Crucifixion: Is it Murder or Suicide or Blood Sacrifice?

Instead of the usual knocks on Sunday morning, the Christian missionaries knocked on Good Friday morning. They are always on a mission to convert the world, so I was given an invitation to a sermon about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was not the spirit of commercialised-Easter but this friendly visit made me ponder about the essence of the event.

I respectfully declined the offer as over the years the Christians have argued that I should first have faith, then submit to Christ and let the Holy Spirit enter my body somehow. Only then, I would understand the notion of trinity, crucifixion, and resurrection. Therefore, conviction somehow follows blind faith. However, I would have thought the process should be reverse; conviction of the mind should lead to faith. This is how we tend to operate in real life.

So what is the meaning of this crucifixion? If we are to judge an action solely based on the physical act, then the event of crucifixion represents nothing more than a heinous crime and betrayal. Killing an innocent man is nothing more than an act of murder. For which there was no retribution from God, the crime went unpunished. What moral lessons can we take from it? The guilty party here are the Romans, the Jewish mob, and God himself with the Holy Spirit are spectators - they did nothing to save the son of God (Jesus).

What did Jesus do? He made no effort to escape the punishment. It could be argued that he committed suicide, in the same way if someone does not make an effort to escape from a building that is on fire. Can suicide be the basis for a religion? Are we to follow such an example? If so, then how?

Of course evaluating actions is not always simplistic process of equating it with the physical act. One has to take into account motive and context. For example, the case of manslaughter and murder is distinguished by establishing the intention of the perpetrator not just the act itself. Therefore, the Christians will argue that crucifixion was not suicide, nor was it a simple crime. Jesus (son) and God the Father with the Holy Spirit planned this event in advance; the act was deliberately orchestrated by God, as an act of blood sacrifice for atonement.

In that case, how is Christianity different to paganism, where human sacrifices were also used? Even the metaphorical reference to eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ makes me revolt, as it reminds me of cannibalism. The concept of shedding the blood of some innocent person for the crimes of others in the past, and the crimes of those in the future seems to run contrary to common sense and justice. Maybe this is why you need to have faith before conviction! Of course having blind faith makes the process of conviction redundant.

Sometime back, this notion of crucifixion triggered my response to a fanatical Evangelical Christian from the US, who described Islam as being built on bloodshed, as if we have the equivalent of crucifixion. For some reason it is the US that seems to exclusively produce these foul mouthed zealots, like they have a monopoly of producing disturbed teenagers who go on shooting rampages, real terrorists operating right under their noses. Anyway, I reminded the foulmouthed fanatic of the irony of his claim, given that the central doctrine of Christianity is about bloodshed and sadistic torture. Mel Gibson, a devout Christian portrayed this well in his film the “Passion of Christ”. Hence, the Christians are in no position to accuse anyone of being bloodthirsty.

I elaborated further by reminding him of what Jesus said in the Bible, “by their fruits ye shall know them”. Historically the record of the Christian Church is awful compared to Islam, any impartial observer can testify to this. The church could never match the tolerance shown by the Muslims. No inquisitions, no commercial slavery, no extermination of the indigenous populations, no bloody crusades, not to mention the decades of brutal wars between the Catholics and Protestants.

We still have the historical non-Muslim community in Islamic lands. However, where is the historical Muslim community of Europe? They were slaughtered either by the Inquisition or by the crusades. The recent security enjoyed by Muslims living in Europe can only be attributed to secular values not Christianity.

The conclusion is obvious, the reformation that was initiated by Martin Luther needs to move on the next phase, remove the absurd notion of Trinity and Crucifixion; thus Bring Christianity inline with the other monotheistic religions.

Yamin Zakaria
London, UK


Copyright © Yamin Zakaria 2008
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

Barbaric Laws or Barbaric Crimes?

I remember my boss at work expressing his disgust towards the Sharia Laws, without substantiation, he used the emotive term of barbaric to describe the Islamic penal codes. My response was equally swift, I replied that I preferred to live by barbaric laws rather than allow barbaric crimes to take place. I retorted further, that he is simply being naive and would concur with my point if he ever became victim of the numerous crimes that are talking place within our society. As to what constitutes the correct level of punishment that fits the crime is entirely subjective and depends on ones beliefs. Thus to label one set of punishment as barbaric is simply as irrational, superstitious and fanatical as the medieval mindset that once flourished in Europe.

I also pointed out that people who advocate lenient punishments are rewarding criminals and perversely punishing the victim further; and this proves that they are the ones devoid of compassion and are really uncivilised and barbaric at heart! Turning the table on my boss, made his pale cheeks red, and most probably he had become accustomed to discussing (bullying) with moderate Muslims who are always ready to apologies on their knees.

To expose his hypocrisy, I asked him why he keeps choosing to label the Islamic penal codes as barbaric when he could apply the same label to the penal codes that are applied in places like the US. Then he went on to argue the same idiocy that we have become accustomed to hearing from the western media: killing people using western methods is more civilised than non-western methods. Therefore, gassing, poisoning, or burning someone using napalm is supposed to be less painful, and thus more humane than decapitation by a sword. Maybe we should scientifically establish this by experimenting with those who believe in reincarnation, as to which method of execution causes less pain!

Apart from the rabid anti-Islamic venom, the comments made by the Archbishop of Canterbury led to some discussion about the appropriate penal code and the constant rise in crime. Criminal laws in any society are supposed to serve a dual purpose: retribution and deterrence. It is doubtful that liberal secular laws provide sufficient deterrence; young adolescent children know that laws gives them protection when committing serious crimes, hoodlums and thugs rampage, rapists and murderers know that if and when they get caught, they are only likely to serve part of their sentence, confined to a cell that provides for their basic needs adequately. Consequently, we see the high levels of crimes, which are always rising.

The arguments made against the Islamic Sharia often hinges around the issue of women’s rights, but paradoxically the punishment prescribed by the Sharia for crimes against women is far severe, than the liberal secular laws. If women’s rights is paramount, yet why so little weight is given to the crimes committed against women under western secular laws, which is reflected in the lenient punishment dispensed. Can the women in such societies venture alone in the streets at night? In some places, they fear to tread alone even during the day. For sure, certain places even men would avoid in fear, so if women’s rights had any meaning they would feel secure in all place and all times. I know that women and children roam the streets freely without fear, through the night in most Muslim countries. Except the simpleton, most people know the argument of women’s rights is not an honest one but political, because this is not raised and applied to other cases except against Islam and Muslims. Just like the selective application of UN resolutions against the Muslim countries.

Then the argument moves onto the issue of majority and minority. Only a minority of the population are committing such criminal acts, but that is little consolation to the victims. The same argument was applied to the ‘minority’ of soldiers committing brutal acts in Iraq. Surely, by the same criteria, the actions of 9/11 and 7/7 were also acts of minorities, yet the entire Muslim population has been placed on trial by the media.

Some will argue that dispensing severe punishments for serious crimes is simply going down to the level of criminals, these people rarely speak as victims but idealistic individuals living in a bubble. They remind me of the flower power generation, high on some drugs, singing the song of imagine there is no crime or criminals. If you are going to advocate such arguments, in that case let us dispense with the penal code altogether. For sure, you are not going to get the criminals submitting to your moral barometer.

So, let us move to the 21st century, and debate honestly the need for appropriate penal codes that serves as a good deterrence. If a criminal is punished severely, those witnessing it will think twice before committing such crimes. I am not saying the West must adopt the Islamic penal code, but it is hardly constructive to blindly criticise that as barbaric, when acts of barbarism is being facilitated at home by lenient penal codes.


Yamin Zakaria
London, UK

Is Pakistan Ready for the Caliphate (Khilafah)?

“They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call a "Caliphate" -- where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology.” “I'm not going to allow this to happen -- and no future American President can allow it either.”

President George W Bush

“They demand the elimination of Israel; the withdrawal of all Westerners from Muslim countries, irrespective of the wishes of people and government; the establishment of effectively Taleban states and Sharia law in the Arab world en route to one caliphate of all Muslim nations.”

Prime Minister Tony Blair

After lecturing about freedom and democracy, Bush and his ilk have the audacity to dictate to the Muslim masses as to what form of government they can adopt. How does this reconcile with Bush’s constant rant about promoting freedom in the Muslims world? It can only mean one thing - the Muslims will be ‘free’ as long as they confine their choice to western secular values! This should be obvious even if you are a shortsighted moderate or a long-sighted ex-Islamist serving penance!

Therefore, we see the militant US enforcing secular values using threats, sanctions, and military force; concurrently it stifles popular political movements. This magnitude of duplicity must surely be classed as one of the miracles of this high-tech era! The Caliphate is equated with a hateful ideology, as if Islam gave birth to the heartless Capitalism or militant nationalism (Nazi ideology and its variants). Islam does not uphold the concept of a master race or a chosen race or the material interest of a nation above anything else; such ideologies are the sources of systematic genocide and hate.

As Pervez Musharraf set the election date (January 8, 2008), many are debating as to which direction Pakistan will go. Will it be secular democracy or military dictatorship or Islamic parties gaining strength like the recent cases in Palestine, Egypt and Turkey? How a Muslim majority country like Pakistan views the notion of the Caliphate. In theory, any Muslim nation should be inclined to the concept of being unified by a single Caliphate. This is what was demonstrated by Prophet Muhammad (SAW) when He replaced the tribal bonds with the Islamic belief, manifested in the Islamic State. This continued under the successive rulers (Khalifs), and as the Islamic state expanded it unified people of different races and colours, there were no colonies, no slave camps no systematic genocide or deliberate acts of state terrorism against innocent civilians.

It is interesting that many Pakistanis continue to believe their country was established to uphold Islam. This is a misconception. It is doubtful that the founding father, Muhammad Jinnah was even a Muslim; he was either a Parsee or the more popular view that he was born into the heretical Shiite sect of the Ismaili Khoja. His second marriage to a Parsee is illegitimate under Islamic law; his habit of eating ham sandwich and drinking wine is further evidence of his distance from the basic Islamic values at a personal level, so how can one expect such a man to call for the establishment of an Islamic state. In fact, Jinnah opposed the Khilafah movement led by the Shukat Ali brothers, whilst it was supported by Mahatma Ghandi who was a Hindu, how ironic. Jinnah’s vision was to create a secular Muslim majority state and not an Islamic state governed by Sharia laws; this can be seen from his statement to the constituent assembly on the 11th August 1947:

“You may belong to any religion caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state. In due course of time, Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.”

Since its inception the political fault lines in Pakistan have always surfaced, as it has constantly alternated between military and civilian rule. With the passing of time tension along ethnic lines have increased as different groups are calling for autonomy, further compounded by the secular and religious forces pulling in different directions. In contrast, India with far greater levels of diversity of ethnicity, religion, and language has demonstrated political stability and economic progress and it looks set to become a major power.

After the events of 9/11, Parvez Musharraf surrendered instantly in response to the threats made by the US for cooperation, and signed up to Bush’s war on terror; aided the brutal bombing of Afghanistan, gave the Americans a freehand to incarcerate anyone to the notorious camp-x-ray. This is an irony since Pakistan was created to provide security for Muslims. It was an ideal opportunity to teach the West about the meaning of true democracy, as Parvez Musharraf could have put the issue of providing US bases to bomb Afghanistan to the Pakistani masses or the parliament, before giving the Americans a free hand.

Parvez Musharraf continues to use the excuse of preserving the security of Pakistan, yet anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that the US has been busy scheming to disarm (neutralise) Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Simply because the US will not tolerate any Muslim country having nuclear weapons, for the same reason it has been busy preventing Iran from developing nuclear technology. This is part and parcel of its so-called strategy of war on terror, which is a war on Islamic values and the entire Islamic world. Yet, the simpleton moderates continue to believe that the war on terror is directed at the handful of people hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Instead of debating issues of security, economic prosperity, social cohesion, foreign occupation, the various parties are fighting to secure power on superficial slogans, petty criticisms of others. All points to the fact that, the major parties vying for political power is about securing their interests; further corroborated by their past track record. With Musharraf retiring from his army post, the return of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, the showdown for January election is on but the result is a forgone conclusion, a choice between secular democracy and military dictatorship, thus continuing the cyclical process of alternating between military and civilian rule. Altering the faces without a radical reorganisation of the political system and economic wealth, nothing will have changed, thus the masses in Pakistan are despondent.

The only alternative to the current system in Pakistan is Islam - and that raises the inevitable question of what the current Islamic movements can offer. It is highly unlikely that Pakistan will make the leap towards the Caliphate in this upcoming election, but the Islamic parties can begin to muster support on the road to establishing the Caliphate.

With limited resources available, the groups should be efficient and focused on the objective. The ordinary masses may be in favour of Islamic rule or they may not be hostile to it. Therefore a significant effort must be directed towards the power structures within Pakistan, which consists of the armed forces and secular elite, the latter being the most influential. It is imperative for the Islamic parties to make the collective effort to de-secularise the secular strata of Pakistan and the key members of the armed forces. This is necessary to secure power.

Instead, the Islamic movements are often busy fighting each other to gain followers from rival groups to join their ranks. Some are unfortunately intolerant to the extent that it has no capability to accommodate even legitimate difference of opinions, some even go to the extreme of killing fellow Muslims as is seen in the frequent Shia-Sunni feuds; this sort of behaviour is often exploited to alienate the masses form the more capable Islamic groups.

Failure of the Islamic movements can also be attributed to their idealism and detachment from the reality. For example, those calling for the Khilafah are still insisting on non-participation in the election process, as it would legitimise system of democracy. Participating in election is no different to giving obedience to the secular laws or paying taxes; all such acts are participation within the system, thus gives it legitimacy. There is nothing to prevent anyone from participating in election making clear that the manifesto is to implement Islam, and it will not be subjected to any kind of referendum in the future.

Another major reason for participation is to build leadership for the group, and in particular, its ideas, to an extent this has been demonstrated in the election results in Palestine, Egypt and Turkey where the Islamic movements have started to gain. These are perhaps the small milestones to the long road of building the Caliphate. Make no mistake about it, the establishment of the Caliphate will require a collective effort, therefore groups have to function within that framework and not the mindset that they have a monopoly on the issue.

The Muslims in Pakistan are in need of a better alternative because the current system has failed and this is self-evident. However, when will the Islamic parties begin to organise themselves and make a collective effort towards the long road of the Caliphate, change the destiny of Pakistan?

Yamin Zakaria
London, UK
Copyright © Yamin Zakaria 2007

The Veil and the Bikini Schism

Just look at the contrast - recently the former foreign secretary, Jack Straw, demanded that Muslim women should remove the veil, whilst preaching freedom to them. In contrast, the Imam in Australia, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilal pointed out the consequences for society, when women dress provocatively, and nobody can dispute that it agitates the raw male instinct.

Is this another example of clash of values? May be not, as Jack Straw and Sheik Taj Din al-Hilal, would concur in opposing complete nudity in public. Therefore, both agree, and recognise that a minimum standard of clothing needs to be enforced in society, for both genders. Clothing is one of the factors that differentiate the animals from human beings! What that minimum standard should be, is at the heart of the debate, the most crucial question. However, this is ignored, as the primary focus is on maximising freedom for individuals, and not what should be the minimum dress code for greater harmony for the society as a whole.

Did the Australian Imam pose an intellectual argument or did he make insulting remarks about scantly dressed women? For example, did he call them prostitutes or animals who roam naked in the jungle without any shame? If he had done so, then he would have ‘progressed’ to the levels of Salman Rushdie, or those who drew the derogatory cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in Denmark, or those closet racists who have now come out to vent their hate against the Muslims!

As expected, the Western media went into a state of frenzy after hearing the comments of the Australian Imam. What happened to free speech now? In short, there is no room for Muslims issuing genuine criticisms, no space for Muslims having the right to express their opinions challenging the status-quo. The media is becoming intolerant and fanatical as it claims about others in totalitarian societies. Increasingly it looks like the media of Julius Streicher in the 1930s Germany.

Therefore, it is unacceptable when the Muslims pose a valid argument without the use of pejorative terms, and yet, when the West insults us in the crudest form, they expect us to tolerate it under free speech. Is it any surprise, the West is losing the intellectual battle against Al-Qaeda, as the London Daily Telegraph stated recently? You do not need to hire analysts, or conduct polls to establish such self-evident truths.

I was listening to the debate on the James O’Brian show on the radio. He was already incensed by the comments, and got even more enraged when non-Muslims emailed him, concurring with the views of the Australian Imam. Eventually, he suggested that the Imam should be handled physically as one cannot have a reasoned discussion with people who hold such views. Hence, Mr O’Brian is an intolerant neo-Julius-Streicher, and failing to recognise that he is the one advocating violence over dialogue and free speech. I am not sure why some of these presenters discuss subjects of this nature. I would have thought they are more qualified to debate popular culture.

Mr O’Brian claimed that the Imam’s comment exclusively blamed women for being raped or if they suffer some type of sexual assault. I phoned in, and informed the operator that Mr James O’Brian got it completely wrong, and not for the first time. What the Imam was saying, only women who dress in a provocative manner ‘contribute’ towards these types of crimes and they have to share at least some responsibility. The operator would not let me through, as ‘he’ wanted to air some seedy story about men who ogle at women. I guess he was even less interested in free speech, and giving some voice to those voiceless people, who were being systematically demonised.

On the one hand, women are to have all the freedom (choice) and if I understand Mr Jack Straw that means: freedom to wear fewer clothes as possible. Yet, no sane person can deny the impact on the male sexual instinct by women exercising their freedom in this manner. Thus, is it unreasonable to expect women to bear some level of responsibility, so that they do not contribute towards these crimes? In the same way, would society not point fingers at those individuals who leave their money and assets unprotected, enticing the thieves? All responsible parents monitor their young daughters, as they are concerned about the predatory hot-blooded young males. The recent pictures released from Abu-Ghraib shows how nasty and hot-blooded these males are - even children are not safe from them.

The males too have a responsibility and just because they are sexually agitated, it does not give them the right to force themselves on women. Not every single male would behave according such principles, and restrain their carnal desires. Scantly dressed females should remember, especially before flirting, that for some men, if you excite them beyond a certain point they cannot retreat.

Naturally, when the opportunity arises, many men end up committing rape. This is confirmed by surveys that show a significant number of women in the US get date-raped. When men were asked if they would rape if the opportunity arises, the figures were even higher. Note, the word ‘opportunity’, meaning both sexes have the responsibility to ensure that such opportunities are not created. The constant promotion of ‘freedom’ creates selfish individuals, who give their carnal desires a greater priority, than to restrain it in order to show respect for others.

Our focus should not be to enhance freedom for both sexes, as one person’s freedom inevitably impinges on someone else’s freedom. Because, we do not live as individuals on our own islands, but collectively in a society. Rather, the focus should be to find the equilibrium between the two genders, where they can enjoy a stable relationship. Soaring divorce rates to rising single parent families are just some of the signs that clearly show we have not reached that equilibrium. This is the real debate behind the schism of the veil and the bikini.

I thought the West is yearning for a genuine debate with the Muslims. But, how can that be, when we see emotional and superficial responses coloured by their medieval heritage, from those who are bragging about the weight of their liberal values? Perhaps they expect Muslims to go on four limbs and resort to insulting also. Maybe only then Muslims will be given an EQUAL chance to express their viewpoint, under the flag of free speech!

For sure, any reasonable person knows the distinction between posing an intellectual challenge, and systematically insulting a community under the flag of free speech. At present, that seems ‘anybody’ except the very people that are shouting free speech. How ironic!

Yamin Zakaria
London, UK

Copyright © Yamin Zakaria 2006
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com