Can we predict future?

Ragu Rajan of University of Chicago Booth School of Business tries to explain who is responsible for not forewarning about the financial crisis that has engulfed the entire financial world.

At the height of the financial crisis, the Queen of England asked my friends at the London School of Economics a simple question, but one for which there is no easy answer: Why did academic economists fail to foresee the crisis? There have been several responses to that query. One is that economists simply lacked models that could account for the behavior that led to the crisis. Another is that economists were blinkered by an ideology according to which a free and unfettered market could do no wrong. Finally, an answer that is gaining ground is that the system bribed economists to stay silent. In my view, the truth lies elsewhere. I would argue that three factors largely explain our collective failure: specialization, the difficulty of forecasting, and the disengagement of much of the profession from the real world.

He reluctantly accepted that forecasting future events is difficult, if not impossible. Here is another study that shows, why it is so difficult.

Stossel cited a study in the journal Economics and Portfolio Strategy that tracked 452 managed funds from 1990 to 2009, finding that only 13 beat the market average. Equating managed fund directors to “snake-oil salesmen,” Malkiel said that Wall Street is selling Main Street on the belief that experts can consistently time the market and make accurate predictions of when to buy and sell. They can’t. No one can. Not even professional economists and not even for large-scale market indicators. As economics Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson long ago noted in a 1966 Newsweek Column:  “Commentators quote economic studies alleging that market downturns predicted four out of the last five recessions. That is an understatement. Wall Street indexes predicted nine out of the last five recessions!”

Even in a given tech area, where you might expect a greater level of specific expertise, economic forecasters fumble. On December 22, 2010, for example, the Wall Street Journal ran a piece on how the great hedge fund financier T. Boone Pickens (chair of BP Capital Management) just abandoned his “Pickens Plan” of investing in wind energy. Pickens invested $2 billion based on his prediction that the price of natural gas would stay high. It didn’t, plummeting as the drilling industry’s ability to unlock methane from shale beds improved, a turn of events even an expert such as Pickens failed to see.

Why are experts (along with us non-experts) so bad at making predictions? The world is a messy, complex and contingent place with countless intervening variables and confounding factors, which our brains are not equipped to evaluate. We evolved the capacity to make snap decisions based on short-term predictions, not rational analysis about long-term investments, and so we deceive ourselves into thinking that experts can foresee the future. This self-deception among professional prognosticators was investigated by University of California, Berkeley, professor Philip E. Tetlock, as reported in his 2005 book Expert Political Judgment. After testing 284 experts in political science, economics, history and journalism in a staggering 82,361 predictions about the future, Tetlock concluded that they did little better than “a dart-throwing chimpanzee.”

The said study concluded that expertise in one area of study leads to narrowed focus and increases confidence but also blurs the value of dissenting views and transforms data collection into belief confirmation. One way to avoid being wrong is to be skeptical whenever you catch yourself making predictions based on reducing complex phenomena into one overarching scheme.

Having said so leads us to nowhere. Since the world is a very complex phenomena and there are many intervening variables, we shall never be able to predict future whatsoever may be at our help. There will always be surprises.

A Hadith of Prophet (PBUH) - Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar (RAA)

Allah's Apostle said, "The keys of the Unseen are five:

1. Verily with Allah (Alone) is the knowledge of the Hour,
2. He sends down the rain and
3. knows what is in the wombs.
4. No soul knows what it will earn tomorrow, and
5. no soul knows in what land it will die.

Verily, Allah is All-Knower, All-Aware." (31.34) 

Sahih Al-Bukhari  6.151

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.

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.

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)

Can we reduce Natural Disasters After Effects?

A quote from HBR Blog "The Conversation" on the need for a strategy to reduce aftereffects of natural disasters to "man-reduced".


"The biggest lesson that we can learn from natural disasters is that while they are not man-made, their aftereffects can be "man-reduced." It might be easy to regard the European airspace crisis as a one-off, but as many regions worry about the "next big one," more specific measures should be put in place by governments as well as by businesses for coping with big natural disasters when they do strike. We don't know whether it will be an earthquake, a tsunami, or a volcano next time — but we do know there will be a next time."


But the question is, can we reduce the aftereffects of natural disasters.


For the Believers', there is guidance in Quran as to how to cope with natural calamity.


"O ye who believe! seek help with patient perseverance and prayer: for Allah is with those who patiently persevere. And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: "They are dead." Nay they are living though ye perceive (it) not. Be sure We shall test you with something of fear and hunger some loss in goods or lives or the fruits (of your toil) but give glad tidings to those who patiently persevere. Who say when afflicted with calamity: "To Allah we belong and to Him is our return." They are those on whom (descend) blessings from Allah and Mercy and they are the ones that receive guidance." Ayat 153 - 157 of Sura Al-Baqara

Rising From the Ash: The Need for Risk Strategy - The Conversation - Harvard Business Review

Posted using ShareThis

Islamic Banking and Finance is not Islamic anymore

There are concerns that the development of Islamic banking and Finance is more in line with its counterpart than indigenous Islamic. Islamic Finance is different than its counterpart on many fronts like interest, risk ,halal, haram, bankruptcy to name few. Here is an excerpt from an article that pointedly said that Islamic Banking and Finance is not Islamic anymore.

"The credit crunch has sponsored much discussion on the need for a new approach to banking and finance. While the Islamic financial system has been mentioned as a possible alternative in this regard, it is widely recognized that this system has itself been largely modeled on its interest-based counterpart. Both share the same material goals and adopt the same institutional structures, with the result that the products promoted by the Islamic finance industry are often indistinguishable from those of interest-based institutions."

"These similarities have led some insiders to concede that the Islamic banking and finance industry has failed to properly implement the ideals upon which it was founded more than thirty years ago. They fear that a gradual merger between Islamic and interest-based finance is taking place, encouraged by commercial and political factors. Others wonder how such a vital function of Muslim society can be founded upon contractual devices that so many of its scholars reject, the enforceability of a promise being a particularly widespread case in point."

"A serious and nimble response to these concerns is often hindered by a lack of intellectual honesty within the Islamic finance industry itself. Platforms are rarely provided to scholars who wish to take one step back and question some of the fundamental concepts that are being applied. Few questions are raised regarding the validity of Islamic debt financing, limited liability structures, speculative methods of market trading, or the nature of the monetary system. Such matters are given little attention in the headlong rush to copy interest-based methodologies and this has resulted in a number of embarrassing paradoxes. For example, while some Islamic investment managers attempt to develop Shari`ah compliant short-selling techniques, several western authorities are banning the practice on account of the instability that it causes. Most serious of all is the fact that, having copied the western template of finance, the Muslim world is in no position to point to a viable alternative at this time of crisis. In a few short months, thirty years of strategy have been debunked, and our industry leaders are left with little to say."

Aya 280 of Sura Al-Baqara

Ayat 275 to 279 of Sura Al-Baqara

Aya 65 of Sura Al-Baqara

Aya 163 of Sura Al-A'raf

Don't put a question mark where, Allah puts a full stop.

"According to dictionary, the word Islam, from the tri literal root s-l-m, is derived from the Arabic verb Aslama, which means "to accept, surrender or submit. “ A Muslim (Arabic: مسلم ) an adherent of the religion of Islam. The feminine form of 'Muslim' is Muslimah (Arabic: مسلمة ). Literally, the word means "one who submits to God".

“If anyone is looking for a religion other than Islam, then let it be known that it will not be accepted from him; and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.” (Sura Al’i-Imran Aya No. 85)." Dīn (دين, also anglicized as Deen) is an Arabic word usually translated as "religion" but also as "way of life", especially referring to Islam, known as ad-dīn "the deen", or dīn al-haqq "the true deen" (e.g. ayat 48:27, 9:33 = 61:9). It is, however, not exclusive to Islam, as Arab Christians also use it to refer to their religion and religion in general. The word “Deen” appears in as many as 79 Qur'anic verses and it is often translated as religion for convenience since there is no equivalent single satisfactory English word. In the Qur'an, Islam is always referred to as Dīn. It is the sum total of a Muslim's faith and the code and conduct necessary to submit to Allah's laws.

Hence, it can be said that Islamic Finance is conducting financial and business matters according to the commandments of Allah(SWT) expressed or implied.

Credit transactions are not to be taken as a routine matter as in business no one has enough capital to give time to debtor till they are able to pay the amount and nor can everyone write them off as charity even if it is the best and it is the best because Allah(SWT) has said so. Therefore, there is no concept of banking in Islam where the business model is borrowing and subsequent lending.

Credit transactions are injurious to Muslims on two accounts. As a creditor, on account of giving respite to debtor in difficulty, disturbance in cash flows leading to default in payment in case of back to back Murabahah and seemingly loss of capital in case of write off to charity. As a debtor, there is no exemption from payment of debt unless it is written off by creditor. His heirs are liable to pay the debt. I quote Ahadith in this connection.

Shaih Muslim 872

Narrated Amr ibn al-'As "The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: All the sins of a Shahid (martyr) are forgiven except debt."

Al-Tirmidhi

Narrated AbuHurayrah "The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The soul of a deceased believer is held back on account of his debt till the debt is discharged."

Another very important Hadith on debt based transaction is

Sahih Al-Bukhari 1.795

"Narrated Aisha (the wife of the Prophet) Allah's Apostle used to invoke Allah in the prayer saying "Allahumma inni a'udhu bika min adhabil-qabri, waa'udhu bika min fitnatil-masihid-dajjal, wa a'udhu bika min fitnatil-mahya wa fitnatil-mamati. Allahumma inni a'udhu bika minal-mathami wal-maghrami. (O Allah, I seek refuge with You from the punishment of the grave and from the afflictions of Masiah Ad-Dajjal and from the afflictions of life and death. O Allah, I seek refuge with You from the sins and from being in debt)." Somebody said to him, "Why do you so frequently seek refuge with Allah from being in debt?" The Prophet replied, "A person in debt tells lies whenever he speaks, and breaks promises whenever he makes (them)." 'Aisha also narrated: I heard Allah's Apostle in his prayer seeking refuge with Allah from the afflictions of Ad-Dajjal."

The following sentence from the above Hadith is of particular importance to Muslims "A person in debt tells lies whenever he speaks, and breaks promises whenever he makes (them)." So, there is every possibility of default. 

Why Winning Streaks End ?

An excerpt from the blog about "Why Winning Streaks End?"


"Winners become sinners when confidence turns into complacency and arrogance. They over-estimate their own invincibility and under-value mundane disciplines. Whenever someone feels on top over a long period of time, they are tempted to neglect the very fundamentals that helped them succeed in the first place. They might even start to feel that the rules don't apply to them."


Here is what Quran says about the subject.

Set forth to them the parable of two men: for one of them We provided two gardens of grapevines and surrounded them with date-palms: in between the two We placed corn-fields.

Each of those gardens brought forth its produce and failed not in the least therein: in the midst of them We caused a river to flow.

(Abundant) was the produce this man had: he said to his companion in the course of a mutual argument: "More wealth have I than you and more honor and power in (my following of) men."

He went into his garden in a state (of mind) unjust to his soul: He said "I deem not that this will ever perish.

"Nor do I deem that the Hour (of Judgment) will (ever) come: even if I am brought back to my Lord I shall surely find (there) something better in exchange."

His companion said to him in the course of the argument with him: "Dost thou deny Him Who created thee out of dust then out of a sperm-drop then fashioned thee into a man?

"But (I think) for my part that He is Allah my Lord and none shall I associate with my Lord.

"Why didst thou not as thou wentest into thy garden say: `Allah's Will (be done)! There is no power but with Allah!' If thou dost see me less than thee in wealth and sons

"It may be that my Lord will give me something better than thy garden and that He will send on thy garden thunderbolts (by way of reckoning) from heaven making it (but) slippery sand!

"Or the water of the garden will run off underground so that thou wilt never be able to find it."

So his fruits (and enjoyment) were encompassed (with ruin) and he remained twisting and turning his hands over what he had spent on his property which had (now) tumbled to pieces to its very foundations and he could only say "Woe is me! would I had never ascribed partners to my Lord and Cherisher!"

Nor had he numbers to help him against Allah nor was he able to deliver himself.

Ayat 32 to 43 Sura Al Kahf 

There may be many reasons but one of the main reason remains arrogance.

Why Winning Streaks End - Rosabeth Moss Kanter - Harvard Business Review

Posted using ShareThis