Since the last decade of the last century and particularly since 9/11, professional and column writings on fundamentalism, terrorism, and Islam have increased manifold. The US 9/11 Commission Report has dealt with Islam as a faith and traced its history back to the early days. With 1.4 billion strong followers worldwide and increasing, Islam is a world religion. It is the second largest faith in Europe and North America. Therefore it cannot be ignored.
But Islam is a misunderstood religion: misunderstood by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. For this misunderstanding, practising Muslims are largely to be blamed, because they have failed in their primary responsibility to represent Islam.
Islam cannot be equated with fundamentalism. The origin and growth of fundamentalism has been described by the New Encyclopedia Britannica thus: “[A] conservative movement in American Protestantism arising out of the millenarian movement of the 19th century and emphasizing as fundamental to Christianity the literal interpretation and absolute inerrancy of the Scriptures, Fundamentalism came into its own in the early 20th century in opposition to the modernist tendencies in American religious and secular life. The roots of fundamentalism are found in the history of the American millenarian movement.”
Certainly Islam has its own fundamental principles (which every religion has), and recognises the Bible to be a divine scripture (which in the last two millennia have been distorted beyond recognition), but the principles of Islam cannot be equated with Christianity (although there are similarities). In any event, and as its history suggests, fundamentalism is based on Christianity, and not on Islam. Islam is a very wide culture and flexible enough to accommodate new ideas, new thoughts, and new developments. It is therefore fundamentally wrong to equate Islam with fundamentalism.
Equally wrong is to equate Islam with extremism. Extremism means “being situated at the furthest possible point from the centre.” Islam stands for moderation and recommends moderation and balance in belief, in worship, in conduct, in international relations, in war and peace. Muslims are by definition moderate. “You have been created as a moderate nation to be a witness for truth for mankind.” (The Quran 2:143). In the long 23 years of the Prophet’s prophetic life he followed the middle path: the path of moderation. He went for the soft option, if one was available. He brought far-reaching changes in the social, political, cultural, economic, and spiritual life of Arabia but those changes were brought gradually and constitutionally.
One example: There were 360 idols in the House of God, the K’aba. From day one of his Prophethood, he had been preaching the oneness of God, and speaking uncompromisingly against those 360 false gods. His followers were prepared to do everything for him and for his cause. No sacrifice was too big. It was, therefore perfectly possible for him to organise a commando style attack on K’aba in an attempt to get rid of those gods. He was nowhere near that. On the contrary he prayed in the K’aba for long 13 years and waited for long 21 years — until the conquest of Makkah — when he, as head of the state, promulgated a decree to clear the House of God from false gods. Thus, finally, the cleansing was carried out constitutionally.
This is not to deny the existence of extremists in the name of Islam. There are. The July bombings in London and the August bombings in Bangladesh are recent examples. But extremists in the Muslim community are a very tiny minority and do not represent Islam. Any attempt, therefore, to equate Islam with extremism, and Islamists with extremists is wrong.
There are fears that if ‘Political Islam’ dominates a country — Bangladesh for example — it would cease to be a democracy. People will lose their right to dissent. And a theocratic state would be established “based on medieval legal and social practices and jurisprudence of Islam of yore.”
First, there is no such thing as “political Islam” and “spiritual Islam.” Islam is a complete code of life: a guidance for humanity. The fundamental objective of an Islamic government is to secure political, economic, and social justice for its citizens.
For example, under the present Bangladesh constitution, it is perfectly possible to transform Bangladesh into a modern welfare state based on the principles and values of Islam, and hardly any amendment would be necessary.
Therefore these fears are unfounded and may have been based on the examples of certain states which practice autocracy in the name of Islam. Second, separation of powers, independence of judiciary, constitutional guarantee for fundamental rights, freedom of speech, and above all, rule of law, are the corner stones of an Islamic constitution. Those are not mere slogans. Those principles were practised by the Caliphs of Islam. In modern constitutions, the head of the state is normally given immunity from prosecution. But the rightly guided Caliphs did not enjoy such immunity.
The fourth Caliph Hazrat Ali (RA) appeared before a court of law in Medina and lost the suit for recovery of his shield from the defendant — a native Christian — because of insufficiency of evidence. Does it not conclusively prove the independence of the judiciary when the Chief Executive of a country lost his case for want of evidence in a proceedings in which he himself was a witness? Think of the Masdar Hossain case in Bangladesh: the Supreme Court’s 19-point directions for separation of the judiciary has remained unimplemented for long six years despite its own supervision and proceedings for contempt of court.
The most important fundamental right is the right to life. Was the second Caliph Hazrat Omar (RA) not on record to say, when famine broke out in Arabia — that if a child died on the bank of Euphrates for want of food, “I fear I may be held responsible before my Lord, the Almighty”? At dead of night was he not found to carry on his back food to the house of an old lady? Was he not prevented by an ordinary citizen from delivering Friday sermon before he explained to the members of the public the source of availability of cloths for his long gown? Are these not supreme examples of transparency and accountability? Was it not in his time that because of fewer crimes on the street, the primary duty of the police force was to ensure that traders use proper scales for measurement and camels were not overloaded? 1400 years ago even animal rights were protected, yet today the world is witnessing the worst violations of human rights in Abu Gharib and Guantanomo Bay.
It is often said Islamists want “one man one vote for one time only.” This allegation has no substance. Certainly there are certain differences between western democracy and Islamic democracy. Under the latter it would be beyond the powers of parliament to pass legislation to legalise single sex marriage, for example. But representative government is the basic feature of an Islamic democracy. No one has the right to lead unless he or she is an elected representative. During the time of the rightly guided Caliphs, democracy was not institutionalised, ballot boxes were not in use, but all four of them were elected through consultation.
It is said that Islam does not recognise the rights of women. The world knows very well that women got the right to vote in Germany in 1919, US 1920, UK 1928, France 1944, and Switzerland 1971. But in 7th century Arabia, women played an important role in the decision making process.
One incident was of highest constitutional importance. In a Friday sermon, the Second Caliph fixed the upper limit of the dower, arguing that this would stop the abuse of the system. One woman from the back bench protested: “Omar! This is beyond your jurisdiction. What has not been fixed by God himself, you have no power to do so.” Instantly Hazrat Omar accepted the protest and did not proceed any further. Without that lone protest by that woman — (history did not record her name because she was not notable) — the Caliph’s word would have been the law of the land enforceable through law courts.
This single incident speaks volumes about the rights of women in Islam, freedom of speech, women’s role in making legislations and state affairs and the executive’s eagerness to uphold the principles of rule of law and constitutionalism. Critics may tend to dismiss incidents like these as trivial and representing only the generous minds of the rulers of the day, but these are the constitutional precedents which would bind all Islamic governments for all time to come.

Solving Kashmir imbroglio
Marya Mufti

Since independence from British yoke, Kashmir issue has remained unresolved. This issue triggered past wars and India-Pakistan military stand-off (operation Parakaram costing India about Rs 74 crore). Even today, this dispute is a dangerous causus belli between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. The main reason for non-resolution of this issue is India’s obdurate policy on inseparability (Atoot-Ang-ness) of Kashmir. Prolonged non-resolution of the Kashmir issue triggered nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan. International community regards Kashmir issue as a power keg or flashpoint. Analysts have offered the following options (besides armed struggle) to solve the Kashmir issue: (a) Plebiscite to be held after five to 10 years after putting Kashmir under UN trusteeship. (b) Division of Kashmir along the present Line of Control with or without some local adjustments to facilitate the local population (as desired by India and some Western powers). (c)Independent Muslim-majority areas (for instance tehsils of Rajouri, Poonch and Uri) with Hindu-majority areas merged in India. (d) Permutations and combinations of the above options.
Given India’s sincerity, Pakistan’s President is rightly confident to find a solution, any solution within the framework of stated positions or beyond, of the Kashmir tangle President Musharraf’s interview with Reuters December 18, 2003 and talk at an iftar dinner at Islamabad on October 25, 2004 express his open mindedness. He suggested that India and Pakistan should consider the option of identifying some regions of Kashmir on both sides of the Line of Control, demilitarise them and grant them the status of independence or joint control or under UN mandate.
Agreement on the Aland Islands between Finland and Sweden offers guidance on how to solve the Kashmir tangle. Aland’ international accord settled the territorial dispute on the basis of the status quo. Any settlement of the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan requires a guaranteed special status for both halves of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Aland problem was solved as Finland was sincere, unlike India as concerns the Kashmir issue. When the dispute with Sweden arose after the First World War, Finland’s Parliament passed an autonomy law on May 6, 1920, for Aland. The aim was to strengthen Swedish stance before world opinion. The people of Aland demanded a plebiscite to determine their fate, whether accession to any disputants or secession from them. The League of Nations’ Rapporteurs ruled in favour of Finland. But they suggested Aland’s secession could be avoided by offering her iron-clad guarantees of autonomy.
The proposed guarantees related to proprietary rights of the natives, voting rights of immigrants and nomination of a governor who enjoyed trust of the Alandian people. By contrast, governors in occupied Kashmir continued to be superimposed on Kashmir by India’s central governments without consent of Kashmiris. New Delhi never trusted even its stooges in Srinagar. A few more words about how concerns of Alandian people were catered for_The Accord of June 27, 1921, included seven points as Finland’s guarantee for ‘the preservation of the language, culture’ and local Swedish traditions of the people. It provided for six precise guarantees to its Autonomy Law: (a) The Islands would not be under obligation to support schools in which the language of instruction was not Swedish. Schools established by Finland would teach Swedish also. The Finnish language would not be taught in State-aided primary schools except with the permission of the commune. (b) Curbs will be imposed on transfer of land to persons not domiciled in the islands. Finnish immigrants would acquire voting rights only after five years of legal domicile. (c) The Governor would be nominated by the President of Finland in agreement with the President of Aland’s Assembly (Landsting).(d)In the event of disagreement, the President would select a person from a panel of five persons nominated by the Landsting. (e) The isles would be entitled to use 50 per cent of their revenues for their needs. (f)The Council of the League of Nations shall watch over the application of these guarantees. Finland would forward complaints from the Landsting to the Council, with its (Finnish) observations, regarding the application of the guarantee. The Council would consult the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague ‘in any case where the question is of a juridical nature’ (International Treaties and Documents Concerning Aland Islands 1856-1992; page 23).
Look at bona fide compliance of the guarantees by Finland. She proceeded immediately to include the above guarantees in her domestic law by enacting the Guarantee Act passed on August 11, 1922. The Act supplemented and amended the Law of 1920. Finland’s good faith is conspicuous from two more facts: (a) The Law not only incorporated the guarantees almost verbatim, but also added one more guarantee- the decisive Alandian veto: ‘This law shall be neither amended, clarified, or repealed, nor shall exceptions to the law be made except with the approval of the Aland Landsting and in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the enactment of constitutional legislation. Compare Finnish attitude with treacherous mutilation of Section 370 of Indian Constitution by India. (b) Finland enacted two more Autonomy Laws, one on December 28, 1951, and another on August 16, 1991 (enforceable from January 1, 1993).
India had wiser legal/constitutional experts than Finland or Sweden. But, unfortunately, the Indian government utilised their legal acumen with mischievous and mala fide intentions. The result is that Kashmiris hate India. The afore-mentioned 1991 law, now in force, has removed the ambiguities in the 1951 law. Now, it is the Alanders: (a) Who select the governor under section 52 (Helsinki rubber stamps the appointment). (b)Aland uses its own flag and coat of arms. Aland has been using its own flag since 1954. (c)Under section 28, no law can be enforced in Aland concerning ‘the principles governing the right of a private person to own real property or business property in Aland without the consent of the Legislative Assembly.’(d) Swedish is used in communications between Aland and State officials based on the Islands. (e) The Autonomy Act can be amended ‘only by consistent decisions of Parliament of Finland and the Legislative Assembly” of Aland. Under Section 33, the government of Aland has to be consulted by the Finnish government before issuing directions on matters that concern Aland.
On October 16, 1994, Finland voted in a referendum to join the E.U. by a 51.9 per cent majority. Aland followed suit on November 20 by a 73.6 per cent majority. No coercion. Aland joined EU voluntarily. Amendments were made to the Autonomy Law on December 31, 1994, giving the Islands the right to ‘formulate the national position of Finland relating to the application of Common Policy of the European Union in Aland’.
The thorny question of division of powers between Helsinki and Mariehamn is well settled. Nuclear energy is a state subject. Aland has a right to veto construction of a nuclear power plant on its soil. ‘Public order and security’ belong to Aland as do ‘the postal service and the right to broadcast by radio of cable in Aland’. The 1996 law covers state radio and television. All textbooks on international law recount the Aland case. Will the Indian government go through it to understand the spirit that made Aland a success story? The spiritual key to Aland’s solution was sincerity.