…we are still left with a disaster of a war in Afghanistan that cannot be won and that the country as a whole will not support.

Winning in Afghanistan & Pakistan will require that Saudia Arabia stop using our oil dollars to fund the Taliban, their Wahhbi missionaries.  It will also require that Pakistan have blackout-free electricity and adequate supplies of clean water.  The winner will have to deliver shoes, clothes, food and education to the youth of Pakistan and Afghanistan, as the Taliban now do. Further, population growth has to be accounted for in planning and the governments of the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan must be willing and able to pay more than the Taliban.  Currently, the Taliban use their Saudi funding to be the highest wage payers.  Paying dearly to fight and enemy that we are at the same time superbly funding with our mindless energy policies is the height of folly and puts us squarely on the road to disaster.  To make matters worse, our tax policies are not aligned with our military and political objectives.  In fact, our tax policies demonstrate that we are hooked on the magical thinking that we can have it all:  ”guns and butter” with victory on the cheap.  Our opponents know full well that this confirms our lack of commitment and staying power.  Much the same could be said about our drug policies and their internal contradictions.  Why is none of this being broadly discussed here in the US?  Charlie Wilson and the CIA created the Taliban but then we abandoned our friends with the bitter fruit being a Taliban that has morphed into an out of control  monster.  Lastly, we must confront and reduce the level of deeply entrenched and systemic corruption that bedevils all parties in this conflict. Until we honestly face the ground truths listed above, and eliminate the flow of our energy dollars to Saudia Arabia, we will be locked in an unsustainable and un-winnable conflict, largely of our own making.

Author: Jock Gill

In a historical context, we have yet to conceptually realize the philosophical foundations of the 2008-2009 public affirmation of the country’s [Pakistan] judiciary. I do not recall a single modern historical precedent wherein the elected government of the day was almost swept from its incumbency by popular revolt that resulted in re-establishing the country’s superior judiciary headed by the present Supreme Court and its chief justice.

In a country where praetorian, feudal and colonial norms determine social thinking and public behaviour, democracy remains susceptible to anti-democratic challenges. Playing the role of a knight in the service of democracy in Pakistan is neither easy nor follows any set practice since polemical rhetoric or the borrowed and fake robes of a martyr are always seen through by the masses who are being made the target of such an adornment. The people have become as suspicious of the calls of “democracy being in danger” as they are wary of slogans such as ‘Islam in danger’ or ‘stability at any cost’ or ‘Pakistan first’. The weaknesses in the case of those gunning for the independence of judiciary are clearly visible, but its defenders need to see that the task in front of the Supreme Court’s handling of national causes is both delicate and difficult.

Please read the full essay here.

By Farooq Hassan
Law & Int’l Affairs Professor — Harvard

I have been in Cairo where I had arrived to talk to the Arab intellectuals of strategic and Islamic affairs. Regrettably then on May 27, the third major terrorist attack in Lahore occurred.

Recent hostilities in the country concerning the war events in Swat have already initiated a debate in many influential media quarters if Pakistan could survive this newly created reality, in which serious questions about the policies and decisions of the Zardari government were involved.
There has been a debate evoked around the survival of the country, which is of tremendous significance for the entire Muslim world as was evidenced by my live dialogue for IslamOnline.net that very day of Lahore bombing attack.

Such an inquiry, not merely semantically, but in terms of fundamental realities of contemporary transnational political facts, entails two connected but separate and clearly distinct matters.

Please read the full essay here.

Professor Dr. Farooq Hassan∗
President Pakistan Ecology Council

(Chairman’s Address to the World Civic Forum, Seoul, Korea, 6 May, 2009)

I am grateful to be invited to give this year’s address on the theme of climate control and to chair the distinguished panel dealing with the topic of Climate control. I would specifically analyze and discuss the highly important subject of Islam and protection of the environment. As Chairman of the Pakistan’s Ecology Council and having served on Environmental Committee of the Pakistan Bar as well, I am pleased to be here at this historical Conference of the World Civic Forum 2009; the venue for this year’s World Forum for making our planet a better place to live being Seoul, Korea where many events dealing with this fundamentally vital subject are being discussed during this Forum’s deliberations from 5th to 8th May, 2009.

Today’s 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 foreign and domestic policy of many states. 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.

I wanted to focus this address on the role of religion in educating the masses the importance that all religions give to good and decent living in an atmosphere that is clean and healthy. It is the purpose of this presentation, however, 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 al nations through out the world.

Not only a 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 environment 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 thing seen or unseen and natural phenomena ultimately come to an end, 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 intact:

“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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

It is well to remember as the Quran emphases that those peoples who did not obey these natural laws were changed.

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 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 exiting 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 aimed 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 exited in1990.

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 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, razing 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 maintain 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 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 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 this 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:

The protection of life,
The protection of religion,
The protection of the mind,
The preservation of one’s offspring and progeny, and
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 destroys also 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.

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, Kennedy Center & Visiting Professor of International Studies & 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 from K.Fiasl Foundation, Saudi Arabia and in 2003 he received the International Professor of the Year of Human Rights & Shraiah 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. In 2006 he also received the distinction of being invited to address the Goa International Center for his work in human rights & peace studies in South Asia., by the Ghandi Peace Foundation, Delhi and by the Nehru Foundation in Bombay.

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

Dr. Hassan has published an essay of interest on the Mumbai massacre and Pakistan.

The mental shock on seeing the Mumbai massacre on the TV in my hotel room in Dubai was both abrupt and intense. I left soon thereafter as I was en route to performing the Hajj; but the thought of what future may hold for Pakistan gave rise to an uncomfortable sensation. I am now at Harvard where I have had more time to reflect and ponder over such matters.

The terrible state of things that currently surround Pakistan are patently visible to anyone who cares to realise the impact of this brutality. The dangers of indiscriminate blame are only too easy. One hopes that visionary wisdom and statesmanship will rule, but we know how hard that can be. The cold-blooded ferocity demonstrated in Mumbai is equally to be found elsewhere in the world – the West is far from immune; but the Muslims seem to be somehow exceptionally unfortunate to be the made focus of suspicion and murmur almost any time something erupts with a bang.

Please read the full essay here.

The writer is an attorney-at-law (US), barrister-at-law (UK), senior advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and Professor at Harvard University.

A great interview on NPR with Thom Friedman. Highly recommended.

Fresh Air from WHYY, September 8, 2008

Thomas Friedman is a man bent on revolution. In his new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded, the three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist writes about the need for a green revolution — and calls upon Americans to lead the charge.

Friedman argues that the U.S. can help revive itself at home and abroad by finding solutions to global warming.

Friedman is a foreign affairs columnist for The New York Times. His other books include From Beirut to Jerusalem and The World is Flat.

Note: Thanks to Kate Thompson for bringing this to my attention.

I wish to bring you in picture about a truly historic meeting convened here on the invitation of the Saudi monarch. This conference had been convened for a most crucial dialogue between the three monotheistic faiths. Saudi King Abdullah appealed for “constructive dialogue” to end disputes between the world’s major religions as he opened an inter-faith conference in Madrid. In his inaugural speech on Wednesday, 16th July, to the three-day World Conference on Dialogue he observed:

“We all believe in one God. We are meeting here today to say that religions should be a means to iron out differences and not to lead to disputes.”

The conference had been organized on an initiative of King Abdullah (whom I have known since 2002-3 when I went to receive the King Faisal Memorial Award from him in Riyadh). Over 200 participants attended, including representatives of the world’s major religions. Among them were the secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, Michael Schneider, and Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, who is responsible for dialogue between the Vatican and Muslims.

After Wednesday’s inaugural session, four closed-door round tables were held before a final communiqué was issued on Friday, 18th July. In these sessions as a part of the experts drafting committee/panel, I did my best to have them include something about the Family.

The international Dialogue that just ended finally had something VERY POSITIVE to say which is fundamentally Good about Family. I will send you a detailed report later, but it may be useful to give you the quintessential phraseology used about this point.

The declaration issued at the end of the final Session on Friday by H.E.Abdulmohsin Al-Turki ( a Saudi Prince) in a press conference, inter alia, called for:

“observing peace, honoring agreements and respecting traditions of peoples and their right to security, freedom and self-determination that are the basis for building good relations among all the people of the world. Achieving this is a major objective of all religions and prominent cultures.”

The declaration however did highlight the:

“significance of religions and moral values as well as the need for human beings to revert to their Creator in the fight against crime, corruption, drugs and terrorism. We also call upon the people to preserve the institution of the family and protect societies from deviant behaviors.”

All major addresses given by the galaxy of pious people gathered there were really directed towards the anti-terrorism emphasis of all the great Faiths of Mankind (religious leaders belonging to Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and Sikhism were gathered there). But in the drafting process I was able to have the language boldly supportive of our mutual struggles emerge in clear terms.

Since most of the talking was done by the Arabic speaking leaders in the context of the post 9/11 world, it was, I suppose, not easy to accomplish what I have articulated above. This matter is now going to the UN and, in the context of my earlier association with you, I shall do my best to keep you abreast of the future developments in this regard.

Best,
Farooq

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).

By: 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).

Astute analysts on Pakistan are generally astonished that despite the lapse of four months since the February 18 elections, there is no substantive change in the federal governments outlook, image or composition. Indeed even major policies, both domestic and external, remain the same. The NYT in a recent powerful expose on Pakistan, dated June 24, says quite accurately that there is “a leaderless drift in Pakistan four months after the elections.”

To begin with, the country’s top officials are unchanged; attorney general, an arch supporter of the Musharraf dictatorial elements, is still there as have been the Governor Sindh and, until lately, of Punjab as well. All the premier Ambassadors of the country, like that at UN in New York and in Geneva, are still unchanged; indeed the former Ambassador in Washington has just moved a step closer to the seat of power in Islamabad by being made the National Security Advisor. With same faces, little can one expect of true index of a representative government in harness in Islamabad.

Politically, Nawaz and his PML-N, despite being a coalition partner of the PPP led government, has no clue about what is going on and admittedly is never consulted on any major issue. More recently, both the ANP and indeed the JUI said they were considering withdrawing from their participation in the coalition. Even the PPP does not really know what is going on. All the real and established PPP leadership did not have much rapport with the current supremo Zardari until the untimely passing away of Benazir thereby creating a strange kind of consequence. No one in the government, including the PM, really is in a position to take any decision since that prerogative ostensibly only vests in Zardari who is often abroad when crucial decisions are needed within Pakistan.

———- snip

Please read the full essay here.

Other Columns by DR FAROOQ HASSAN

NRO: Musharraf’s proxy war
Impeaching the president
Musharraf following Fujimori
NRO prevents judges restoration
Restoration resolution

Posted by: Jock Gill

Democrats should welcome and not shy away from debate over Iraq. It provides them with an opportunity to make the election a referendum on leadership and political judgment in matters of war and peace. The Republicans are understandably trying to use the recent small signs of progress in Iraq to whitewash their irresponsible decision to go to war in Iraq, and their mismanagement of the war. This offers the Democratic Party an opportunity to use the debate over Iraq as a “teach in”, to help American voters understand how America was stampeded into war, and what the consequences have been for the national security interests of the country. If the voting public, regardless of political persuasion, understands what happened, and the price that America has had to pay for an unjustified “war of choice,” it will have a chance at the ballot box to repudiate the Administration and policies that led us to this debacle. The hope is that future Presidents will learn from this rebuff that the American people expect in its Presidents better judgment, vision and understanding of the national interest when asking the nation to support a “war of choice.”

THE MOVING FORCES BEHIND THE WAR.

Lobbies are an essential feature of the American democratic process. It is vital, therefore, that whoever is President is able to distinguish the national interests of the United States from those of the many vocal self-interested parties. In the case of Iraq, the Administration gave undue weight to the views of an odd alliance of interest groups who saw war with Iraq as promoting their own separate agendas.

* There were exile politicians like Chelabi, who saw in the destruction of Saddam Hussein the means for their return to power in Iraq.

* Some of Israel’s friends argued that the destruction of both Iraq and Iran would be in the U.S. national interest. It is understandable why they might see advantage in a policy that destroyed Israel’s most serious regional rivals, and in the process further alienated the U.S. in the Muslim world, increasing its dependence on Israel as its “only real friend in the region”. But what is good for Israel is not necessarily in the U.S. national interest.

* An energy lobby led by Vice President Cheney had shown an interest in the untapped oil reserves of Iraq before 9/11. The longer the American military presence in Iraq, the greater the opportunities for the energy giants to cut themselves profitable deals. The establishment of four large U.S. military bases in Iraq and McCain’s talk of America being there indefinitely,, on the Korean model, would be consistent with a long range oil strategy.

* There were the Evangelical Christians who linked the destruction of Israel’s enemies to the final Armageddon battle between Good and Evil.

* Many of those hoping to benefit from the destruction of Saddam Hussein shared a Neo-Conservative belief that American power could and should be used to resolve American problems in the Middle East by imposing democracy on the region, starting with Iraq. This same hubris underlay the Neo-Conservative disdain for International treaties or views of the international community that might limit U.S. freedom of action.

THE NEED FOR OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS.

A President who seeks objective judgment in filtering out these many competing voices must be prepared to listen to conflicting views. This is particularly so when a President knows that he has strong personal feelings on the subject, as President Bush had against the man who had tried to kill his father. But the Administration failed apparently to give adequate weight to the loud voices ol opposition to a war of choice against Iraq. Among the dissenters were:

* Senior statesmen associated with the President’s father, who shared the view that Bush Senior had expressed after the Desert war that we must have an exit strategy if we were to press on to Baghdad, occupying this volatile region of historic religious conflict.

* Middle Eastern experts who shook their heads in disbelief at the Don Quixote idea that democracy could be imposed by American bayonets on a complex, profoundly different culture, where change must come about primarily through evolution within the society.

* Reservations were also raised in the Congress by both parties, and within the Administration, including reportedly by the Secretary of State.

The only credible justification for an attack on a sovereign state was that it represented a clear and present danger to its neighbors. But there was no “slam dunk” evidence that Iraq had acquired a nuclear weapon.. Indeed State intelligence and U.N. inspectors questioned the evidence.. And logic should have told us that Saddam Hussein was too calculating a despot, concerned for his self-preservation, to consider inviting the devastation of Iraq by using a nuclear weapon against America’s ally, Israel. If he was tempted to use a nuclear weapon, it would have been against Iraq’s hereditary and vulnerable enemy, Iran. Under the circumstances, the logical policy would have been one of continued containment, pressing Iraq for inspection, with an attack on any known nuclear site as a fall back position. But containment did not satisfy the ambition of those who sought the occupation of Iraq

STEAMROLLING THE OPPOSITION

It was essential for the “war party” to discredit and isolate all those voices of opposition who might otherwise arouse the public to the dangers of the enterprise. To this end, the Administration:

* Used Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s Pentagon to emasculate the State Department, setting up a rival intelligence unit to counter “defeatist” reports from CIA and State, preventing the Pentagon from using in its planning either the information or the personnel involved in the production of a 13 volume study on Iraq prepared by State and CIA intelligence.

* Discounted the views of American Middle Eastern experts on the grounds that they were pro-Arab and Anti-Semite, a common Israeli complaint.

* Lent credence to a fabricated report that Saddam Hussein and al-Quada, who were bitter secular enemies, had been in secret negotiation.

* Dramatized all the human rights violations of Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime that we had chosen to ignore when we were aiding Iraq in its war with Iran.

For America to make a war of choice, it was essential to prove to a sceptical world that Iraq was a threat to peace in the Middle East. The main argument used by the Administration was the scare-mongering charge that madman, Saddam Hussein, was producing Weapons of Mass Destruction. There were certainly grounds for suspicion given Hussein’s past record but the lack of conclusive evidence and the logic of the situation, discussed above, all argued for caution.. But persuading Secretary of State Colin Powell to “document” the case for war proved persuasive.

MISMANAGEMENT OF THE WAR

To run its war, the Administration wanted only loyal warriors not sceptics in its ranks. Hence it selected as American pro-Consul in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, a Kissinger acolyte who had some German but no Middle Eastern experience. It was under his leadership that some of the most grievous mistakes were made, trying to apply to Iraq the policies of De-Nazification and Demilitarization that had worked in the totally different situation and culture of Germany.

If the Pentagon had listened to the advice of its own military, and the Middle Eastern experts who wrote the 13 volume report on Iraq, many of the most costly initial mistakes mighty have been avoided. At least we could have gone in with a sufficiently large force to establish law and order and intimidate any opposition. The Pentagon’s hubris cost unnecessary lives and blackened respect for the occupying power on the part of the Iraqis.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS “WAR OF CHOICE.”

* The invasion of Afghanistan was also a “war of choice” with the enormous difference that we were supported by our allies and the United Nations. By diverting our war effort from Afghanistan to Iraq, we have allowed Bin Laden and the Taliban to begin working their way back into regional power, and it has become necessary to bring American forces back to Afghanistan, where they should have remained in the first place. In the light of Iraq, NATO governments have become reluctant to commit combat troops to Afghanistan.

* After 9/11, sympathy for America and our prestige were at their peak . This global political asset was squandered by our unprovoked attack on a sovereign state, that no one considered a “just war” by international standards. American prestige and credibility hit a new low, from which we have still to recover.

* We transformed Iraq from a brutal but stable secular state abhorrent to al-Quada into the most effective recruiting and training ground for insurgency that Bin Laden could ever have wished for.

* By the same token, we played into Bin Laden’s stated strategy of weakening the U.S. by drawing us deeper into the Middle East quagmire.

* We also played into Teheran’s hands, by destroying its historic enemy, Iraq, offering Teheran the chance to strengthen its ties to the Shiite majority in Iraq, and to exploit America’s weakened position in the Muslim world. Our efforts to develop a united front against potential Iranian efforts to go nuclear, were also weakened.

* And America itself has been weakened: our military have been stretched almost to the breaking point, and is in no shape to meet a serious threat elsewhere; and we have added enormously to the national debt at a time of potential recession and need for serious reconstruction at home.

* There is no way, of course, to measure the cost in human lives, American and Iraqi. But at a time when the scars of Vietnam were beginning to heal, we have opened another potential sore of disillusionment among the soldiers and their families, who thought that they were sacrificing for a noble cause.

* Finally, like poor chess players, we have become so fixated on defending one pawn, that we have lost strategic sight of the global chessboard. Russia’s President Putin has been quick to try and take advantage of the global resentment of American hubris. He has tried to dramatize the differences between a proclaimed Russian policy of multilateral cooperation and support for the United Nations with the “unilateralism” of the Bush Administration, and to strengthen Russia’s relations with our European allies. Russia and China both contrast their booming economies with an America weakened by war

CURRENT ADMINISTRATION STRATEGY

America will, of course, recover but at a price it should not have been asked to pay. Belated efforts by the Administration to return to traditional policies of international cooperation, and to the Clinton policy of trying to play the honest broker in the Arab-Israeli conflict, are all to be welcomed but lack credibility. This is particularly so in the light of the apparent Administration determination to maintain a military presence in Iraq, until we can claim victory and go home. But realistically, we are tying American policy in the Middle East, and American budgetary outlays for the indefinite future to the internal developments in Iraq, where “victory” will continue to recede as the inherent sectarian conflicts in Iraq take their toll. Whatever the arrangements we may make with the Iraqis, a continued American military presence in Iraq, particularly if accompanied by efforts to corner the Iraq oil market, will be resented throughout the Muslim world and undercut any serious American efforts to promote regional stabilization in the Middle East. To replace the bogeyman of al-Quada with Iran, as an excuse for staying in Iraq, and organizing a Suni alliance against Iran, insults the intelligence of sophisticated Middle Eastern leaders.

THE VOTER’S CHOICE

The vital question for the American voter, regardless of political affiliation, is what price we are prepared to pay for a policy that would have us bogged down in the Middle East indefinitely, with little hope for a victorious outcome. A policy that presently is costing over $12 million a week at a time of mounting problems at home. And the larger question is how do we make sure that another administration does not stampede us into a “war of choice” where our vital interests are not involved. The answer to both questions lies in the ballot box.

* The voters should make clear that we are not prepared to stay any longer than necessary to withdraw our troops safely from Iraq, stationing any residual intervention forces elsewhere.

* And by administering a crushing defeat to officials associated with the Iraq fiasco, make any future American President hesitant to lead America into a war of choice where the threat to American security is not self-evident.

Certainly by Republican standards of impeachment in the case of President Clinton, impeachment of the President and Vice President over their war in Iraq, would be fully justified. But it would be extremely unwise. The emphasis of the next President should be on overcoming the crippling partisanship of recent years instead of further dividing the nation.

In practical terms, the electorate is faced with a sharp choice between the past and the future.

* Senator McCain is a man of great integrity and courage but he remains traumatized by defeat in Vietnam;

* He failed to learn from Vietnam that, for there to be public support in any prolonged conflict, the threat to American interests must be fully credible.

* He should also have learned from Vietnam about the power of nationalism in opposing occupation by a foreign power, whatever the good intentions of that foreign power.

* Finally he should have learned, that our retreat from Vietnam did not have the predicted “domino effect” of toppling our allies in South Asia . Similarly there is a lack of reality in McCain’s scare talk about what might happen if we were to leave Iraq. The states of the Middle East will work out their complex relations in a way that protects their national sovereignty without the clumsy intervention of Nanny Auntie Sam.

* There is reason to be concerned that, as a military man, McCain may be inclined to see military solutions to problems that are essentially political.

* But, as a military man, he should understand that withdrawal from Iraq is the equivalent of tactical withdrawal from an ultimately indefensible outpost to strengthen the nation’s central front.

* The Administration’s shrinking definition of victory in Iraq as essentially “stability” promises a prolonged American involvement in the domestic affairs of Iraq. To label those who question the wisdom of such a policy as ”defeatists” serves only to deepen the polarization of America at a time when the nation needs to unite behind a policy that is more credible and sustainable.

Either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be a welcome change from the Republican Administration. But Senator Obama offers the more appealing and credible alternative.

* While a number of Americans, including Senator Clinton were genuinely persuaded that the Iraq war was necessary to protect America, Senator Obama opposed the war from the outset.

* Unlike those who would demonize states, with whom we are in conflict, like Iran and North Korea, he would be prepared to discuss our differences without making surrender by them a preliminary condition of negotiation. In other words, he is a negotiator.

* He has a different approach to the threat of global terrorism. By declaring an unqualified “global war on terrorism”, the Administration encouraged every despotic state to label as “terrorists” dissident movements whom we should welcome. Obama would replace the military emphasis of the war on terror with an emphasis on precision intelligence, police and special forces work, identifying the terrorist cells and neutralizing them with a minimum of anxiety-creating publicity, on the European model.

* Our goal should be to increase the sense of isolation and
vulnerability on the part of the small, radical Muslim cells that metastasize like cancer around the world. Trumpeting that these cells are part of a global Islamo-Fascist movement undercuts this strategy by reassuring the militants that they are not alone but part of a global movement that obviously frightens the “imperialists.” It also strengthens the belief among Muslims generally that the West is indeed their enemy. To build up fear in the American public of this new bogey, Islamo=Fascism, may serve the interests of the Republican Party, but it does not serve the interests of the nation. It is time to “cool it” and focus on the many more serious threats to the country, both at home and abroad.

* In dealing with contentious issues, international or domestic, Obama’s first instinct is to reach out to the other side to see whether we cannot find some common ground without in any way compromising American interests, or his own progressive principles. He is a unifier not a divider.

* It follows that, in dealing with the outside world, Obama believes that, respect for international treaties and cooperation with other states is a more effective way to strengthen America than unilateral diktat.

* In that same spirit, he would seek to strengthen the authority and institutions of the United Nations, and of regional organizations so that they may reduce the need for America to intervene politically, or even militarily in conflicts that have been allowed to fester.

In short, Senator Obama has a mindset for the 21st century, prepared to rethink America’s problems outside of their old paradigms. To offer America a change from the failed policies of the recent past.

I am a left-liberal Democrat. This is about my dream team. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the Massachusetts Democratic primary. I believed she was a serious, tough, capable, intelligent politician who could do a good job as President. I also liked Barack Obama, but I felt he might be too inexperienced for the job and that Clinton was slightly better prepared. I have learned some things during the months since my vote.

Two important things I have learned are that Hillary Clinton is willing to embroider her foreign affairs experience out of whole cloth and that John McCain doesn’t really have as much foreign policy expertise as he claims. Clinton’s repeated claims to have come under sniper fire when she visited Bosnia in the 1990’s are lies. She may have thought people would believe this myth and not check whether it was true. That was simultaneously cynical and naïve. McCain has repeatedly shown that he does not really understand the demographics and strategic situation in Iraq- confusing Sunnis and Shiites. This is incredibly boneheaded. The historical schism in Islam is something I learned about in high school. For anyone running for president not to understand this basic fact, and what it means for the foreign relations of the United States, is unforgivable. This is especially true for someone who is supposedly strong in foreign affairs and was on a trip to the Middle East to prove it.

Gerald Ford’s statement in debate with Jimmy Carter in 1976 that the Soviet Union did not dominate Eastern Europe disqualified him in my mind from being President. Similarly Clinton’s and McCain’s mistakes have disqualified them for me. If you are so insecure about your foreign policy credentials that you have to lie like Clinton did, you’re not qualified to be president. If you’re a mega-bonehead on one of key elements in one the most important issues in American history, like McCain, you’re not qualified to be president.

Barack Obama’s stature has grown in my eyes, as well. This has not been by default, due to the disqualifying statements of the others. He is said to have impeccable personal integrity. He gave a deeply thoughtful speech on race relations in America on the occasion of Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday. He has also shown the capacity for solemn reflection and wisdom in his book Dreams From My Father. He was a visiting lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school. If Al Gore were President he could do a lot worse than to appoint Obama to be Attorney General of the United States. However, Gore is not president and that is not at all likely to happen. Obama also wisely opposed the Iraq invasion at a time when it was a popular idea. I believe integrity, wisdom and respect for the U.S. Constitution are among the most important qualifications needed in the next president and Obama has evinced these strengths.

Obama is an inspiring speaker who has motivated legions of volunteers, students, minorities, and internet donors. His presidency will revive much of America’s lost standing in the world and renew the possibility of a brighter, fairer future.

Having said this, I respect Clinton’s perseverance. She is a tough campaigner. She deserves credit for having done as well as she has. However, now is the time for her to withdraw. If she loses in Pennsylvania, she should take the opportunity to bow out gracefully. Obama should offer her a deal to help make this path easier to take. There are rumors that senior leaders of the Democratic Party plan to ask Clinton to run for Governor of New York. However, there is another job she might be interested in, Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Hillary Clinton has a long and honorable history of working on children’s issues and health issues. These are the province of the HHS Department. If healthcare really is to be reformed in this country, as promised by all the Democratic candidates, especially Clinton, a capable and dedicated cabinet officer in the department charged with implementing the reforms will be critical to the effort’s success or failure. However, Clinton will likely not find this a sufficient prize for a runner up, both because she has higher ambitions and other opportunities. She also may not see how success in the job could be a very real platform from which to run for president after Obama’s term(s). The American people would be very grateful to her if she were to execute healthcare reform and I believe it would make her popular in ways she cannot even envision now.

Still, there is another job Obama should offer which would sweeten the deal for Clinton. President Clinton is still immensely popular all over the world. He has a brilliant foreign policy mind, he is eloquent, and he would make an excellent secretary of state. Granted this is a step down from an office he has already held, but there is precedent for this type of dedicated public service in the story of John Quincy Adams, who after having served as president was elected to Congress from Massachusetts. I believe President Clinton wants to burnish his legacy. He also worked very hard during his presidency on peace negotiations in the Middle East, even until his last days in office. This position would give him the chance to make real progress in the currently moribund peace process. Progress would also result from Obama’s election, which foreign observers have often remarked would signal a sea change in America of major significance.

Because of my interest in the physical environment, ecology, and climate change, and because I have already mentioned him in this essay, suffice it to say that Al Gore would make an excellent Secretary of Nature. (The post, formerly known as “EPA Administrator” should be elevated to a cabinet level post by the next president.)

Other former Democratic presidential candidates who deserve serious consideration for cabinet positions include Joe Biden (for Attorney General) and Chris Dodd (for Treasury Secretary).

Finally, my dream team would include Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico as Vice President. Richardson is affable and intelligent. He is experienced in diplomacy and could continue his previous service as a roving diplomat while vice president. He is also a capable executive, a (former?) friend of the Clintons, an experienced Washington hand, and well connected. Furthermore, his Latino heritage would also send the right signal to important constituencies, allies, and neighbors.

It is time for the Democratic Party to rally as a unified team. It is time to take on the GOP plutocrats, instead of wasting more time and money on annoying and petty sniping and infighting. A healed party would include all its All Stars. It’s time to plan for who will be on that team, if not to announce it to a hopeful people.

Nick Gill studied Political Economy at Berkeley and Diplomacy at the Fletcher School. He lives in Newton, Massachusetts.