To say or not to say ? that is the question !

It’s been a while since my last post, and over the period of my hiatus, there have been developments across the world that has once again bought into foray the question of free speech. First, there was the arrest of a Bangalore based techie, who was reportedly operating a twitter account that sold ISIS propaganda. Next, we had the Australian Café attacks by an Iranian born nut who was provoked because” nobody” would listen to what he had to say and finally, the tragic events at Paris that killed the crew at Charlie Hebdo.

All of these incidents are instigated by the very notion that there is an unwritten rule in the history of this world where our species cannot communicate to one another if it intends to offend, hurt or ( taking a leaf out of Spielberg’s  ‘Minority Report’)- can cause a crime to occur. Essentially, these in my opinion collectively define aspects of ‘Right to Free Speech’. If the proponents of free speech feel so strongly about it, they should understand that it goes both ways- It allows a Charlie Hebdo to draw the Holy Prophet, while it also allows at the same time for ISIS to spell out their agenda freely. I therefore feel these self-styled liberals should think before taking to the world, the idea of free speech. 

They argue that the Holy Prophet was depicted in artworks very freely till the 13^th century and I agree to that. But where I beg to differ is to equate that with the shameful depictions of any belief as done by the likes of Charlie Hebdo to those 13^th century depictions.  I’m all for satire, but there is a line that needs to be maintained. It’s the same line that brings respect to communities and prevents lawlessness. Every religion in the world gives its definition to this “line” and I can therefore understand when atheists start talking about the irrelevance of this line. What I cannot tolerate are the hypocrites who have boundaries when it comes to religion but speak of no boundaries when it comes to speech. 

Accordingly, one of the most pressing concerns for free speech is very simply, who defines this line? While that’s an easy question to answer in communities that are strictly orthodox, it becomes a complicated issue when we attempt to answer this question for a world stage with multiple opinions, beliefs and principles. The solution in my opinion was summed up very crudely by a journalist I recently met: “Free speech is like farting. You do it in your personal space and people who like that sort of thing will follow you there. It’s not something to share in a public arena. “On the other side of the table, it is also essential for the people who get easily offended to understand that the world we live in is today governed by multiple ideologies. The only way to keep yourself shielded is to embrace the way the world is changing and build tolerance in your communities. If only both sides had understood this, the unnecessary killings over the last few weeks could have been avoided.

The ISIL Renaissance

Over the past few weeks, no four letters have been more prominent among the mainstream news media than the threat of I.S.I.L or the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. What started as an organization called ISIS (Islamic state in Iraq and Syria) claiming to fight the tyrannical regimes in Syria and Iraq today has captured almost the entire world’s attention with their beheading videos and their claim to establish an Islamic Caliphate. 

What is discerning to me in light of recent events is that, again like the aftermath of 9/11, Muslims all around the world are being looked at with suspicion. I find people asking questions on why Muslims cannot control these so called extremists within their communities. There is a sense that Muslim communities are weak in that, such a cancerous ideology cannot be unjustified and contained. 

To make matters worse, the times of distress are upon us also called the ‘Fitna’ in Arabic. With wars raging endlessly across the Middle East, Ukraine and Africa, journalists all around the world no longer look at reporting raw and real boring news but instead look to fuse information with sensationalism thus giving a much distorted picture of the reality that confronts us. Like I have mentioned in my earlier posts two things happen as a result – 

1. The depressed and lonely turn to other outlets for news such as the internet to gain their information and consequently get sucked into the vortex of extremist thought.
2. The media constantly looks at weaving a good guy vs. bad guy rhetoric by profiling such individuals as belonging to a bad organization with militants who have designations, titles and a hierarchical order in which they go about doing their business; In fact my personal opinion is that almost all these so called terrorist organizations have no sense whatsoever of where they are headed, why they are headed that way and how it all came to this. There is no “structure" within their “organizations” and they are guided by an ideology that has no place in Islam, of which they are fully aware of but are fearful of admitting given that they are already at the point of no return.

If I look though history, I see parallels here with gloomy Europe just before the renaissance period. Though it took 400 years to culminate, the end result was an astounding era of rational thought that wiped out false beliefs, turned grief into a creative outlet and brought a sense of positivity all across Europe. What the Islamic world needs today is exactly that renaissance.  In my opinion there are 4 goals that need to be aimed at to bring about this change.  Ironically, I call these goals the ISIL goals- 

Intention –

In the Islamic faith, the intention or ‘Niyat’ forms an important part of every act of supplication and action. It follows from the idea that in order to have a positive action, you need a positive thought first. Similarly, there has to be a ‘consensus in thought’ among Muslims of today that a change is indeed needed towards reformation. There are still large sections within Muslim societies that are afraid to review Shariah law for fear of offending Islamic principles. Frankly, I find this silly since Islamic principles were designed to be forward looking in essence and certain laws governed by Shariah no longer seem to be forward looking (though they might have been at the time of the prophet and shortly thereafter). The day the major Muslim leaders converge on the idea that we as a people (Ummah) want to be forward looking will be the day in my opinion, Islam wins its greatest ‘Jihad ‘.

Sectarian Peace –

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) is said to have predicted the split of the Islamic faith into two distinct sects – The Shias and Sunnis, 200 years before it actually happened. It therefore follows that there might be no going back and uniting these sects. That said, I am surprised of the utter hatred these two groups have for each other, given that we have the same concepts in place – Tauheed , the oneness of the Almighty and a love for our dear prophet. The hatred in my opinion is all politically instigated and it is therefore necessary that we have governments in Muslim lands that are free from such prejudices. Saudi Arabia and Iran are examples of governments that have used their political influence to arm twist other secular countries to have Sunni-Shia divisions within their lands. Sectarian peace can only exist if these governments preach peace and portray a sense of oneness to all sects within their lands.

Interpretation –

Perhaps the most influential part of how the world sees Islam is in the interpretation of the laws under the Shariah. There is a massive difference in the way countries like Malaysia and Turkey follow Islamic law vs. countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Somalia. I am not professing what is right and wrong. The point I am trying to make is that there has to be uniformity in what works in today’s society and what does not work. In what might be a controversial thought, I feel the need to have an equivalent to a new testament for the hadith. What is the hadith after all? – A collection of historical actions and stories about the prophet that may or may not have stood the test of time in terms of being accurate. The highly learned and respected within the Islamic world will need to come together, review the Quran and Hadith and finally come to laws that make sense in today’s generation, free from ambiguity and interpretation. There should ideally be only the Quran for divine guidance and a ‘reformed’ book that takes from the hadith and Quran to serve as a textbook of living in the Muslim community.

Leadership –

For all the goals mentioned so far to work effectively, Islam’s need of the hour is a strong and robust leadership. Though the caliphate model would seem ideal to most Muslims, my sense is that we need a more innovative solution in this day and age. Unlike, the Rashidun caliphates (first four leaders after the Prophet), the subsequent leaders till today have for the most part been corrupt, unaccountable and unapologetic.  I would prefer a corporate style of leadership where Islam’s ‘CEO’ is completely accountable and is constantly kept in check by a ‘board of directors’ comprised of respected and highly learned leaders from all walks of Islamic society.

 

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.

Personality Profile: Is Alexander ‘the Great’ actually the Quran’s Dhul-Qarnayn ?

The Holy Quran in many ways is mysterious in that it remarkably conveys multiple facets of a story within a single verse or a bunch of verses. It is therefore only natural that over the course of history, multiple interpretations (or ‘tafsirs’) have come about to help Muslims understand the meaning of these stories. Though most of the interpretations have remained more or less similar, the identification of characters in the Quran to history have somewhat been ambiguous. One such example is the story of Dhul-Qarnayn (Zulkarnain). The Quran describes him as a just ruler who built a great iron wall for a foreign group of people to save them from the threat of ‘Gog’ and ‘Magog’.The interpretations of ‘Gog’ and ‘Magog’ are itself a topic for another day, however, this implies that the conditions for any historical figure to meet the description of Dhul-Qarnayn (Zulkarnain) are as follows: 

1. He should have been a great conqueror from history who was known to be just and righteous
2. He should be identified with the literal translation of ‘Dhul-Qarnayn ‘which could mean ‘the one with two horns’ or alternatively it could also mean ‘the one who leads two generations’.
3.  Among the nations, he has conquered should be a land where in the language is foreign and not of his own
4.  Among the lands he has conquered should be an iron gate / wall to protect its people from the threat of what is arguably a ravenous tribe from a land referred to as Gog/ Magog
5. Given his reference in the Quran, he should have been a proponent of’ Tawheed’ i.e the oneness of God

Alexander the Great

Merriam-Webster dictionary describes Alexander as follows: 

Alexander the great, (born 356 BC, Pella, Macedonia—died June 13, 323 BC, Babylon) was King of Macedonia (336–323) and the greatest military leader of antiquity. The son of Philip II of Macedonia, he was taught by Aristotle. He soon showed military brilliance, helping win the Battle of Chaeronea at age 18. He succeeded his assassinated father in 336 and promptly took Thessaly and Thrace. In 334 he crossed to Persia and defeated a Persian army at the Granicus River. In 332 he completed a seven-month siege of Tyre, considered his greatest military achievement, and then took Egypt. There he received the pharaohs' double crown, founded Alexandria, and visited the oracle of the god Amon, the basis of his claim to divinity. Conquering what is now Tajikistan, he married the princess Roxana and embraced Persian absolutism, adopting Persian dress and enforcing Persian court customs. By 326, he reached the Hyphasis in India, where his weary men mutinied; he turned back, marching and pillaging down the Indus, and reached Susa with much loss of life. He continued to promote his unpopular policy of racial fusion, a seeming attempt to form a Persian-Macedonian master race. He fell ill at Babylon after long feasting and drinking and died at age 33. He was buried in Alexandria, Egypt. His empire, the greatest that had existed to that time, extended from Thrace to Egypt and from Greece to the Indus valley. 

Alexander's Empire

Condition 1: He should have been a great conqueror from history who was known to be just and righteous.

The greatness of Alexander’s empire is without doubt unparalleled and hence he fits this description easily. Whether he was a righteous ruler or not, is subject to debate.  An incident of his meeting with the leader of Jews, Simeon (‘the just’) relates that on meeting Simeon, Alexander withdrew from his carriage and bowed down inciting criticism from his followers as it was not customary for a man of Alexander’s stature to bow to a Jew. This incident shows he was certainly not arrogant, yet there are other incidents the describe Alexander’s love for Alcohol, women and even men that casts doubts on if he was a righteous ruler. My verdict on whether this condition is met is therefore partial.

Condition 2: He should be identified with the literal translation of ‘Dhul-Qarnayn ‘which could mean ‘the one with two horns’ or alternatively it could also mean ‘the one who lead two generations’.

Egyptian God Amun

By 333 B.C, Alexander had reached Egypt, and one of his first directives there was to declare himself the son of the Egyptian God Amun , thus linking him with divinity. Amun, the Egyptian God is depicted with two plumes on his head that look like horns and coins that were produced in Alexander’s land at the time had this depiction. Consequently, the people started identifying Alexander as the ‘one with the two horns’.

As for the second translation, it could obviously not be literal since Alexander’s rule lasted for less than 15 years and his son who would be his successor died at the age of 12. There is, therefore no direct relation to this version of the translation.

Given that at least one version of the translation matches, I will consider this condition to have been met.

Condition 3: Among the nations, he has conquered should be a land where in the language is foreign and not of his own

Alexander’s Empire spanned many kilometers and modern day continents. This condition is therefore easily met.

Condition 4: Among the lands he has conquered should be an iron gate / wall to protect its people from the threat of what is arguably a ravenous tribe from a land referred to as Gog/ Magog

If we look at the traditional definition of a gate, its main purpose is to define a boundary whereby the other side is restricted from entering. In most cases, this means that there is only one road that leads into the area that the gate is protecting. Going by this definition, it follows that identification of a single path leading to Alexander’s lands are a starting point to see if this condition holds true. For example: Mountain passes. Furthermore, investigating if this area had or still has a gate like structure would confirm that this condition holds true.

The Cilician Gates in Turkey

Alexander’s lands extended from his home in Macedonia (Greece) to the edge of India and from parts of modern day Iran to modern day Egypt. Given condition 3, we can safely discount Macedonia and its surrounding areas since the language would have been easily comprehended by Alexander. The remaining lands were foreign to Alexander and this is where this condition should most likely be tested. If we assume mountain passes as the most likely pathways in which such a gate would have existed on, Egypt can be crossed out since there are no major mountain passes in the Egypt that Alexander had conquered. The closest mountain pass in this area is the Halfaya Pass at the border of Libya and at the time Alexander had not conquered this region.  The highest probability therefore of such a mountain pass lies in the Afghan plains towards the borders of modern day Tajikistan and Iran or on the Anatolian plains of Turkey. There are multiple large gate-like structures here including the ‘Gates of Alexander’ in Derbent close to Tajikistan, Great wall of Gorgan in Iran and the Cilician Gates in Turkey. All of these are close to naturally forming iron and copper deposits making it ideal that this could be the gate identified in the Quran. Thus, it can be safely assumed that this condition is very possible in the case of Alexander.

'Gates of Alexander' near Derbent

Interestingly, if we look at the empires that existed beyond the approximate locations of any one of these gates, the description of Gog and Magog could be referring to the Scythians, a nomadic tribe who are considered to be ancestors of the Mongols thus fulfilling the prophecy that they would cause widespread death and destruction. 

Condition 5: Given his reference in the Quran, he should have been a proponent of ’Tawheed’ i.e the oneness of God

 Alexander, soon after his Egyptian campaign, associated himself with divinity. In fact even during his teens, he was constantly told that he would go on to do great things since he was spawn of the Greek Gods. This surely instilled a lot of confidence but it also contributed to him believing in multiple Gods. He therefore fails miserably to fulfill this condition.

Conclusion:

Depiction of Cyrus the Great

With 3.5 of the 5 conditions being met, it is NOT very probable in my opinion that Dhul-Qarnayn (Zulkarnain) was a description of Alexander. Among scholarly interpretations, there is one other ruler who fits the conditions slightly better i.e Cyrus the Great, King of Persia. In addition to his emblem having two horn like structures, all the lands he conquered were similar to that of Alexander. Furthermore, he was also known to be righteous and a monotheist. It is also interesting to note that in a mere oddity among great civilizations that existed at the time, Cyrus’ empire was carried forward by only his sons before being taken over by Darius I. Thus, only two generation of rulers lead the empire further meeting the definition of Dhul-Qarnayn – “The one who leads two generations”.