal, grace-filled events in which our free response to God’s grace is acknowledged and sanctified. Even in evangelical circles where Confession as sacrament is rejected the altar call often plays a similar role. It is telling that the Orthodox Sacrament of Confession always takes place face to face and never in the kind of confessional that appeared in the West. Sin is personal and healing must be equally personal. Therefore nothing in authentic pastoral care can be impersonal, automatic or pre-planned. In Orthodoxy the prescription is tailored for the patient as he or she is, not as he or she ought to be.

The juridical approach that has predominated in the West can make pastoral practice seem cold and automatic. Neither a focus on good works nor faith alone are sufficient to transform the human heart. Do positive, external criteria signify inner transformation in all cases? Some branches of Christian counseling too often rely on the application of seemingly relevant verses of Scripture to effect changes in behavior as if convincing one of the truth of Holy Scripture is enough. Belief in Scripture may be a beginning, but real transformation is not just a matter of thinking. First and foremost it is a matter of an existential transformation. It is a matter of a shift in the very mode of life itself: from autonomy to communion. Allow me to explain.

Death has caused a change in the way we relate to God, to one another and to the world. Our lives are dominated by the struggle to survive. Yannaras writes that we see ourselves not as persons sharing a common nature and purpose, but as autonomous individuals who live to survive in competition with one another. Thus, set adrift by death, we are alienated from God, from others and also from our true selves (Yannaras, 1984). The Lord Jesus speaks to this saying, “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it, and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it” (Matthew16:26). Salvation is a transformation from the tragic state of alienation and autonomy that ends in death into a state of communion with God and one another that ends in eternal life. So, in the Orthodox view, a transformation in this mode of existence must occur. If the chosen are saved by decree and not by choice such an emphasis is irrelevant. The courtroom seems insufficient as an arena for healing or transformation.

Great flexibility needs to exist in pastoral care if it is to promote authentic transformation. We need to take people as they are and not as they ought to be. Moral and ethical codes are references, certainly, but not ends in themselves. As a pastor entrusted with personal knowledge of people’s lives, I know that moving people from point A to Z is impossible. If, by the grace of God, step B can be discovered, then real progress can often be made. Every step is a real step. If we can be faithful in small things the Lord will grant us bigger ones later (Matthew 25:21). There need be no rush in this intimate process of real transformation that has no end. As a priest and confessor I tell those who come to me, “I do not know exactly what is ahead on this spiritual adventure. That is between you and God, but if you will allow me, we will take the road together.”

A Romanian priest found himself overhearing the confession of a hardened criminal to an old priest-monk in a crowded Communist prison cell. As he listened he noticed the priest-monk begin to cry. He did not say a word through his tears until the man had finished at which time he replied, “My son, try to do better next time.” Yannaras writes that the message of the Church for humanity wounded and degraded by the ‘terrorist God of juridical ethics’ is precisely this: “what God really asks of man is neither individual feats nor works of merit, but a cry of trust and love from the depths” (Yannaras, 1984, p. 47). The cry comes from the depth of our need to the unfathomable depth of God’s love; the Prodigal Son crying out, “I want to go home” to the Father who, seeing his advance from a distance, runs to meet him. (Luke 15:11-32)

What this divine/human relationship will produce God knows, but we place ourselves in His loving hands and not without some trepidation because “God is a loving fire… for all: good or bad.” (Kalomiris, 1980, p. 19) The knowledge that salvation is a process makes our failures understandable. The illness that afflicts us demands access to the grace of God often and repeatedly. We offer to Him the only things that we have, our weakened condition and will. Joined with God’s love and grace it is the fuel that breathed upon by the Spirit of God, breaks the soul into flame.

Abba Lot went to see Abba Joseph and said: Abba, as much as I am able I practice a small rule, a little fasting, some prayer and meditation, and remain quiet, and as much as possible keep my thoughts clean. What else should I do? Then the old man stood up and stretched out his hands toward heaven, and his fingers became like ten torches of flame. And he said: If you wish you can become all flame. (Nomura, 2001, p. 92)

As we have seen, for the early Church Fathers and the Orthodox Church the Atonement is much more than a divine exercise in jurisprudence; it is the event of the life, death and resurrection of the Son of God that sets us free from the Ancestral Sin and its effects. Our slavery to death, sin, corruption and the devil are destroyed through the Cross and Resurrection and our hopeless adventure in autonomy is revealed to be what it is: a dead end. Salvation is much more than a verdict from above; it is an endless process of transformation from autonomy to communion, a gradual ascent from glory to glory as we take up once again our original vocation now fulfilled in Christ. The way to the Tree of Life at long last revealed to be the Cross is reopened and its fruit, the Body and Blood of God, offered to all. The goal is far greater than a change in behavior; we are meant to become divine.

References

Athanasius (1981). On the incarnation: The treatise de incarnatione verbi dei. (P. Lawson, Trans.). Crestwood: NY: St. Validimir’s Seminary Press.

Augustine (1956a). Nicene and post nicene fathers: Four anti-pelagian writings, vol. 1, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.

Augustine (1956b). Nicene and post nicene fathers: Four anti-pelagian writings, vol. 5, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.

Cahill, T. (1995). How the irish saved civilization. New York: Doubleday.

Clement, O. (1993). The roots of Christian mysticism. Hyde Park, NY: New Cit Press.

Clement, O. (2000). On human being. New York: New City Press.

Kalomiris, A. (1980). The River of Fire. Retrieved April, 20, 2004,

Migne, J. P. (Ed.). (1857-1866a). The patrologiae curus completes, seris graeca. (Vols. 1-161), 74, 788-789. Paris: Parisorium.

Migne, J. P. (Ed.). (1857-1866b). The patrologiae curus completes, seris graeca. (Vols. 1-161), 31, 345. Paris: Parisorium.

Meyendorff, J. (1979). Byzantine theology. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Nomura, Yushi, trans. (2001). Desert wisdom: Sayings from the desert fathers, Marynoll, New York: Orbis Books.

Oden, T. C. (2003). The rebirth of orthodoxy: Signs of new life in Christianity. New
York: Harper Collins.

Packer, J. I. & Oden, T. C. (2004). One faith: The evangelical consensus. Downers
Grove: Intervarsity Press.

Romanides, J. (1992). The ancestral sin. Ridgewood, NJ: Zephyr Publishing.

The liturgikon: The book of divine services for the priest and deacon (1989). New York: Athens Printing Co.

Williams, T. “Saint Anselm”, Retrieved April 21, 2004. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2002 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

Yannaras, C. (1984). The freedom of morality. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’ Seminary Press.

100,000

Household Survey Sees 100,000 Iraqi Deaths

What have we done.

No further comment. Just tears.

Proceed Without Delay

PLEASE SIGN the petition our friends at DriveDemocracy.org have created asking that the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct fully investigate Rep. Chris Bell's charges against Rep. Tom DeLay. The complaint accuses DeLay of ethics violations in his dealings with with Westar Energy Corporation, and illegally funneling corporate contributions to state office candidates in Texas. It also accuses him of using his influence to get the FAA to track an airplane full of Texas Democratic legislators (the "Killer D's") who were leaving the state to derail a vote on redistricting. [Link to Petition]