Zionism's saviour, Mr. Adolf Hitler

As the conflict in Gaza rages on, I write this post with a lot of anguish in my heart. Anguish, not because the people of Palestine are innocent victims of a conflict between two political ideologies (Zionism and Arab nationalism); After all, this is not the first conflict in the past few years where innocent civilians have been at the crossfire of war. No, my anguish is because unlike other conflicts in the world, here the people have no escape. On both sides of this narrow strip, border crosses have been mercilessly shut to avoid refugee influxes. Gaza was always in my opinion the largest prison in the world, and today it is the largest prison in the world that burns endlessly. The situation is a hopeless one, and thus I have always refrained about commenting too much on the issue due to it being ignored by the very people who caused it; but now I can only write in the hope that someone (Read leaders of Israel, Britain, Jordan, Egypt and Palestine) take inspiration from my opinions on the situation and look at implementing solutions which might bring some peace to this part of the world.

The U.N Plan from 1947-48      

(Click to enlarge)

The conflict has its roots on a summer in 1947, when a U.N mandate backed by the British stipulated that all Jews deserved a separate land, and of the two proposed locations; Palestine was chosen (the other being in Uganda, Africa). What many people are not aware of is that between 1925 and 1945, a sequence of events was responsible for the U.N mandate of 1947. Zionism had been on the rise since the early 1900’s, with demands to establish a Jewish state anywhere in the world, right from Russia to even Japan. However, the land of Palestine at the time was one that was ruled by the imperialists in Britain, who were being heavily opposed by Arabs fighting to drive the British out. It is therefore no surprise that the weakening British Empire favored a group of Zionists led by Theodore Herzl who took advantage of the situation.  There was also at the time, minor skirmishes between the Arabs and Jewish settlements owing to land disputes and other factors. The nail on the coffin against an Arab state came in 1938 when Hitler started his persecution of the Jews. When the war got over in 1945, widespread sympathy propelled the Jewish cause. Consequently, in his quest to exterminate the Jews, Hitler indirectly became the lone savior of the Zionists. A savior who switched world opinion to create the land that is today called, Israel.

The Original British plan of 1938-39
(Click to enlarge)

Since then, surrounding Arab Countries led by Jordan and Egypt have never acknowledged the creation of Israel having fought multiple wars to reiterate this fact. Attitudes changed by 1967, soon after the six day war, when the leaders of these nations decided that the war had caused too many displaced civilians to cross its porous borders and end up in either Egypt or Jordan. A ceasefire settlement was reached much to the dislike of factions within Palestinian lands, who were still opposed to the creation of Israel. The by-products of these factions are what we see today in Hamas, Fatah and the PLO in general. In my opinion, their cause is a just one since they were unfairly driven away from their own homes, yet I question their approach in the current context. It made sense to oppose and go to war with Israel in 1967 but today, Israel has established itself, so much so that it probably has a military capability that could rival even the United States. In such a scenario, would it not make sense to stop living in denial and acknowledge that Israel is here to stay and the only way peace could be reached is to look at a two state solution?

The solution

Ah!  But there lies another dilemma. How do you drive away people from their homes and then ask them to come back and share only part of their old home? And which part of their old home and how much? The solution according to me stems from a simple fact- Israelis and the Palestinians have fought too many bloody conflicts and will NEVER be capable of living side by side in peace. The solution needed in my opinion is a radical one; one that separates the conflicting parties by introducing non-state actors to serve as a neutral ‘protective shields’. My ideas here are for the most part idealistic yet can be thought provoking as it provides some means to move towards solving the current crisis. The ‘Zoltano proposal’ as I like to call it, requires huge sacrifices from all the players involved right from that summer in 1947- 

• For Israel, this means borders will have to be redrawn, with Israel going back to the original British proposed borders of 1939 (Somewhere between the original plan of 1939 and U.N mandated plan of 1947, the southern part of Palestine was given up completely in Israel’s favor).  Israel should accordingly remove all Jewish settlements from areas that are to be Palestinian Land. Tel-Aviv will be the new capital of Israel. 

• For Egypt and Jordan, their borders will be extended now into the Palestinian side such that they completely touch the proposed Israeli border. The Gazan Coast and its surrounding neighborhoods will now belong to Egypt and the population of this coast will be given the option of migrating to the newly formed Palestinian state or stay back. Similarly, on the Jordanian side, populations will be given the choice to move or stay back. To compensate for the land lost on the Palestinian side, the Egyptians and the Jordanians will sacrifice an equal area of land within their current borders. Furthermore, by covering up the borders of Israel as a protective shield, both Jordan and Egypt will secure their lands to ensure that Palestinians are not allowed on the Israeli side.

• Jerusalem will be a neutral, specially designated zone, controlled initially by the U.N for a 10 year period post which it will move to an independent monarchical type of setup where people of all faiths will be allowed to freely practice their religion without any restrictions. Governance will be led by a democratically elected mayor and democratically elected parties.

• Britain and its allies will for its part in unfairly causing all the mess that we see today, pay a ’compensation fee’ to the newly formed Palestinian state, by helping in building infrastructure and contributing in ways to boost the economy. 

• And at last the Palestinians will finally have their newly formed state by making the ultimate sacrifice-acknowledging that they lost their chance to “destroy Israel” when they lost the war in 1967. Instead, they will stop living in denial by accepting that Israel is here to stay, and now strive to look forward to the future. Extremist elements within the ‘State of Palestine’ will be dealt with harshly, and to help their cause, other Arab countries will contribute. Hebron will be the new capital of the Palestinian state.

Do I really see this proposal ever getting implemented? Quite frankly No; Arabs and Israelis have too many highly egoistic cooks who spoil this beautiful broth called ‘Peace’.  That said, I can no longer bear to see the suffering children and another generation of hate brewing. I see it as my obligation (as a problem solver in real life) to at least put to paper my thoughts on possible ways to end this bloody conflict. My hope is to finally see a day when half of the world’s conflicts that stem from the Israeli occupation, end forever.

Arab Animosity

[I intended to shelve this post after I had written it for fear of being too judgmental. However, recent experiences on my travel to Istanbul through the Middle East have cemented my opinions and made me decide to publish this post]

What makes Arabs such a charged, hyper tensed race of people? Readers will rightly argue that I am generalizing here since there are bunches among the Arab race who are the calm-composed types. But having experienced the Middle East, during my growing up years, I have time and again come across Arabs who seem to have very little of  attributes like patience, composure and diplomacy. Don’t get me wrong; Arabs are in general, honest and hardworking people, but they lose their cool more often than not, bickering about the most trivial of things. It is no wonder that countries like England and U.S who descended upon the Middle East with imperialistic intentions regret it for the most part even to this day!!

Many Anti-islamists have blamed Islam to be the reason for such attributes citing evidences of how the religion spread through the sword. Whether Islam spread through the sword is a topic for another day but my view is that Arab animosity comes from a variety of related factors, religion contributing very little. A few years ago, shortly after the Danish cartoon incident, I ran an experiment with some friends who belonged to various ethnicities and religions. I showed them two cards, one with the picture of a silhouette holding a sword and the other of the exact same silhouette meditating- sort of in a saintly pose. I asked them to identify in their opinion which one represented the prophet of Islam (pbuh) more accurately. 90 percent (including a few muslims), chose the card with the sword! It demonstrated to me that often great people in history are misconstrued by popular belief rather than facts. Arabs today are seen through the eyes of the media portraying violence and chaos which may indeed be the case for some countries but not all. This has unconsciously fed the minds of people to think that an Arab prophet could be violent.

The fact is that Muhammed(Pbuh) was introduced to Islam in a cave while he was MEDITATING. The fact is that he never had intentions to fight where force was not required. The fact is he used his sword only where his near and dear ones needed protection and to these near and dear ones, he treated them with respect, honour, humility and kindness. If not anything, the religion he bought turned a race of barbarians into a people with substance whose expanse traversed from central Asia all the way to Europe. At the time, a muslim was identified as one who would leave an ownerless gold coin lying on the road untouched. Where then did these divine attributes disappear in the Arabs of today? 

 The truth is that these divine attributes turned human and thus came about divisions within the religion and a quest for power, fame and wealth. These characteristics passed on from generation to generation inciting hatred and disunity. The discovery of oil in the 19^th century created more chaos with imperialistic powers meddling in the affairs of the Arab folk. In the end, the Arab society who were identified by tribes at one point where now identified with wealth. Wealth disparity is so widespread in the middle east, it’s only natural for the common Arab man to be so pissed about everything! After all, while he struggles with unemployment to make ends meet, his tribe member who was once considered an equal, now owns oil fields and enjoys the finer things in life

How Islam reached the Indian Subcontinent?

India, a land mass comprising of 1.2 billion people today accounts for 17% of the world’s population with around 14% of Indians following Islam. What most people don’t realize from this statistic is that, it means that around 177 million Muslims live in India, making it the 3^rd largest Muslim populated country in the world after Indonesia and Pakistan.

Islam's route to India - Click to enlarge

Contrary to popular belief, there are not one but three main routes that brought Islam to India. The most well-known among these was the invasion coming in from Afghanistan and Uzbekistan around the 11^th century. These dynasties and their descendants form a large part of North India and Pakistan as we know it today. The Mughals of India also trace their lineage through Turkish-Mongol warriors who used this route. There are however lesser known routes that outdated the Northern occurrence of Islam and this was primarily through sea routes bordering the south western coast of India and South eastern coast of India (via Sri Lanka known as Ceylon at the time). Even before the advent of Islam, Arab and Middle Eastern sailors used to trade with Indian ports on the Western Coast for spices and other amenities.  Significant proof of this can be found in early maps and documents that mention ports in Western India such as Manjarur ( Mangalore), Qaliqut (Calicut) and Kawlam (Kollam). Thus the route to India was a well-known one. 

The Cheruman Perumal Mosque (7th century) as seen in 1905 on India's West Coast

Masjid Al-Abrar (7th century) in Sri Lanka

Shortly after the rise of Islam in Saudi Arabia, the Prophet (PBUH) sent missionaries to spread the word of Islam, and it is through this initiative that Malik Deenar, a close companion of the prophet set out to capturing the minds and hearts of Indians looking for an escape from the ugly face of the caste system that was prevalent at the time. But it was not only the lower castes who were mesmerized with the religion and its teaching. The Chera king Cheruman Perumar who ruled parts of modern day Kerala, is considered by many Islamic historians to be the first Muslim in India. The story of his miraculous conversion to Islam and his visit to see the holy prophet can only be speculated. However, historians relate that he changed his name to Tajuddin and died on his voyage back from Makkah when his ship sank near the coast of Oman due to severe weather. They support this theory by citing evidence relating to a tomb in Oman that bears his name. Other accounts of this episode state that Tajuddin was in fact a local Chieftain whose descendants would go on to form the Zamorins of Calicut. In either case, the contingent, who escaped the storm, reached the coasts of the Indian Subcontinent and Sri Lanka. From here the contingent split, one focusing on the western coast of India and another focusing on Ceylon, the name by which Sri Lanka was historically known.  In Sri Lanka, Masjid Al Abrar located in the town of Beruwala (loosely translated as ‘lower the sails’) is the first mosque that was built a few years after the Sri Lankan contingent arrived. The Western Indian contingent arrived on the Malabar plains and built their first mosque there, today called the Cheruman Perumal Mosque in honor of the Chera King Cheruman Perumal.  A small settlement of Yemeni Muslims also landed on the east coast of India during this time however, it was much later around the 12^th-13^th centuries that an influx of Muslims starting settling in the Eastern Coast of India primarily arriving from Sri Lanka and the North India. 

KilaKarai Masjid (8th century) on India's East coast built by Yemeni Merchants 

One of the best evidences in my opinion of understanding how Islam spread in any geographical area is to look at the Islamic schools of thought that Muslims in these regions follow as of today.  For the unaware, Sunni Muslims primarily follow one of four schools of thought founded by theologians who interpreted the holy books and put in place laws that govern Islamic society.  These are interesting anthropological indicators only because very rarely do Muslims over generations tend to change their school of thought as in most cases; the school of thought is associated with language, culture and customs. Accordingly, in the case of India and Sri Lanka, it is clearly seen that in land areas close to the sea such as the coastal belts of India, and Srilanka, ‘Shafism’ ,the school of thought propagated by Imam Shafi is prevalent while in North and Central parts of India, ‘Hanafism’, a school of thought propagated by Imam Abu Hanifa is the prevalent school of thought. Similarly, in the case of the other sect of Islam i.e Shiaism that was brought from Persia, it is widely prevalent in the Northern parts of India while being almost absent from coastal areas. This trend is also seen among other South East Asian Muslim countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia. It follows from this that Indian Muslims who live along the coastal belt of India especially the west have high chances of having an Arab /Middle Eastern lineage whereas Muslims in the Northern part of India are most likely descendants of  Afghani – Uzbek or Persian Heritage.

In addition to the Northern Invasions and the sea trade routes, we must not forget the contributions of one more channel that spread Islam in India to a large extent i.e. Sufism. Sufism is said to have arrived in India from Turkey and Iran (Persia) early in the 10^th-11^th centuries and captured Indian audiences with its mysticism, peacefulness and simplicity. To prove the point on how influential Sufism is, historians point out that during the travels of Sufi Saint Moinuddin Chishti in the 12^th century, he is known to have convinced more than 90,000 followers to embrace Islam! To put that in perspective, that’s equivalent to the population of an entire city at the time!

Personality profile: Umar Ibn Al Katthab

Over the next couple of weeks, I hope to be introducing a new series of posts in my blog that will talk about leading figures in Islam and history in general. Ideally I would have liked to start with our beloved prophet (PBUH), however given the man that he was and his achievements, I want to take time to research and make it relevant  and special for readers. I therefore start the series with one of his close aides, the second caliph according to the Sunni tradition- Umar Ibn Al khattab. 

Much has been said about the man, and stories relating to his piousness are a part of every Muslim gathering and event.  Encyclopedia Britannica describes Umar as follows : 

“ʿUmar I, in full ʿumar Ibn Al-khaṭtāb    (born c. ad 586, Mecca, Arabia [now in Saudi Arabia]—died Nov. 3, 644, Medina, Arabia), the second Muslim caliph (from 634), under whom Arab armies conquered Mesopotamia and Syria and began the conquest of Iran and Egypt.

A member of the clan of ʿAdi of the Meccan tribe of Quraysh (Koreish), ʿUmar at first opposed Muḥammad but, by about 615, became a Muslim. By 622, he had become one of Muḥammad’s chief advisers, closely associated with Abū Bakr. His position in the state was marked by Muḥammad’s marriage to his daughter Hafsa in 625. On Muḥammad’s death in 632 ʿUmar was largely responsible for reconciling the Medinan Muslims to the acceptance of a Meccan, Abū Bakr, as head of state (caliph). Abū Bakr (reigned 632–634) relied greatly on ʿUmar and nominated him to succeed him. As caliph, ʿUmar was the first to call himself “commander of the faithful” (amīr al-muʾminīn). His reign saw the transformation of the Islāmic state from an Arabian principality to a world power. Throughout this remarkable expansion ʿUmar closely controlled general policy and laid down the principles for administering the conquered lands. The structure of the later Islāmic empire, including legal practice, is largely due to him. Assassinated by a Persian slave for personal reasons, he died at Medina 10 years after coming to the throne. A strong ruler, stern toward offenders, and himself ascetic to the point of harshness, he was universally respected for his justice and authority.”

As described correctly, a large part of Sunni Islam as we see it today has roots in policies that were implemented by Umar during his reign. For this reason, my view is that he is easily attributed to be one of (if not the only) true architects of modern Islam after the prophet (PBUH). Many practices that you see today including the Tarawih prayers during the holy month of Ramadhan and the compilation of the Quran into the book we know of are as a result of orders given out by Umar during his reign.  Among the various stories that are prevalent on his humbleness and fairness as the ruler of Muslims (amīr al-muʾminīn), there are two that distinctly fascinate me.

The first one relates to the power he bestowed on the administrative officials of his state during his reign as the second caliph of Islam. Here was an all-powerful ruler, leader of over a billion people, who placed so much trust in his administrative officials, that he himself had to ask permission and seek approval from these officials if their services were to be availed. The story begins on one of the days of Ramadhan when Umar approached the official in charge of the people’s treasury seeking a loan. Despite being the ruler, Umar lived a most humble life and on the advice of his wife decided to take a loan from the treasury to buy his daughters some new clothes on the occasion of Eid. Umar asked the official if he could borrow some money with the intention of repaying once his salary was received at the end of the month (The fact that a ruler at the time received a salary from the treasury and the fact that he had to seek permission to take a loan itself is fascinating for me). But the story goes on to show how capable the people whom Umar placed his trust on were. The official replied that he would gladly give Umar the loan from the People’s treasury provided Umar signs a written affidavit that he would not die till the end of the month!! The official then goes on to say that the treasury was made up of the people’s contribution and to take this money without the guarantee of repaying would be a grave sin. Umar immediately realized his mistake and recalled his decision to take the loan.

The second story, similar in context and equally riveting goes something like this: It was late evening when Ali, the son-in-law of the prophet approaches Umar’s house to talk to him on an urgent issue. Umar had just wrapped up a meeting with his administrative officials. On seeing Ali and learning of his purpose of visit, he immediately enquires if the matter he would like to talk about is regarding the state or something personal. Ali replies it was the latter. On hearing this, Umar extinguishes that lamp that was already lit, and lights another lamp. Puzzled by this rather odd reaction, Ali asks for a reason to which Umar replies “ My dear Ali, the oil that burns in the first lamp has been bought with money from the treasury i.e the People’s treasury. To use this lamp while we speak of personal matters would be highly unfair and unethical. For this reason, we can have the conversation at my expense i.e using the second lamp which burns of oil bought from my salary.”

How many of our present day leaders follow such an honest and fair path? How many of our present day leaders can be so accountable? Is this not what the Arab spring set to bring about ? Both these stories coupled with his achievements in history to take Islam far from the lands from where it was born and more importantly to rule these lands in a such a just and right manner makes him in my view one of the greats in Islam’s 1400 year old history. Though there is much controversy among Shia Muslims on his genuineness, they would agree that if not for this ‘commander of the faithful’ and the solid foundations that he laid, Islam today would have not survived the long list of events that took place in the very lands in which he ruled.

 

Middle Eastern Mess

Early in 2010, I ran a research assignment via internet sources to figure out the most prominent countries featured in news headlines over the past 10 years (2000-2010). Given that the decade was most remembered for Sept 11 and its aftermath, and the steady economic growth of China, it was of no surprise that the results yielded U.S and China in the top 2 spots.

Among the top 5 however, were also Israel/Palestine and of course Iraq and Afghanistan among others (Full results here). At the time, there seemed to be a sense that something big was around the corner for the Middle East and the people in that region hoped for something positive.

Cut to 2013, the Middle East is still in the news with changes expected thanks to the Arab Spring. Yet in spite of expecting things to be better, sectarian violence continues in Iraq and Syria, Administrative issues continues to plague Egypt, Tunisia and Libya and a gloom of uncertainty hangs over Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia among other countries. It begs the question- What went wrong?

The reasons in my opinion are many and solutions unfortunately too few. That said let me try to tackle a few. Gaddafi, Saddam, Ben Ali and Mubarak are no longer in power yet the regimes that took over from these nepotistic leaders seem to be no better. Leaders like Assad and his Bahraini counterpart Khalifa are walking on a tightrope held together by the delicate thread of sectarian peace. Assad and his forces are already in the midst of war and will soon reach the breaking point. I predict Bahrain will be the next in line.

If you analyze the structure of countries in the Middle East, there are two main factors that make up stability – Good (or fair) leadership and Sectarian tolerance.  Take away one or more of these, and you end up with an explosive situation. Good leadership translates to happy citizens and sectarian tolerance translates to enlightened citizens.

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, Oman, Iran, Israel and Morocco have minimal sectarian divisions and thus good leadership is the only Achilles heel that they should be concentrating on. To some extent Yemen falls in this category too. Egypt, Libya and Tunisia have a new threat in the horizon i.e. the Salafi movement which is steadily taking control and is feeding into the politics of these countries thus fuelling a leadership war. As long as the competition is healthy and with their old leaders gone, at least there is HOPE of a more organized and efficient government.

My assessment is that the worst countries in Middle East currently would be the ones that have both the leadership issue and the sectarian issue namely Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Bahrain. Among these, Bahrain is so far relatively calm but my gut feeling is that the largely Shia dominated population governed by a corrupt Sunni leadership is a catastrophe waiting to take place.

Most unique among the countries in the Middle East is the tiny nation of Lebanon. After years of sectarian conflict, for a very brief period till the Syrian crisis began, they seemed to have found a ‘eureka ‘moment where-in sectarian violence was at an all-time low and the government seemed to be stable and efficient. It’s not a perfect solution, but it was a solution where for the first time in so many years, a troubled Middle Eastern country was in the news for right reasons. Tourism was at an all-time high, trade was booming and the people where ecstatic.  Other Arab countries especially the ones with the dual problem of leadership and sectarianism should take a leaf out of Lebanon’s note book to analyze how they did it. Who knows it could lead through to a breakthrough in peace for the Middle East.