Suicide Bombings

A suicide attack (also known as suicide bombing or "kamikaze") is an attack intended to kill others and inflict widespread damage, in which the attacker expects or intends to die in the process.

In the Bible, Samson sacrificed himself in bringing down the temple on the Philistine leadership, killing more through his death than he did during his life. The Spartans, at Thermopylae, faced down the Persians, knowing that the doomed effort would nevertheless delay the invading army long enough to give the Athenians time to prepare Greek defenses. In the first century AD in the Roman province of Judea, Jewish Zealots and Sicarians (”dagger men”) launched suicide missions, mostly against Jewish moderates, to provoke an uprising against Roman rule.

Modern suicide bombing as a political tool can be traced back to the assassination of Tsar Alexander II of Russia in 1881. Alexander fell victim to a Nihilist plot. While driving on one of the central streets of Saint Petersburg, near the Winter Palace, he was mortally wounded by the explosion of hand-made grenades and died a few hours afterwards. The Tsar was killed by a member of Narodnaya Volya, Ignacy Hryniewiecki, who died while intentionally exploding the bomb during the attack. Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff intended to assassinate Adolf Hitler by suicide bomb in 1943, but was unable to complete the attack.During the Battle for Berlin the Luftwaffe flew Selbstopfereinsatz against Soviet bridges over the Oder river. These missions were flown by pilots of the Leonidas Squadron under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Heiner Lange. From 17 April until 20 April 1945, using any aircraft that were available, the Luftwaffe claimed that the squadron destroyed 17 bridges, however the military historian Antony Beevor when writing about the incident thinks that this was exaggerated and that only the railway bridge at Küstrin was definitely destroyed. He comments that "thirty-five pilots and aircraft was a high price to pay for such a limited and temporary success". The missions were called off when the Soviet ground forces reached the vicinity of the squadron's airbase at Jüterbog.Following World War II, Viet Minh "death volunteers" fought against the French Colonial Forces by using a long stick-like explosive to destroy French tanks.

In America’s first war against Islam, Americans were the ones who introduced the use of suicide bombers. Indeed, the American seamen who perished in the incident were among the U.S. military’s first missing in action. It was September 4, 1804. The United States was at war with the Barbary pirates along the North African coast. The U.S. Navy was desperate to penetrate the enemy defenses. Commodore Edward Preble, who headed up the Third Mediterranean Squadron, chose an unusual stratagem: sending a booby-trapped U.S.S. Intrepid into the bay at Tripoli, one of the Barbary states of the Ottoman empire, to blow up as many of the enemy’s ships as possible. U.S. sailors packed 10,000 pounds of gunpowder into the boat along with 150 shells. The crew of the boat then guided the Intrepid into the bay at night. So as not to be captured and lose so much valuable gunpowder to the enemy, they chose to blow themselves up with the boat. The explosion didn’t do much damage — at most, one Tripolitan ship went down — but the crew was killed just as surely as the two men who plowed a ship piled high with explosives into the U.S.S. Cole in the Gulf of Aden nearly 200 years later.Despite the failure of the mission, Preble received much praise for his strategies. “A few brave men have been sacrificed, but they could not have fallen in a better cause,” opined a British navy commander. The Pope went further: “The American commander, with a small force and in a short space of time, has done more for the cause of Christianity than the most powerful nations of Christiandom have done for ages!” Preble chose his tactic because his American forces were outgunned. It was a Hail Mary attempt to level the playing field. The bravery of his men and the reaction of his supporters could be easily transposed to the present day, when “fanatics” fighting against similar odds beg to sacrifice themselves for the cause of Islam and garner the praise of at least some of their religious leaders. The blowing up of the Intrepid was not the only act of suicidal heroism in U.S. military history. We routinely celebrate the brave sacrifices of soldiers who knowingly give up their lives in order to save their unit or achieve a larger military mission. We commemorate the sacrifice of the defenders of the Alamo, who could have, after all, slunk away to save themselves and fight another day. The poetry of the Civil War is rich in the language of sacrifice. In Phoebe Cary’s poem “Ready” from 1861, a black sailor, “no slavish soul had he,” volunteers for certain death to push a boat to safety.

The doctrine of asymmetric warfare views suicide attacks as a result of an imbalance of power, in which groups with little significant power resort to suicide bombing as a convenient tactic (see advantages noted above) to demoralize the targeted civilians or government leadership of their enemies. Suicide bombing may also take place as a perceived response to actions or policies of a group with greater power. Groups which have significant power have no need to resort to suicide bombing to achieve their aims; consequently, suicide bombing is overwhelmingly used by guerrillas, and other irregular fighting forces.

Suicide missions played a key role in European history. “Books written in the post-9/11 period tend to place suicide bombings only in the context of Eastern history and limit them to the exotic rebels against modernism,” writes Niccolo Caldararo in an essay on suicide bombers. “A study of the late 19th century and early 20th would provide a spate of examples of suicide bombers and assassins in the heart of Europe.” These included various European nationalists, Russian anarchists, and other early practitioners of terrorism. Given the plethora of suicide missions in the Western tradition, it should be difficult to argue that the tactic is unique to Islam or to fundamentalists. Yet some scholars enjoy constructing a restrictive genealogy for such missions that connects the Assassin sect (which went after the great sultan Saladin in the Levant in the twelfth century) to Muslim suicide guerrillas of the Philippines (first against the Spanish and then, in the early twentieth century, against Americans). They take this genealogy all the way up to more recent suicide campaigns by Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, and Islamic rebels in the Russian province of Chechnya. The Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, who used suicide bombers in a profligate fashion, are ordinarily the only major non-Muslim outlier included in this series. Uniting suicide attackers have reasons behind the missions. Three salient common factors stand out. First, suicidal attacks, including suicide bombings, are a “weapon of the weak,” designed to level the playing field. Second, they are usually used against an occupying force. And third, they are cheap and often brutally effective.

Remove the occupying force, as Robert Pape argues in his groundbreaking book on suicide bombers, Dying to Win, and the suicide missions disappear. It is not a stretch, then, to conclude that we, the occupiers (the United States, Russia, Israel), through our actions, have played a significant part in fomenting the very suicide missions that we now find so alien and incomprehensible in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Lebanon, and elsewhere. The archetypal modern suicide bomber first emerged in Lebanon in the early 1980s, a response to Israel’s invasion and occupation of the country. “The Shiite suicide bomber,” writes Mike Davis in his book on the history of the car bomb, Buda’s Wagon, “was largely a Frankenstein monster of [Israeli Defense Minister] Ariel Sharon’s deliberate creation.” Not only did U.S. and Israeli occupation policies create the conditions that gave birth to these missions, but the United States even trained some of the perpetrators. The U.S. funded Pakistan’s intelligence service to run a veritable insurgency training school that processed 35,000 foreign Muslims to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Charlie Wilson’s War, the book and movie that celebrated U.S. assistance to the mujihadeen, could be subtitled: Suicide Bombers We Have Known and Funded.

We have been conditioned into thinking of suicide bombers as targeting civilians and so putting themselves beyond the established conventions of war. As it happens, however, the nature of war has changed in our time. In the twentieth century, armies began to target civilians as a way of destroying the will of the population, and so bringing down the leadership of the enemy country. Japanese atrocities in China in the 1930s, the Nazi air war against Britain in World War II, Allied fire bombings of German and Japanese cities, the nuclear attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, U.S. carpet bombing in Cambodia and Laos, and the targeted assassinations of the Phoenix program during the Vietnam War, Russian depredations in Afghanistan and Chechnya, the tremendous civilian casualties during the Iraq War: all this has made the idea of conventional armies clashing in an area far from civilian life a quaint legacy of the past. Terrorist attacks against civilians, particularly September 11th, prompted military historian Caleb Carr to back the Bush administration’s declaration of a war against terror. “War can only be answered with war,” he wrote in his best-selling The Lessons of Terror. “And it is incumbent on us to devise a style of war more imaginative, more decisive, and yet more humane than anything terrorists can contrive.” This more imaginative, decisive, and humane style of war has, in fact, consisted of stepped-up aerial bombing, beefed-up Special Forces (to, in part, carry out targeted assassinations globally), and recently, the widespread use of unmanned aerial drones like the Predator and the Reaper, both in the American arsenal and in 24/7 use today over the Pakistani tribal borderlands. “Predators can become a modern army’s answer to the suicide bomber,” Carr wrote. Carr’s argument is revealing. As the U.S. military and Washington see it, the ideal use of Predator or Reaper drones, armed as they are with Hellfire missiles, is to pick off terrorist leaders; in other words, a mirror image of what that Tamil Tiger suicide bomber (who picked off the Indian prime minister) did somewhat more cost effectively. According to Carr, such a strategy with our robot planes is an effective and legitimate military tactic. In reality, though, such drone attacks regularly result in significant civilian casualties, usually referred to as “collateral damage.” According to researcher Daniel Byman, the drones kill 10 civilians for every suspected militant. As Tom Engelhardt of TomDispatch.com writes, “In Pakistan, a war of machine assassins is visibly provoking terror (and terrorism), as well as anger and hatred among people who are by no means fundamentalists. It is part of a larger destabilization of the country.”

So, the dichotomy between a “just war,” or even simply a war of any sort, and the unjust, brutal targeting of civilians by terrorists has long been blurring, thanks to the constant civilian casualties that now result from conventional war-fighting and the narrow military targets of many terrorist organizations. West has their suicide bombers — they call them heroes. They have their culture of indoctrination — they call it basic training. They kill civilians — they call it collateral damage. Is this, then, the moral relativism that so outrages conservatives? Of course not. These comparisons are not to excuse the actions of suicide bombers, but to point out the hypocrisy of their black-and-white depictions of noble efforts and their barbarous acts, of their worthy goals and despicable ends. Enlightened Activists — the inhabitants of an archipelago of supposedly enlightened warfare — have been indoctrinated to view the atomic bombing of Hiroshima as a legitimate military target and September 11th as a heinous crime against humanity. We have been trained to see acts like the attack in Tripoli as American heroism and the U.S.S. Cole attack as rank barbarism. Explosive vests are a sign of extremism; Predator missiles, of advanced sensibility.

Freedom of Speech and Act Vs. Islam

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation, or both. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations. The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression." According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or hate speech. Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.

The degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In many nations, particularly those with relatively authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to occur in other forms and there are different approaches to issues such as hate speech,obscenity, and defamation laws even in countries seen as liberal democracies. The majority of African constitutions provide legal protection for freedom of speech. However, these rights are exercised inconsistently in practice. Several Asian countries provide formal legal guarantees of freedom of speech to their citizens. These are not, however, implemented in practice in some countries. In India, Freedom of speech has been restricted by the constitution of the Indian Union by the National Security Act which is still in effect and laws like POTO and TADA act in the past. Currently, all members of the European Union are signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights along having various constitutional and legal rights to freedom of expression at the national level. However, Freedom of Speech has limitations in European countries e.g. in Denmark, Traditionally the left-wing parties support freedom of speech but not when such speech is anti-minority and or is blasphemous. In Netherland, the penal code has laws however sanctioning certain types of expression. Such laws and freedom of speech are at the centre of a public debate in The Netherlands after the arrest on 16 May 2008 of cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot, French law prohibits public speech or writings that incite to racial or religious hatred, as well as those that deny the Holocaust. In France, as part of “internal security” enactments passed in 2003, it an offense to insult the national flag or anthem, with a penalty of a maximum 9,000 euro fine or up to six months' imprisonment. Restrictions on "offending the dignity of the republic", on the other hand, include "insulting" anyone who serves the public (potentially magistrates, police, firefighters, teachers and even bus conductors). In Germany, the most important and sometimes controversial regulations limiting freedom of speech and freedom of the press can be found in the Criminal code: e.g. Insult is punishable under Section 185. Satire and similar forms of art enjoy more freedom but have to respect human dignity (Article 1 of the Basic law). Malicious Gossip and Defamation (Section 186 and 187). Hate speech may be punishable if against segments of the population and in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace (Section 130 [Agitation of the People]), including racist agitation and anti-semitism. UK law imposes a number of limitations on freedom of speech not found in some other jurisdictions. For example, its laws recognise the crimes of incitement to racial hatred and incitement to religious hatred. UK laws on defamation are also considered among the strictest in the Western world, imposing a high burden of proof on the defendant. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. This section is double-edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech prescribed in law can be permitted if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Despite these protections, Canada has had a string of high-profile court cases in which writers have been prosecuted for their writings, in both magazines and web postings. In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are several exceptions to this general rule, including copyright protection, the Miller test for obscenity and greater regulation of so-called commercial speech, such as advertising. The Department of Homeland Security "has even gone so far as to tell local police departments to regard critics of the War on Terrorism as potential terrorists themselves."

In all religions there is limitations to Freedom of Speech. Religion holds that we must obey God’s will regardless of what we think. “Above all,” writes the devoutly religious René Descartes, reminding us of the applicable tenet, “we ought to submit to the Divine authority rather than to our own judgment even though the light of reason may seem to us to suggest, with the utmost clearness and evidence, something opposite.” While western religionists today are not calling for death to those who “offend God,” they are calling for—and increasingly achieving—punishment for such “offenders.” They seek to limit and further limit freedom of speech—to build “victory” upon “victory.” Their ultimate goal is—as according to the Bible it must be—to bring all art and communication under God’s authority. On the premises of religion, there is no right to free speech; there is only the “right” to speak the “truth” as revealed by “God.”

Islam allows Freedom of Speech but with limitations as in all other religions and so called modern countries like the examples given above.

Allah (SWT) cursed those who use defamation or hate speech.

Among the Jews there are some who take the words out of their context and utter them with a twist of their tongues to slander the true Deen (faith) and say: "We hear and we disobey;" and "Hear, may you (O Muhammad) hear nothing!" And "Ra'ina" (an ambiguous word meaning: "listen, may you become deaf," or "our shepherd," or "in judeo-Arabic language conveying the sense of "our evil one"). If only they had said: "We hear and we obey;" and "Hear us;" and "Unzurna ("look upon us," or " pay attention to us"): it would have been better for them and more proper. Due to all this Allah has cursed them for their unbelief. In fact with the exception of a few, they have no faith. (Aya 46 of Sura An-Nisa)

As in all other laws who disobeys the law there is punishments, it is similar in Islam. Allah (SWT) says

And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant then produce a Surah like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides Allah if your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot and of a surety ye cannot then fear the fire whose fuel is Men and Stones which is prepared for those who reject Faith. (Ayat 23-24 of Sura Al-Baqara)

And behold We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam"; and they bowed down not so Iblis he refused and was haughty he was of those who reject Faith. "But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs they shall be Companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein." (Ayat 34, 39 of Sura Al-Baqara)

Allah (SWT) has decreed punishment for those who defies His Law.

And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath; We said to them: "Be ye apes despised and rejected." (Aya 65 of Sura Al-Baqara)

We also (sent) Lut: he said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? "For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." And his people gave no answer but this: they said "drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!" But We saved him and his family except his wife: she was of those who lagged behind. And We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime! (Ayat 80-84 of Sura Al-A’raf)

The manners of Prophet (PBUH) in matters of speech

Allah's Apostle neither talked in an insulting manner nor did he ever speak evil intentionally. He used to say, "The most beloved to
me amongst you is the one who has the best character and manners." (Sahih Al-Bukhari 5.104)

I said: Give me some advice. He said: Do not abuse anyone. He said that he did not abuse a freeman, or a slave, or a camel or a sheep thenceforth. He said: Do not look down upon any good work, and when you speak to your brother, show him a cheerful face. This is a good work. (Sunan Abu-Dawood 1889)

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "If you guarantee me six things on your part I shall guarantee you Paradise. Speak the
truth when you talk, keep a promise when you make it, when you are trusted with something fulfil your trust, avoid sexual
immorality, lower your eyes, and restrain your hands from injustice." (Al-Tirmidhi 1260)

Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said, "Do not speak much without mentioning Allah, for much talk without mention of Allah
produces hardness of heart, and the one who is farthest from Allah is he who has a hard heart." (Al-Tirmidhi 720)

Allah's Apostle (peace be upon him) heard some people disputing about the Qur'an. Thereupon he said: It was because of this that
those gone before you had perished. They set parts of the books against the others (whereas the fact is) that the Book of Allah has
been revealed with one part confirming the others. Therefore, do not falsify some parts with the others and speak only that which
you know; that which you do not know, refer it to one who knows it well. (Al-Tirmidhi 84)

“Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shariah. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shariah.” Thus freedom of speech is interpreted and limited by sharia in Islam.

The slogan “Freedom of Speech” is another trick of satanic Western politics to advance its agenda. It is a hypocrisy.

Each European country has law against denying Holocaust. Did we have a page on Holocaust cartoons on Facebook, the ultimate place of liberty? Bishop Richard Williamson was last person to be fined 12,000 Euro on 27th Oct 2009 in Germany. On 14th Jan 2008, Wolfagang Frohlich was imprisoned for 6.5 years in Austria for voicing his opinion about Holocaust. An Iranian paper, in 2006, hosted an International Holocaust Cartoon competition and suggested Western newspapers to publish few of those. Jyllands-Posten Cultural Editor had initially agreed to publish few selected cartoons but later the paper backed out. The Cultural Editor was sent on indefinite leave. The website of Hamshahri newspaper which had organized this competition was hacked and suffered a denial-of-service attack. Jews all over world protested against the competition. Rabbi Marvin Hier termed it as classic formula of Adolf Hitler, which says if there’s a problem, it’s the fault of the Jews. In April 2003, a Danish cartoonist Christoffer Zieler offered some cartoons of Jesus Christ to Jyllands-Posten, Denmark’s largest daily paper and generally seen as right-wing. Zieler received an email back from the paper’s Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: “I don’t think Jyllands-Posten’s readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them.” But the same paper in 2005, showing blatant double standard published Prophet Mohammed cartoons.

The wikileaks.org domain name was registered on 4 October 2006. The website was unveiled, and published its first document in December 2006. WikiLeaks states that its "primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behaviour in their governments and corporations." WikiLeaks has received praise as well as criticism. The organisation has won a number of awards, including The Economist's New Media Award in 2008 and Amnesty International's UK Media Award in 2009. In 2010, the New York City Daily News listed WikiLeaks first among websites "that could totally change the news", and Julian Assange was named the Readers' Choice for TIME's Person of the Year in 2010. The U.S. Justice Department opened a criminal probe of WikiLeaks and founder Julian Assange shortly after the leak of diplomatic cables began. Access to WikiLeaks is currently blocked in the United States Library of Congress. On 3 December 2010 the White House Office of Management and Budget sent a memo forbidding all unauthorised federal government employees and contractors from accessing classified documents publicly available on WikiLeaks and other websites. The U.S. Army, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department are considering criminally prosecuting WikiLeaks and Assange "on grounds they encouraged the theft of government property",although former prosecutors say doing so would be difficult.

Humans As Rational Beings

Neoclassical economics is built on very strong assumptions that, over time, have become “established facts.” Most famous among these are that all economic agents (consumers, companies, etc., are fully rational, and that the so-called in- visible hand works to create market efficiency). To rational economists, these assumptions seem so basic, logical, and self-evident that they do not need any empirical scrutiny.

But how rational is human? Only one entity in this entire universe can answer this question with certainty – the One who created all things in this universe.

To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth; when He decreeth a matter He saith to it: "Be"; and it is. (Aya 117 of Sura Al-Baqara)

Allah (SWT) says in Ayat 19 –21 of Sura Al-Ma’arij

Truly man was created very impatient,

Fretful when evil touches him;

And niggardly when good reaches him

So there are bounds to rationality of human beings. The demands of classically defined rationality, according to Albin, simply go far beyond the capabilities of human actors to deal with the world’s complexities. These are the ‘barriers and bounds to rationality.’

Adam Smith first coined the term “The Invisible Hand” in his important book “The Wealth of Nations.” With this term he was trying to capture the idea that the marketplace would be self-regulating.  The basic principle of the invisible hand is that though we may be unaware of it, an unseen hand is constantly prodding us along to act in line with what’s best for the whole economy. This means that when this invisible hand exists, when we all pursue our own interest, we end up promoting the public good, and often more effectively than if we had actually and directly intended to do so.  This is a beautiful idea, but the question of course is how closely it represents reality.

That’s Harvard economist Greg Mankiw’s advice to students of all ages:

Economists like me often pretend that people are rational. That is, with mathematical precision, people are assumed to do the best they can to achieve their goals.

For many purposes, this approach is useful. But it is only one way to view human behavior. A bit of psychology is a useful antidote to an excess of classical economics. It reveals flaws in human rationality, including your own.

The main stumbling-block with traditional approaches to development, Sendhil Mullainathan said in a talk this year, is “this little three-pound machine that’s behind your eyes and between your ears” — the human brain. “This machine is really strange, and one of the consequences is that people are weird. They do lots of inconsistent things.

In 2008, a massive earthquake reduced the financial world to rubble. Standing in the smoke and ash, Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank once hailed as “the greatest banker who ever lived,” confessed to Congress that he was “shocked” that the markets did not operate according to his lifelong expectations. He had “made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, was such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders.”

Why did Mr. Greenspan, along with the rest of the world’s regulators, fail to foresee that this could happen? We think their mistake was to neglect the role of human nature. To prevent future catastrophes, regulators should focus explicitly on how to provide safeguards against two all-too-human frailties explored by decades of work in behavioral economics: bounded rationality and limited self-control.The standard (non-behavioral) econ­omic model has greatly influenced regulators. In that model, economic agents (econs for short) choose optimally, no matter how hard a problem they face. They play chess as well as they play tic-tac-toe. The problem with this approach is that the world is populated by humans, not econs. Humans are not stupid, but when things get complicated they flounder: they suffer from bounded rationality.

Salman Taseer, Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, Aasia Bibi Vs. State

The objective analysis of all events that culminated in murder is the need of the hour but unfortunately, the analysis so far is a lopsided one either to the one end of the scale or the other end, hence both are extreme views and nothing but is an effort to join the either of the bandwagon.

First, what is the matter of one Aasia Bibi? Asia Bibi, 45, was handed down the death sentence by a court in Nankana district in central Punjab on Monday. Ms Asia’s case dates back to June 2009 when she was asked to fetch water while out working in the fields. But a group of Muslim women labourers objected, saying that as a non-Muslim she should not touch the water bowl. A few days later the women went to a local cleric and alleged that Ms Asia made derogatory remarks about the Prophet (peace be upon him). The cleric went to police, who opened an investigation.

Second, What should be the response of the state as an Islamic Republic?  The response of the Govt. should be probe the allegations in a transparent manner and make public all its inquiries in this matter. Federal Minister for Minorities Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti has also urged the provincial government to provide all possible chances to Aasia Bibi to plea her case on merit. Talking to reporters outside parliament house after attending a meeting of National Assembly standing committee on Monday, Mr Bhatti said the government would not allow anyone to misuse the blasphemy law. President Zardari has also sought a report from the minorities` affairs ministry on the sentencing to death on blasphemy charges of a Christian woman of Nankana Sahib. Aasia Bibi was sentenced to death under Sections 295 B and C of the Pakistan Penal Code after an altercation between her and her co-workers over fetching water from fields. According to media reports, police took her into protective custody to shield her from a mob and later registered a case against her. The spokesman said the president had asked Minorities Affairs Minister Shahbaz Bhatti to submit a report on the issue within three days.

The response of the Govt. should be in line with the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, which is being reproduced below.

The Standing Committee on Law and Justice after detailed deliberations decided to recommend the proposed deletion of ‘or imprisonment of life’ from Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code. The members, however, observed that there was a need for a more specific definition of the offence under Section 295 PPC which the members were of the considered opinion was in the present form very generalised. The committee suggests that the matter may be referred to the Council of Islamic Ideology for suggesting a more specific definition of the offence falling under Section 295 PPC As well as for its opinion as to whether during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) or during the period of Khulafa-i-Rashideen or afterwards in any of the Muslim countries, what was the punishment awarded to the offenders for committing offence falling under Section 295 PPC” (Gazette Extraordinary, Feb 22, 1992).

Third, What Salman Taseer did as a representative of the state? After Bibi’s conviction last November, the case seized the attention of Taseer, the outspoken governor of Punjab. Outraging conservatives, he visited Bibi in jail along with his wife, Aamna, and his daughter. He posed for photos, offered warm support, and promised a presidential pardon. He spoke on high authority – President Asif Ali Zardari told Taseer he was “completely behind him”, a reliable source said. He was playing with fire. Religious leaders were outraged at Taseer’s description of the blasphemy statute as a “black law”. Protesters torched the governor’s effigy outside his sweeping residence in central Lahore.

Fourth, What was the aspiration of the public at large? The public reaction to this case has been divided. Protestors in Lahore rallied on 21 November demanding Aasia’s release. Yet only a few days later during another protest in the same city, an Aalmi Tanzim Ahle Sunnat (ATAS) leader Pir Muhammad Afzal Qadri requested Pakistan’s Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to take suo moto action against Governor Salmaan Taseer for supporting Aasia Bibi.

Fifth, What was the role of our so called learned and moderate civil society in all this incident? Recently a Christian woman, Aasia Bibi, was sentenced to death for allegedly committing blasphemy. Mr Taseer emerged as one of her most high-profile supporters. He not only visited her in jail and held a press conference with her, but also promised to get a presidential pardon for her. Although the pardon was prevented by a court order and the PPP distanced itself from any attempt to amend the blasphemy law, Mr Taseer kept criticising it publicly. Human rights groups say the law is often exploited by religious conservatives as well as ordinary people to settle personal scores. But the law has widespread support in a country that is more than 95 per cent Muslim, and most politicians are loath to be seen as soft on the defence of Islam. Taseer, however, was an outspoken critic. Ms Jahangir criticised the blasphemy law in its present form and observed that laws should be made to protect religious minorities and not to provide a tool to some people to exploit it in the name of religion. Sherry Rehman, Tahira Abdullah and Ali Hassan, rejected the blasphemy law as discriminatory and called for either repealing or suitably amending it.

The big question is what other laws or powers by state in this country are not misused. Here are few examples, where laws are flouted and yet all so called moderates, human rights activists have not uttered any voice but only Blasphemy case.

Pursuant to Art. 265 the Constitution came into force on August 14, 1973, referred to in the said Article as the ‘Commencing day’. The Constitution was held in abeyance by the Proclamation of Martial Law issued by General M. Zia-ul-Haq on July 5, 1977 and published in the Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary Part I, at page 411, on the said date. The whole of Pakistan once again came under the control of the Armed Forces of Pakistan on October 12, 1999, by virtue of the Proclamation of Emergency issued by General Pervez Musharraf, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of Army Staff, on October 14, 1999 and published in the Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary Part I, at page 1265, on the said date. The Pakistani daily Dawn — a pro-US paper not known for its anti-war stance — reports that US drones killed over 700 civilians in 44 bombings since Obama took office in January 2009. Of the 44 attacks, only five succeeded in hitting their target. In other words, Obama has surpassed his predecessor’s murderous record in Pakistan. (Of course these attacks are carried out with the complicity of Pakistan’s ruling elites — as Jane Mayer reported, and as Pervez Musharraf confessed — and are cheered on by native informers such as Ahmed Rashid). For more than half a century Kashmir, or Paradise on Earth as it is called, has suffered due to the extremely brutal Indian occupation. Since 1988 over 80 000 civilians including women and children have died at the hands of the Indian army and paramilitary forces. Their crime? They want India to end the brutal occupation of Kashmir, their homeland. The saga of missing persons seems to be getting more and more complicated with every passing day as the governments, whether federal or provincial, political parties and parliament are simply incapable or indifferent to providing the needed support to the Supreme Court to keep intelligence agencies under check and to make them behave as per the law of the land. The latest report from a Sindh village near Moro in which two couples were shot dead, and a woman was allegedly abducted, reinforces the need for taking practical measures that go beyond expressing outrage. Part of the reason why violence against women continues, and is tolerated as a fact of life, is that many sitting in our legislatures espouse the same tribal values that prescribe the death penalty, particularly for women who dare to make a decision to marry out of their own free will. According to the report, a total of 1,981 people — 1,726 men, 177 women and 78 children — were killed last year. The data does not include those killed in road accidents. Of the 447 victims of targeted killings, 215 were killed apparently for their association with major political, religious and nationalist parties, 187 for their ethnic background and 23 on sectarian grounds. In the recent past, a number of sitting and former representatives of the government has been accused of serious corruption. It is general perception that the corruption culture more flourish in PPP regimes. The glaring proof of absence of the rule of law in this regime is clear from the last-one year mega corruption cases of National Insurance Corporation, Pakistan Steel Mills and Rental Power Plants which have been taken up by the Supreme court. The fake degrees issue has most politicians and their party bigwigs scampering around to avoid potential political fallout. But Nawab Muhammad Aslam Raisani is not one of them. “A degree is a degree, whether fake or genuine,” said the swashbuckling chief minister of Balochistan. Siddiqui's supporters, including international human rights organizations, have claimed that Siddiqui was not an extremist and that she and her young children were illegally detained, interrogated and tortured by Pakistani intelligence or U.S. authorities or both during her five-year disappearance. The U.S. and Pakistan governments have denied all such claims. The CCP’s investigation proves the presence of a strong sugar mafia in the country. Despite ample availability of sugar, it is being sold at Rs125 to 135 per kilogramme against a production cost of less than Rs55 per kg.

Sixth, Why Salman Taseer was so outraged and Why Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri was compelled to do what he did? Why both took the matter of Aaasia Bibi in their own hands when the matter was being probed into and was in the court to decide?

We claim to be Muslims and that means we have accepted the authority of Allah (SWT) and we have submitted all our wishes to the wish of Allah (SWT) so it is pertinent to know What Allah (SWT) says about Islam, Love of Prophet (PBUH) and our behavior towards that.

O ye who believe! enter into Islam whole-heartedly; and follow not the footsteps of the Evil One; for he is to you an avowed enemy. (Aya 208 of Sura Al-Baqara)

Those to whom We have given the Book rejoice at what hath been revealed unto thee: but there are among the clans those who reject a part thereof. Say: "I am commanded to worship Allah and not to join partners with Him. Unto Him do I call and unto Him is my return." (Aya 36 of Sura Ar-Ra’d)

Once you are in Islam then accept all opf it rather than the part you like and reject the part you dislike.

Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! send ye blessings on him and salute him with all respect. Those who annoy Allah and his Apostle Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Hereafter and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment. (Ayat 56-57 of Sura Al-Ahzab)

Love for the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is a measure of one's iman (faith and inner conviction) and our iman is completed and perfected only when our love for the Prophet exceeds our love for everything else in this world, including our own lives. The Holy Qur'an says: "The Prophet is preferable for the believers even to their own selves..." (Aya 6 of Sura Al-Ahzab)

Narrated 'Abd Allah bin Hisham: 'We were with the Prophet (SAAW) and he was holding the hand of 'Umar ibnu Al-Khattab (RAA). 'Umar said to him, "O Allah's Messenger (SAAW)! You are dearer to me than everything except my ownself." Allah's Messenger (SAAW) said: "No, by Him in Whose Hand my soul is, (you will not have complete Faith) untill I am dearer to you than your ownself." Then 'Umar (RAA) said: "However, now, by Allah, you are dearer to me than my ownself." He (SAAW) then said: "Now, O 'Umar, (now you are a believer)."

The (Prophet) frowned and turned away. Because there came to him the blind man (interrupting). (Ayat 1-2 of Sura Abasa)

There is no anger against beloved Prophet. Those who take these verses as a disgrace to the Prophet and desires to lower his prestige are on wrong thinking and misguided. Farooque-Azam Hazrat Umar (RAA) came to know that an Imam (Person leading in prayer) recites always this chapter, he sent a man to behead such person as he used to recite the chapter for defaming the prophet. Such a man goes out of Islam and becomes apostate.

The matter of Aasia Bibi was then sub-judice and as a representative of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as the official name of the country is, then Salman Taseer was not supposed to comment on it let alone going to the extent of calling the law as “Black Law”. He was not functioning as he should be as head of a province in whose territory such incident happened. He should have referred the matter for suitable amendment in the law to competent authority rather than calling names and showing his anger. He took the matter in his own hands because he thought he is correct and all others are wrong or he had no confidence in the legal course of action.

Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri also took the matter in his own hand because he thought that Govt. is not up to the mark and Salman Taseer, the Governor, has no respect for the prophet because he was only vocal on this issue at the expense of many other pressing issues. He also had no confidence in the legal course of action. Because Govt. was fully tilted towards one end.

So why people took matters in their own hands than seeking legal remedy?

There is a sense in which conduct regarded as criminal is often quite the opposite. Far from being an intentional violation of a prohibition, much crime is moralistic and involves the pursuit of justice. It is a mode of conflict management, possibly a form of punishment, even capital punishment. Viewed in relation to law, it is self-help. To the degree that it defines or responds to the conduct of some one else-the victim-as deviant, crime is social control. It should be clear, however, that the victims of moralistic crime may be entirely unaware of why they have been selected, especially when the offender is unknown. Such crimes may therefore be understood as secret social control . In modern society the state has only theoretically achieved a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence. In reality, violence flourishes (particularly in modern America), and most of it involves ordinary citizens who seemingly view their conduct as a perfectly legitimate exercise of social control. It might therefore be observed that the struggle between law and self-help in the West did not end in the Middle Ages, as legal historians claim.It continues. Many people still "take the law into their own hands."

The idea that violence is associated with statelessness still enjoys considerable support. With various refinements and qualifications, an absence of state authority has been used to explain high levels of violence in settings as diverse as the highlands of New Guinea, Lake Titicaca in the Andes, and western Sicily. It has also been used to explain war and, other violent self-help in international relations. A version of the same approach may be relevant to an understanding of self-help in modern society.

In the end, the conclusion that emerges from above discussion is that state failed to perform its functions. Had the state taken serious notice of the case, conduct of Salman Taseer the following events would not have happened.

میں باغی ھوں

اس دور کے رسم رواجوں سے
ان تختوں سے ان تاجوں سے
جو ظلم کی کوکھ سے جنتے ہیں
انسانی خون سے پلتے ہیں
جو نفرت کی بنیادیں ہیں
اور خونی کھیت کی کھادیں ہیں

میں باغی ہوں ، میں باغی ہوں

جو چاہے مجھ پر ظلم کرو
وہ جن کے ہونٹ کی جنبش سے
وہ جن کی آنکھ کی لرزش سے
قانون بدلتے رہتے ہیں
اور مجرم پلتے رہتے ہیں
ان چوروں کے سرداروں سے
انصاف کے پہرے داروں سے

میں باغی ہوں ، میں باغی ہوں

جو چاہے مجھ پر ظلم کرو
جو عورت کو نچواتے ہیں
بازار کی جنس بناتے ہیں
پھر اس کی عصمت کے غم میں
تحریکیں بھی چلواتے ہیں
ان ظالم اور بدکاروں سے
بازار کے ان معماروں سے

میں باغی ہوں ، میں باغی ہوں

جو چاہے مجھ پر ظلم کرو
جو قوم کے غم میں روتے ہیں
اور قوم کی دولت ڈھوتے ہیں
وہ محلوں میں جو رہتے ہیں
اور بات غریب کی کہتے ہیں
ان دھوکے باز لٹیروں سے
سرداروں سے وڈیروں سے

میں باغی ہوں ، میں باغی ہوں

جو چاہے مجھ پر ظلم کرو

مذہب کے جو بیوپاری ہیں
وہ سب سے بڑی بیماری ہیں
وہ جن کے سوا سب کافر ہیں

جو دین کا حرفِ آخر ہیں
ان جھوٹے اور مکاروں سے

مذہب کے ٹھیکیداروں سے

میں باغی ہوں ، میں باغی ہوں

جو چاہے مجھ پر ظلم کرو
جہاں سانسوں پر تعزیریں ہیں
جہاں بگڑی ہوئی تقدیریں ہیں
ذاتوں کے گورکھ دھندے ہیں
جہاں نفرت کے یہ پھندے ہیں
سوچوں کی ایسی پستی سے
اس ظلم کی گندی بستی سے

میں باغی ہوں ، میں باغی ہوں

جو چاہے مجھ پر ظلم کرو
میرے ہاتھ میں حق کا جھنڈا ہے
میرے سر پر ظلم کا پھندا ہے
میں مرنے سے کب ڈرتا ہوں
میں موت کی خاطر زندہ ہوں
میرے خون کا سورج چمکے گا
تو بچہ بچہ بولے گا

میں باغی ہوں ، میں باغی ہوں

جو چاہے مجھ پر ظلم کرو

ڈاکٹر خالد جاوید جان

EMH and Financial Bubbles

From the starting point of rational investors came the idea of the efficient market hypothesis, a theory first elucidated by my colleague and golfing buddy Gene Fama. The EMH has two components that I call “The Price is Right” and “No Free Lunch”. The price is right principle says asset prices will, to use Mr Fama’s words “fully reflect” available information, and thus “provide accurate signals for resource allocation”. The no free lunch principle is that market prices are impossible to predict and so it is hard for any investor to beat the market after taking risk into account.

In the world of the EMH, as it is known, bubbles are nothing to seriously worry about because prices cannot deviate from proper valuations for too long.

In economics, the invisible hand, also known as the invisible hand of the market, is the term economists use to describe the self-regulating nature of the marketplace. This is a metaphor first coined by the economist Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and used a total of three times in his writings. For Smith, the invisible hand was created by the conjunction of the forces of self-interest, competition, and supply and demand, which he noted as being capable of allocating resources in society. This is the founding justification for the laissez-faire economic philosophy.

But what if that invisible hand is working in its own interest rather than for the interest of all the participants in the market.

Can Goldman Sachs, the profit-seeking missile of high finance, really make money by investing $450 million in Facebook, at a vertigo-inducing price that values the social-networking company at $50 billion? Facebook’s shares were said to be trading on a private-market exchange at a valuation of $42.4 billion. Thanks to Goldman’s imprimatur, Facebook’s value increased 20 percent virtually overnight. Can Goldman really expect to squeeze more water from this stone? Sadly, yes. To understand why, we have to go to the heart of the many problems in the way the Wall Street cartel does business, despite the promised reforms of the Dodd-Frank law. With Goldman’s investment in Facebook, we have a front-row seat to the process by which Wall Street creates and inflates financial bubbles. Goldman has almost certainly locked up the role of lead manager of the inevitable Facebook initial public offering. Fees for underwriting public offerings are generally about 7 percent of the value of the stock sold. Facebook could easily sell $2 billion of stock or more, generating fees to Goldman and the other underwriters of at least $140 million. The other benefit for Goldman in leading the public offering — aside from major bragging rights — is that it can use its marketing, sales and distribution muscle to make sure the value of Facebook at the time of the offering exceeds the $50 billion valuation at which Goldman invested.

It seems that Goldman has set up a "special purpose vehicle" and alerted top clients that through this SPV they will have the opportunity to invest in an as-yet-unnamed company, which reportedly is Facebook. The way this looks to Felix Salmon over at Reuters, and his explanation makes a lot of sense to me, is that this SPV is potentially a way around SEC reporting requirements for publicly-traded companies. But to me this just looks like a funky retro take on many of the IPO scams of the late nineties and early 2000s, where the investment bank sucks in herds of overstimulated investors, hides the true value of the firm in question from everyone, and then roasts the whole cattle-crowd of wealth-seekers to a crisp through fees and commissions and hidden markups. Back then the carrot was a wave of excited news-media coverage about the "new paradigm" that was going to make financial behemoths out of every online university for dogs or web-based dental floss warehouse that came up the IPO pipeline. This time around it's fantasies like the notion that Facebook is somehow worth fifty billion dollars (it's been interesting to watch which news outlets credulously report that figure).

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates. The bank's unprecedented reach and power have enabled it to turn all of America into a giant pump-and-dump scam, manipulating whole economic sectors for years at a time, moving the dice game as this or that market collapses, and all the time gorging itself on the unseen costs that are breaking families everywhere — high gas prices, rising consumer credit rates, half-eaten pension funds, mass layoffs, future taxes to pay off bailouts. All that money that you're losing, it's going somewhere, and in both a literal and a figurative sense, Goldman Sachs is where it's going: The bank is a huge, highly sophisticated engine for converting the useful, deployed wealth of society into the least useful, most wasteful and insoluble substance on Earth — pure profit for rich individuals. They achieve this using the same playbook over and over again. The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again, riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest, selling themselves as men above greed, just a bunch of really smart guys keeping the wheels greased. They've been pulling this same stunt over and over since the 1920s — and now they're preparing to do it again, creating what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet.If you want to understand how we got into this financial crisis, you have to first understand where all the money went — and in order to understand that, you need to understand what Goldman has already gotten away with. It is a history exactly five bubbles long — including last year's strange and seemingly inexplicable spike in the price of oil. There were a lot of losers in each of those bubbles, and in the bailout that followed. But Goldman wasn't one of them.

Financial institutions that are large in absolute size may have deep and well-filled with which they can among other things hire lobbyists, support individual political parties and election candidates, and, under the recent Supreme Court reinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution's first amendment, mount advertising campaigns in direct support of or opposition to election candidates.  In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Medison warned against the political power of factions resulting from "the verious and unequal distribution of property" ... " who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

Here I offer only one additional strand of historical evidence ‐‐ Figure 1, drawn by artist Joseph Keppler for Puck magazine, January 23, 1889 ‐ a year before the Sherman Act was passed. 

One cannot view it without recognizing that the U.S. public was alarmed at the time about the political power of the great trusts, for which we might now substitute bloated figures for JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs.  It would be hard to deny that public concerns over the trusts' power in federal and state legislatures were an important stimulus to the Sherman Act's passage.   And now, 120 years later, there is abundant reason to fear the enormous political power of the financial institutions, said by one writer to own Washington "lock, stock, and barrel."   In 2008, for example, the finance lobby is said to have contributed $475 million to political candidates and their supporting party organizations ‐ more than twice the level of contributions from the second largest lobby, the health care industry.

Fundamentalism Vs. Moderation

Fundamentalism is strict adherence to specific set of theological doctrines typically in reaction against the theology of Modernism. The term fundamentalism was originally coined by its supporters to describe a specific package of theological beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of that time. The term has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations.
The term "fundamentalism" has its roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) which defined those things that were fundamental to Christian belief. The term was also used to describe "The Fundamentals", a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 and funded by Milton and Lyman Stewart. This series of essays came to be representative of the "Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy" which appeared late in the 19th century within the Protestant churches of the United States, and continued in earnest through the 1920s. The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":

• The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
  
• The virgin birth of Christ.
  
• The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
  
• The bodily resurrection of Christ.
  
• The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

By the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the Five Fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists." In practice, the first point was the focus of most of the controversy.
A closely related term that is often used interchangeably to describe the behavior “strong adherence to any set of beliefs” is extremism.
Extremism is any ideology or political act far outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards. In different countries at different times were many different definitions of "extremism". Dr. Peter T. Coleman and Dr. Andrea Bartoli give short observation of definitions:
Extremism is a complex phenomenon, although its complexity is often hard to see. Most simply, it can be defined as activities (beliefs, attitudes, feelings, actions, strategies) of a character far removed from the ordinary. In conflict settings it manifests as a severe form of conflict engagement. However, the labeling of activities, people, and groups as “extremist”, and the defining of what is “ordinary” in any setting is always a subjective and political matter. Thus, we suggest that any discussion of extremism be mindful of the following:

• Typically, the same extremist act will be viewed by some as just and moral (such as pro-social “freedom fighting”), and by others as unjust and immoral (antisocial “terrorism”) depending on the observer’s values, politics, moral scope, and the nature of their relationship with the actor.

• In addition, one’s sense of the moral or immoral nature of a given act of extremism (such as Nelson Mandela’s use of guerilla war tactics against the South African Government) may change as conditions (leadership, world opinion, crises, historical accounts, etc.) change. Thus, the current and historical context of extremist acts shapes our view of them.

• Power differences also matter when defining extremism. When in conflict, the activities of members of low power groups tend to be viewed as more extreme than similar activities committed by members of groups advocating the status quo. In addition, extreme acts are more likely to be employed by marginalized people and groups who view more normative forms of conflict engagement as blocked for them or biased. However, dominant groups also commonly employ extreme activities (such as governmental sanctioning of violent paramilitary groups or the attack in Waco by the FBI in the U.S.).

• Extremist acts often employ violent means, although extremist groups will differ in their preference for violent vs. non-violent tactics, in the level of violence they employ, and in the preferred targets of their violence (from infrastructure to military personnel to civilians to children). Again, low power groups are more likely to employ direct, episodic forms of violence (such as suicide bombings), whereas dominant groups tend to be associated with more structural or institutionalized forms (like the covert use of torture or the informal sanctioning of police brutality).

• Although extremist individuals and groups (such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad) are often viewed as cohesive and consistently evil, it is important to recognize that they may be conflicted or ambivalent psychologically as individuals, and/or contain a great deal of difference and conflict within their groups. For instance, individual members of Hamas may differ considerably in their willingness to negotiate their differences with the Palestinian Authority and, ultimately, with certain factions in Israel.

• Ultimately, the core problem that extremism presents in situations of protracted conflict is less the severity of the activities (although violence, trauma, and escalation are obvious concerns) but more so the closed, fixed, and intolerant nature of extremist attitudes, and their subsequent imperviousness to change.

The terms extremism or extremist are almost always exonymic — i.e. applied by others to a group rather than by a group labeling itself. Rather than labeling themselves extremist, those labeled as such might describe themselves as, for example, political radicals. There is no political party that calls itself "right-wing extremist" or "left-wing extremist", and there is no sect of any religion that calls itself "extremist" or which calls its doctrine "extremism". The notion that there is a philosophy which can be described as extremism is considered by some to be suspect. Within sociology, several academics who track (and are critical of) extreme right-wing groups have objected to the term extremist, which was popularized by centrist sociologists in the 1960s and 1970s. As Jerome Himmelstein states the case: "At best this characterization tells us nothing substantive about the people it labels; at worst it paints a false picture." (Himmelstein, p. 7). The act of labeling a person, group or action as extremist is sometimes claimed to be a technique to further a political goal — especially by governments seeking to defend the status quo, or political centrists. In any event, the term extremist — like the word violence— cannot be regarded as value-neutral.
On the other hand, Moderation is the process of eliminating or lessening extremes. It is used to ensure normality throughout the medium on which it is being conducted. Moderation is also a principle of life. In ancient Greece, the temple of Apollo at Delphi bore the inscription Meden Agan - 'Nothing in excess'. Doing something "in moderation" means not doing it excessively. For instance, someone who moderates their food consumption tries to eat all food groups, but limits their intake of those that may cause deleterious effects to harmless levels. Similarly in Christianity, moderationism is the position that drinking alcoholic beverages temperately is permissible, though drunkenness is forbidden (see Christianity and alcohol). Moderation is a characteristic of the Swedish national psyche, more specifically described by the Swedish synonym Lagom. Islam also consider moderation as a preferred way of life, even when applying religious norms. Moderate Muslims adhere to the concept of contextual relativism as a way to grasp meaning from the Quran. They also understand the Quran as a whole opposed to a discrete understanding. Furthermore, Moderate Muslims also follow various types of Hadith (prophet Mohammed's sayings) that favor moderation and view Muhammad (PBUH) as an ideal example of a moderate Muslim and Human.
Another term that is interchangeably used to describe moderation is liberalism.
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom") is the belief in the importance of individual liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state.
All these terms are subjective that is why Associated Press' AP Stylebook recommends that the term fundamentalist not be used for any group that does not apply the term to itself. A great many scholars have adopted a similar position. A good many scholars, however, use the term in the broader descriptive sense to refer to various groups in various religious traditions including those groups that would object to being classified as fundamentalists.
As Jerome Himmelstein states the case: "At best this characterization tells us nothing substantive about the people it labels; at worst it paints a false picture." (Himmelstein, p. 7). The act of labeling a person, group or action as extremist is sometimes claimed to be a technique to further a political goal — especially by governments seeking to defend the status quo, or political centrists. In any event, the term extremist — like the word violence— cannot be regarded as value-neutral.

Blasphemy and Islam

Blasphemy is irreverence toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs.

In the third book of the Torah, Leviticus 24:16 states that those who speak blasphemy "shall surely be put to death". See also List of capital crimes in the Torah. The Seven laws of Noah,which Judaism sees as applicable to all of humankind prohibits blasphemy. Christian theology condemns blasphemy. It is spoken of in the Mark 3:29, where blaspheming the Holy Spirit is spoken of as unforgivable - the eternal sin. Blasphemy has been condemned as a serious, or even the most serious, sin by the major creeds and Church theologians.

The punishment for blasphemy in most of the major religions is death. It is stated in the Old Testament of the Bible, which is the authority for both the Jews and the Christians:

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: [Book of Leviticus 24:16]

Moreover, if we read Manusmriti, the Law book of the Hindus, it says:

“If a man born of a lower class intentionally bothers a priest, the king should punish him physically with various forms of corporal and capital punishment that make men shudder.” [Manusmriti 9:248]

Blasphemy in Islam is any irreverent behavior toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs that Muslims revere. Where Sharia pertains, the penalties for blasphemy can include fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation, crucifixion, hanging, or beheading. Muslim clerics may call for the killing of an alleged blasphemer by issuing a fatwa.

Blasphemy in Islam, as in other faiths, is speech that is insulting to God. In Muslim history, blasphemy came to be associated mainly with perceived insults to the prophet of Islam.The material on blasphemy in the Qur’ān includes the concepts of denying the truth, inventing falsehoods, and insulting the divine. The most common Arabic verbsfor blasphemy are sabba (to abuse, insult) and shatama (to abuse, vilify). Shatama does not occur in the Qur’ān, and sabba appears only as part of a commandment to Muslims not to insult the idols of polytheists (Q6.108): “Do not abuse those to whom they pray, apart from God, or they will abuse God in revenge without knowledge.” Further material relates to the terms takdhīb (giving the lie, denial), and iftirā’ (invention). In these verses blasphemy means denying the truth about God and spreading falsehood in its place. The greatest offence of invention is shirk—to associate with God what is merely human, as in the warning of Luqmān to his son: “Do not associate others with God: to associate is a mighty wrong” (Q31.13). This, of course, was the accusation which Muslims made against the Christian confession of the divinity of Jesus.

Regarding the punishment for blasphemy in Islam, it is mentioned in the Glorious Qur’an:

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;” [Surah Al-Maidah 5:33].

In Islam, a person who has committed blasphemy can either be killed or crucified, or his opposite hands and feet can be cut off, or he can be exiled from that land. On the other hand, in other religions there is no other option except capital punishment. Islam at least has four options of punishment for an act of blasphemy.

Islamic Law takes a more severe view toward reviling Muḥammad (PBUH) than it does toward reviling God. By the beginning of the fourth Islamic century, a consensus had developed among the scholars that the one who insults the prophet of Islam must be put to death.

In 1982, Pakistani President Zia ul-Haqq introduced Section 295B into the Pakistan Penal Code, punishing “defiling the Holy Qur’an” with life imprisonment. In 1986, Section 295C was introduced, mandating the death penalty for “use of derogatory remarks in respect of the Holy Prophet.”

The concept of ‘freedom of speech’ is derived from the Capitalist ideology that is based on the belief that God and religion should be separated from life’s affairs (secularism). Human beings define how to live their lives free of the constraints of religion which is why freedom of individual, ownership, religion and speech are essential cornerstones of Capitalism. The right to speak and what are the limits of speech are therefore all defined by human beings.

This view completely contradicts Islam. In Islam it is the Creator of human beings Allah سبحانه وتعالى who gave the right of speech to people and defined the limits on what is acceptable and unacceptable speech.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “Whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, then let him speak good (khair) or remain silent.”[Agreed upon. Narrated by Abu Hurayra.]

Khair in this hadith means Islam or what Islam approves of.[Hizb ut-Tahrir, ‘American Campaign to Suppress Islam,’ p. 23]

Quran

The Qur'an does not specify a specific punishment for blasphemy, however it does specify a punishment for "spreading mischief": (Sura Al-Maidah 5:33)

Hadith and Other Islamic Writings

Muhammad (PBUH) had said to his followers “Whoever curses a prophet kill him,” (Tabarani, Daraqutni)^[3] and there are many examples of people during his time who were guilty of blaspheming Islam and its Prophet. Most of these people were assassinated with Muhammad's blessing, and no punishment or compensation was imposed on the murderer.

• 'Abdullah bin Ubai (bin Salul) – Muhammad (PBUH) asked his followers to kill this man for making "evil" statements about Muhammad's family.

• Abu `Afak – Muhammad (PBUH) asked his followers to kill this man for making negative remarks about Muhammad and Islam.

• Ka’b bin Ashraf – Muhammad (PBUH) asked his followers to kill this man for writing inflammatory poetry about Muhammad and Muslim women.

• Asma Bint Marwan – Muhammad (PBUH) asked his followers to kill this woman for composing inflammatory poetry about Islam and Muslims.

• Blind Man's Slave-Mother - When Muhammad (PBUH) learned that one of his followers had stabbed and killed his slave (other sources refer to her as a freed concubine: Umm walad) for making derogatory remarks about Muhammad, he declared that "no retaliation is payable for her blood."

• Al-Nadr Bin Al-Harith - Al Nadir, a storyteller and poet who had mocked him. He was a prisoner of war who was not allowed to be ransomed by their clans and was executed on Muhammad's (PBUH) orders.

Scholars

[In Islamic Fiqh] there are absolutely no opinions, no variants, no exceptions...Muhammad ibn Sahnun said that even if a man claims that it is part of his religion to insult the Messenger, and so in his religion it is lawful, that makes no difference to us. If he openly insults our Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, then our religion makes it lawful to kill him. This surely is the inescapable centre of the current affair. The arrogant kuffar have to learn that the world contains a two-billion community who have a different set of Laws from theirs, and who can never be detached from that Law (The Fiqh Concerning Those Who Insult The Messenger of Allah Shaykh Dr. Abdalqadir as-Sufi, February 6, 2006)

“Know that all who curse Muhammad (PBUH), may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his deen or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgement regarding such a person is the same as the judgement against anyone who curses him. He is killed as we shall make clear. This judgement extends to anything which amounts to a curse or disparagement. We have no hesitation concerning this matter, be it a clear statement or allusion.

The same applies to anyone who curses him, invokes against him, desires to harm him, ascribes to him what does not befit his position or jokes about his mighty affair with foolish talk, satire, disliked words or lies, or reviles him because of any affliction or trial which happened to him or disparages him, because of any of the permissible and well-known human events which happened to him. All of this is the consensus of the ‘ulama' and the imams of fatwa from the time of the Companions until today.^{[4] (}Qadi 'Iyad ibn Musa al-Yahsubi)

According to Ayatullah al-Khu'i, it is incumbent (wajib) to kill one who insults or calumniates the Prophet when one hears the insults provided there is no danger to his self, reputation or wealth. Agha also extends this ruling to cover insults against the Imams and Bibi Fatima (A.S.). It is not essential to get the permission of a Hakim al-Shar' to carry out the act. (Islamic law on Blasphemy Dr. Takim, 'Aalim Network QR, December 8, 1995)

In Islam, a person who has committed blasphemy can either be killed or crucified, or his opposite hands and feet can be cut off, or he can be exiled from that land. On the other hand, in other religions there is no other option except capital punishment. Islam at least has four options of punishment for an act of blasphemy.  (Question Hour: Ruling for Blasphemy in Islam Dr. Zakir Naik, Islamic Voice, April, 2006)

Whoever Curses the Prophet Peace and Blessings be Upon him, Muslim or Kafir, Must be Killed. (The Drawn Sword Against the One Who Curses the Messenger - Pages 31-33 Ibn Taymiyyah)

"The general scholars agreed that whoever curses him, Peace and Blessings be upon him, must be killed. This was stated by Malik, Al-Layth, Ahmad, Ishaaq, and Ash-Shafi'ee, and Nu'man (Abu Hanifa) said that the Dhimmi (Jizya-paying non-Muslim) is not to be killed." (The Drawn Sword Against the One Who Curses the Messenger -  Pages 31-33 Ibn Al-Munthir)

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sometimes chose to forgive those who had insulted him, and sometimes he ordered that they should be executed, if that served a greater purpose. But now his forgiveness is impossible because he is dead, so the execution of the one who insults him remains the right of Allaah, His Messenger and the believers, and the one who deserves to be executed cannot be let off, so the punishment must be carried out. (Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/438)

Insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is one of the worst of forbidden actions, and it constitutes kufr and apostasy from Islam, according to scholarly consensus, whether done seriously or in jest. The one who does that is to be executed even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir. (Ruling on one who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) Shaykh al Munajid, Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 22809)

Financial Crisis and Academic Conflict of Interest

Islam prohibits a behavior that is in conflict of one’s responsibilities. Here is an Aya from Quran and commentary. The Aya and commentary is very relevant to the subject under discussion.

And do not eat up your property among yourselves for vanities nor use it as bait for the judges with intent that ye may eat up wrongfully and knowingly a little of (other) people's property. Aya 188 of Sura Al-Baqara

Besides the three primal physical needs of man, which are apt to make him greedy, there is a fourth greed in society, the greed of wealth and property. The purpose of fasts is not completed until this fourth greed is also restrained.
Ordinarily honest men are content if they refrain from robbery, theft, or embezzlement. Two more subtle forms of the greed are mentioned here. One is where one uses one's own property for corrupting others - judges or those in authority - so as to obtain some material gain even under the cover and protection of the law.
The words translated "other people's property may also mean "public property". A still more subtle form is where we use our own property or property under our own control - "among yourselves" in the Text - for vain or frivolous uses. Under the Islamic standard this is also greed. Property carries with it its own responsibilities. If we fail to understand or fulfil them, we have not learnt the full lesson of self-denial by fasts. Commentary By Abdullah Yusuf Ali

Academicians are the forerunners of practitioners. They observe a certain phenomena and try their best to explain it so that behaviors of practitioners can be moulded accordingly for the benefit of public at large. Rules and regulations are the outcome of such observations, empirical analyses, academic debate etc.

In the wake of current financial crisis, there is a need for an unbiased analyses by the academia so that causes for such crises in the future can be controlled. But unfortunately there are some grey areas that need to be addressed like biasness for example. There are growing reports that academia was involved in the financial meltdown.

Here is an excerpt from an article

Over the last thirty years, academic economics has been penetrated by special interests, particularly financial services, in the same way that America’s political and regulatory systems have been compromised by campaign contributions and the revolving door.  In fact, the “revolving door” is now a triangular trip between industry, government, and academia.

Prominent economists are now routinely paid to testify in antitrust cases, criminal trials, and regulatory proceedings; to testify in Congress; to give speeches to the industries and firms they study; to serve on boards of directors and as advisors; and to write supposedly objective analyses of industries, companies and policies. These payments and the conflicts of interest they generate are rarely disclosed, except when required by Federal law.

These activities are not marginal; they are now, literally, a billion dollar industry, managed by firms such as the Law and Economics Consulting Group (LECG), The Analysis Group, Compass Lexecon, Charles River Associates, and others.  Professors’ income from such groups often dwarfs their academic salaries.  That neither universities nor most publications require such disclosure was one of the most shocking facts I learned while making Inside Job, my documentary on the financial crisis.

More recently, American Economic Association has recognized this moral hazard and has announced to adopt a code of ethical standards for its members. Following is an excerpt from The New York Times article on the subject.

Academic economists, particularly those active in policy debates in Washington and Wall Street, are facing greater scrutiny of their outside activities these days. Faced with a run of criticism, including a popular movie, leaders of the American Economic Association, the world’s largest professional society for economists, founded in 1885, are considering a step that most other professions took a long time ago — adopting a code of ethical standards.

The proposal, which has not been announced to the public or to the association’s 17,000 members, is partly a response to “Inside Job,” a documentary film released in October that excoriates leading academic economists for their ties to Wall Street as consultants, advisers or corporate directors.

Here is another excerpt from an article

In October, Gerald Epstein and Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth released a paper documenting potential conflicts of interests among academic economists writing about the financial crisis and financial reform. Focusing on the Squam Lake Working Group on Financial Regulation and the Pew Economic Policy Group Financial Reform Project, they found that a majority of the economists involved had affiliations with private financial institutions, yet few of them disclosed those affiliations even in academic publications (where they do not face the word constraints imposed by print newspaper editors), preferring to identify themselves by their universities and as members of prestigious institutions such as NBER. To be fair, they did not find a strong relationship between economists’ affiliations and their positions on financial reform, perhaps because of the small sample and the limited amount of variation in the positions of members of these groups.

Following is an excerpt from a letter written by Epstein and Carrick-Hagenbarth to the president of the AEA asking for the adoption of a code that requires economists to avoid conflicts of interest and to disclose ties that could create the appearance of a conflict of interest.

More specifically we propose that the AEA adopt a code modeled on that of the American Sociological Association. This code could state that: “Economists should maintain the highest degree of integrity in their professional work and avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflict. Moreover, economists should disclose relevant sources of financial support and relevant personal or professional relationships that may have the appearance or potential for a conflict of interest in public speeches and writing, as well as in academic publications.”

This issue has taken on greater salience as the recent financial crisis has highlighted economists’ potentially conflicting roles that may have affected their real or perceived impartiality as analysts and experts. For example, in an assessment of 19 economists who have played prominent and influential roles in recent public policy debates, Gerald Epstein and Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth found that 13 out of 19 economists had private financial affiliations indicative of some possible conflicts of interest, but only 5 had clearly and publicly revealed their affiliations. A Reuters study of Congressional testimony by academics (many but not all of whom are economists) analyzed “… 96 testimonies given by 82 academics to the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee between late 2008 and early 2010 — as lawmakers debated the biggest overhaul of financial regulation since the 1930s.”  They found that “…roughly a third (of the academics) did not reveal their financial affiliations in their testimonies, based on a comparison of the text of their testimonies available on the Congressional committees’ websites with their resumes available online.”

From reading all the above reports, one can easily get that there is something wrong and under the existing arrangement of academia and financial industry, it is hard to accept that they will come up with some un biased analyses and reforms that are in the interest of the public at large. Unless and until the profession does not enforce transparency and code of ethical standards, ill advised policy is a real danger.