Non-government organisations estimate hundreds of people have been physically displaced with thousands of Christians in the area affected by the violence.

Eighteen-year-old Kanwal had just returned from hospital with her newborn baby, Samuel, when a vigilante mob launched a violent attack on their home in a Christian area of eastern Pakistan.

Terrified, she swept up the baby and fled barefoot with the rest of her family, narrowly escaping the mob that torched their house last week, causing the loss of their pet birds and all their belongings.

“We are very scared of our neighbours … we don’t want them to destroy whatever little we have left,” said Kanwal, cradling Samuel as she sat in a school classroom converted into a makeshift dormitory in the bustling market town of Jaranwala.

“We should be shifted somewhere else,” she added. Her 11-year-old brother and sisters aged seven and 11 are too scared to return to school, where they are among a tiny minority of Christian students.

“Today was the first day of school after summer vacations but I did not send them because of fear,” said their mother, Kiran. “I told them, ‘You will get an education if you stay alive.'”

Nearly 160 people have been arrested over Wednesday’s hours-long rampage by a mob that residents said consisted of people carrying iron rods, knives and sticks, and which set fire to churches and scores of homes.

Police and residents said the attack started after someone took allegedly desecrated pages of the Muslim holy book, the Koran, to a mosque prayer leader, which was followed by announcements calling for punishment.

Police have arrested two Christian men accused of blasphemy and are investigating.

Blasphemy is punishable by death in Pakistan but no one has ever been executed, although numerous people accused of blasphemy have been lynched by outraged mobs in the past.

A former provincial governor and a minister for minorities were shot dead for trying to reform the blasphemy law.

A large contingent of armed paramilitary troopers has fanned out to restore calm in Jaranwala, set in the rural heartland of Pakistan’s Punjab province, amid farms growing wheat, rice and sugarcane.

Provincial and federal authorities have pledged financial help for the Christian community, which forms less than 2% of Pakistan’s population of 241 million, many of whom live in poverty, to help pick up their lives.

Caretaker prime minister Anwaar-ul-Haq Kakar visited the area on Monday, announcing relief for affected families, calling the attack an atrocity and promising Pakistan’s minority religious communities that the government would protect them.

But community members and advocates say the trauma and fear will be tough to heal and their safety is not assured. Many are afraid to return home but, still in shock, do not know where to rebuild their lives.

“Everyone is focusing on giving them food, giving them shelter, but what they are feeling, how they are broken from the inside, how they will accept that they are equal citizens, this is the (important) thing,” said Naseem Anthony, a member of a rights group, Awam.

“There is very serious concern from the civil society side about the psychological damage,” added Anthony, speaking outside a gathering of civil society organisations held near a salmon-pink church, its insides blackened with soot.

A few streets away about 240 people live in the makeshift shelter in the school along with Kanwal’s family.

String and wood cots have been set up among classroom walls still plastered with charts showing the alphabet and how to count.

Many here spent the first few days after the attack living outside, in fields and roads in sweltering heat.

They described feelings of depression and anxiety, a fear of open spaces, trouble sleeping and frequent outbursts of weeping when they recall Wednesday’s events.

“Most of the people from the Christian colony in Jaranwala are afraid of returning home because of the unrest and uncertainty about their protections,” said community leader Akmal Bhatti.

“All this is triggering a sense of fear,” he added. “The majority of children are suffering psychological issues … Now, children and girls are afraid of people, they don’t want to go out in markets and crowded places.”

Government officials at the heavily-guarded shelter said they would let people stay as long as needed, adding that it has been staffed with doctors and nurses to provide support.

Non-government organisations estimate hundreds of people have been physically displaced with thousands of Christians in the area affected by the violence. Some are staying in makeshift shelters nearby, and others with relatives.

Kanwal and her mother, Kiran, are not sure how long the family will stay.

“My greatest wish now is that I want security,” said Kiran. “I want a safe place for my family to live in. The fear that has got embedded in my heart and my children’s minds is just not going away.”

A Hezbollah member and a Christian resident were killed in Wednesday’s exchange of fire in the village of Kahaleh, near Beirut, which began when a Hezbollah truck carrying ammunition turned over while driving through the area.

It was the deadliest confrontation between the Iran-backed Hezbollah and Lebanese who oppose it since clashes in Beirut two years ago, further rocking the stability of a country already suffering deep political and economic crises.

In his sermon on Sunday, cleric Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rai called for “all parties” and other elements of the country “to unite under the banner of the state, especially regarding the use of weapons”.

“It is not possible to live on one land with more than one state, more than one legitimate army, more than one authority, and more than one sovereignty,” Rai said, in an apparent reference to Hezbollah’s arsenal.

Hezbollah, founded by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in 1982, is Lebanon’s most powerful group. Its arsenal has long been a point of conflict in Lebanon, where its opponents accuse the group of undermining the state.

Lebanon has been suffering a four-year-long financial collapse that has marked its most destabilising episode since the 1975-90 civil war. It was caused by decades of corruption and profligate spending by ruling politicians.

A member of the Iran-backed Hezbollah and a resident of the mountain village of Kahaleh were killed in the clash, some 12 km (7 miles) southeast of Beirut, the sources said. The sides accused each other of starting the deadly clash.

It marked the most serious confrontation between Hezbollah and its Lebanese opponents since deadly clashes in Beirut nearly two years ago, threatening to worsen sectarian tensions as Lebanon is paralysed by deep political and economic crises.

Local lawmakers from the Lebanese Forces, a Christian party opposed to Hezbollah, accused the group of transporting weapons in the truck.

Hezbollah said the vehicle was its property and accused “militias” in the area of attacking its crew, saying a man “protecting the truck” was wounded and later died. In a statement, it said an exchange of fire had taken place with “the attacking gunmen”. It did not say what was on the truck.

The local office of the Lebanese Forces party accused “an armed group” accompanying the vehicle of firing at civilians, leading to the death of a man identified by the sources as a Christian resident of Kahaleh.

Fadi Bejjani, 64, was identified as the victim by his son Youssef, who told Reuters the pair had tried to get close to the truck after it flipped over.

“We were a meter away but couldn’t see what was inside the truck. At least three men started shooting at us – two with machine guns and one with a pistol. My dad fell to the ground but there was so much gunfire that we couldn’t get to him for three minutes,” Bejjani, 39, said.

The truck had overturned on a downhill turn near Kahaleh on the main road between Syria’s capital Damascus and Beirut. Residents swiftly shut down the road around it.

Nazih Matta, a parliamentarian representing the area from the Lebanese Forces party, accused Hezbollah of transporting weapons to Beirut on the truck. “A man from Kahaleh was killed – this is totally unacceptable,” Matta said in televised comments.

Abdo Abou Khalil, an official from Kahaleh, said residents intended to keep the road around the overturned truck closed.

MTV Lebanon and Lebanese broadcaster Al-Jadeed aired earlier footage of men in plainclothes shooting rifles in the street.

They later showed Lebanese troops deployed around the lorry at night while a crane worked to remove wooden crates from it.

The contents of the truck were not visible, but large groups of residents were still gathered around.

Lebanon’s caretaker premier Najib Mikati spoke to army commander General Joseph Aoun and called for “calm and wisdom” while a formal investigation takes place.

Hezbollah, founded by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in 1982, is Lebanon’s most powerful group. It has fought numerous conflicts with Israel and deployed fighters to support President Bashar al-Assad during the Syrian civil war.

Its arsenal has long been a point of conflict in Lebanon, where its opponents accuse the group of undermining the state.

Two years ago, seven people were killed – followers of the Hezbollah group and its ally, the Amal Movement – as they gathered for a demonstration against a judge investigating the 2020 Beirut port explosion. Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea at the time denied allegations by both parties that gunmen loyal to his party targeted them with sniper fire.

The 37-year-old biotech entrepreneur turned Republican presidential candidate has been steadily garnering support in a party dominated by conservative Christians. In many polls, he’s in third place behind former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and he is one of six candidates who have qualified for the first GOP presidential debate on Aug. 23.

He is also only the nation’s second Hindu presidential candidate. Tulsi Gabbard, the former Hawaii congresswoman, ran as a Democrat in 2020.

Ramaswamy shared 10 core beliefs as part of his campaign, with “God is real” topping the list followed by “There are two genders.” He cascaded into the limelight with his 2021 book “Woke Inc: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam,” a scathing critique of corporations that he says use social justice causes as a smokescreen for self-interested policies.

He became a regular commentator on Fox News and other conservative outlets, backing capitalism and meritocracy, and criticizing affirmative action, mask mandates and open borders. He is anti-abortion and believes gender dysphoria should be treated as a mental illness. He has expressed support for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, whose populist policies have been divisive.

On the campaign trail, Ramaswamy has leaned into his faith as he vies for the nomination of a party where evangelical Christian support is key. In speeches and casual conversations with these voters, he maintains that his religion has much in common with “the Judeo-Christian values this nation was founded on.”

“I’m an ardent defender of religious liberty,” he said in an interview with The Associated Press. “I will be an even more vocal and unapologetic defender of it precisely because no one is going to accuse me of being a Christian nationalist.”

While questions have been raised about his ability to appeal to conservative Christian voters, Ramaswamy said he has more in common with people of all faiths than those with no faith at all.

“I was raised in a belief system where there is one true God who empowers each of us with our own capacities,” he said. “As we say in the Hindu tradition, God resides in each one of us. In the Christian tradition, you say we’re all made in the image of God.”

The child of immigrants from southern India, Ramaswamy grew up in Cincinnati speaking Tamil at home with his religious parents who performed pujas — a form of worship rituals. He heard stories from Hindu epics, offered daily prayers to deities and attended temples in Dayton and Cincinnati. He and his wife, Apoorva, a physician, plan to raise their two sons as Hindus.

Ramaswamy said he was also deeply influenced by Christians. He cemented his anti-abortion stance while attending St. Xavier Catholic High School in Cincinnati, and learned a strong “Protestant work ethic” from his piano teacher of 10 years.

“The lessons learned being Hindu were similar and in many ways overlapping with Judeo-Christian values like sacrifice, performing your duty without attachment to the results and believing that your work on this Earth is not being done by you, but through you,” he said, adding these Hindu values seem to resonate with Christian and Jewish audiences.

Not all feedback from Christians has been favorable. Hank Kunneman, a pro-Trump pastor in Nebraska, attacked Ramaswamy’s faith during a recent sermon.

“What are we doing?” he asked his congregation. “You’re going to have some dude put his hand on something other than the Bible? You’re going to let him put all of his strange gods up in the White House?”

Ramaswamy dismissed Kunneman’s views as unrepresentative of most U.S. Christians.

“While my first reaction to such speech is one of frustration, the truth is I’m running to lead a nation…including those who disagree with me.”

His approach is drawing support from influential Christian leaders, including Bob Vander Plaats, who had a front-row seat for Ramaswamy’s recent campaign visit to Iowa. He said Ramswamy’s “common sense values and shared virtues” are the reasons he is being “very warmly received by audiences of faith.”

While Ramaswamy’s faith may not be ideal for some Christian voters, it comes down to making the best choice available, said Vander Plaats, president of a conservative group, The Family Leader.

“If we were to tailor-make a candidate, it would be someone who shares our faith,” he said. “But, I’d much rather see him (as president) than Joe Biden, Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom.”

Most Hindu Americans and Indian Americans, on the other hand, tend to vote Democratic and be progressive on social issues like abortion, immigration and LGBTQ rights. They are divided over Ramaswamy’s candidacy; some are particularly irked by his eagerness to equate Hindu and Christian teachings.

“He is taking great care to show a certain aspect of Hinduism without talking about mysticism and polytheism, which are core aspects of the religion,” said Karthick Ramakrishnan, founder of AAPI Data and a public policy professor at the University of California, Riverside.

Still, Ramaswamy is “feeding a certain need in the Republican party” and is getting attention because he is a novelty in ways that Andrew Yang was for Democrats in 2020, Ramakrishnan said. “He is among those candidates who may not have all those expected attributes or the experience … but through the power of their ideas, are able to get into the conversation.”

Ria Chakrabarty, policy director of Hindus for Human Rights, said she is concerned by Ramaswamy’s attempt to “package Hinduism in the family values mold, talking about it as a monotheistic religion to appeal to the Abrahamic faiths.”

“From a Hindu perspective, every person has a fundamental right to make a choice about how they want to access health care,” she said. “(Ramaswamy) saying unborn life is life, what does that mean policy-wise? It’s also worrying to see a Hindu feed into LGBTQ hate because Hinduism has a rich history when it comes to queerness.”

For other Hindu Americans who may disagree with Ramaswamy’s views, his candidacy still represents an important shift in American politics.

“I don’t share his politics by a mile,” said Sumit Ganguly, a political science professor at Indiana University. “But he is gutsy for not hiding his faith or converting to Christianity for political gain. This might not have been possible 10 years ago.”

Ramaswamy still has a steep hill to climb because most Americans know little about Hinduism, Ganguly said.

Suhag Shukla, executive director of the Hindu American Foundation, said that when Hindu Americans run for any office “it’s inspirational for kids to know they can be who they are and be proud of their heritage and values.”

Ramaswamy’s candidacy also reflects the growing political diversity within the Hindu community, Shukla said.

For Republican voters, Vander Plaats said Ramaswamy’s continued success hinges on distinguishing himself from the GOP front-runners. He compared Ramaswamy to Queen Esther in the Bible who was chosen by God to save the Jewish people from genocide:

“He needs to show us why this is his Esther moment.”

Finding a common ground on which the principles of the Republic and freedom of worship can coexist is something that must be arrived at without foreign interference.

Religious extremism is not exclusive to Muslims, as demonstrated by the actions of Buddhist zealots in Myanmar, Jewish fundamentalists in Israel, and Christian white supremacists in the US.

There are other examples but the focus in the past two decades has been on the various Islamist movements that have embraced a revisionist and violent dogma that is shunned by the majority of Muslims around the world. Neither Al-Qaeda nor Daesh is a true representation of what more than a billion Muslims believe and practice every day.

When French President Emanuel Macron last month said that “Islam is a religion which is experiencing a crisis today, all over the world,” he was in fact generalizing and creating a stereotype that is false, insulting and misleading. He is no authority on Islam as a religion and should draw a line between the faith that is embraced by billions of people, and what is now called “political Islam,” in its various manifestations.

What Macron should focus on instead is the state of France’s 5 million Muslim citizens, most of whom were born in the country. What he should investigate are the causes of radicalization among the nation’s Muslim youths.

His remarks angered Muslims all over the world and triggered calls for a boycott of French products. Sadly, on Oct, 16, not long after Macron’s speech, a young Chechen murdered a French teacher who had shown blasphemous cartoons to his students. On Oct. 29, a Tunisian immigrant attacked worshippers in a Catholic church in Nice, killing three of them.

These are revolting murders that are condemned by all, especially French Muslims. Nothing can justify the killing of innocent people in the name of religion — any religion.

Following the two incidents, Macron should have shown the moral leadership that is needed in a polarized society. Even before the terrible murders, he should have initiated dialogue with Muslim organizations in France with the aim of addressing the challenges a majority of French Muslims face, especially the state’s failure to integrate many of them into society. The mainstream organizations have embraced the principles of the Republic, including the separation of church and state, but those on the fringes feel left out and so are easy prey for extremists.

France has a Muslim problem and has had it for some time. There have been 36 terrorist attacks in the country attributed to Muslims in the past eight years. This week Macron said he understood the feelings of Muslims about the offensive cartoons.

“I understand and respect that we can be shocked by these caricatures,” he said. “I will never accept that we can justify physical violence for these caricatures and I will always defend in my country the freedom to say, to write, to think, to draw.”

Finding a common ground on which the principles of the Republic and freedom of worship can coexist is something that must be arrived at without foreign interference. It must be done through dialogue and cooperation, rather than incitement.

This week more than 20 European Muslim organizations called on the French president to end his “divisive rhetoric” and show moral leadership. In an open letter, they said that “maligning Islam and your own Muslim citizens, closing mainstream mosques, Muslim and humanitarian rights organizations, and using this as an opportunity to stir up further hatred, has given further encouragement to racists and violent extremists.”

The main issue for French Muslims is socioeconomic and has to do with schooling, social integration and economic opportunities. The state is right to curtail foreign intervention but it must also provide alternatives and give young French Muslims the opportunity to succeed. Even Macron, in his controversial speech, admitted that the country’s Muslim citizens have been let down by successive governments. He said that France has created its own “separatism” by dumping poorer people in suburban ghettos with poor-quality housing and few jobs.

Macron should be wary of unleashing waves of Islamophobia in France that would target millions of moderate and law-abiding Muslims. According to studies, only a minority of French Muslims embraces a radical, paranoid, anti-Western version of Islam.

For Macron and his ministers to talk about civil war, a fight to death and France under siege is not the right way to resolve the nation’s Islamist crisis.

Dark clouds are looming as the far right prepares to attempt to take over in coming elections, banking on rising hatred and distrust within French society.

On the other hand, one should not fall for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s opportunistic rhetoric targeting Macron. His tussle with the French president transcends religion and is purely political. Erdogan’s incitement is both dangerous and reckless. His controversial approach to regional politics has undermined his credibility both at home and abroad. His use of religion to mobilize followers seeks to divide and serves no good purpose.

Last Friday the French Council of the Muslim Faith circulated a sermon to mosques that said this: “The law of the Republic permits these cartoons but obliges no one to like them. We can even detest them. But nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies murder.”

This is the kind of message French Muslims should embrace.

Article first published in Arab News.

Osama Al-Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman. Twitter: @plato010

Living in a society in which different religions, cultures, languages and behaviours exist is a need of a human being. This kind of living in unison with different societies is known as Unity in diversity.

God has originated human beings to live peacefully, lovingly, without hatred and jealousy. We can learn from the life of Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him), how he lived in Mecca peacefully and united with the tribes of Mecca. Even in Medina he lived with the Jews to sustain peace among them.

We have to be tolerant and work along with the people who differ with us. There will be differences among people. But we have been ordered to keep up with them within the purview of Islamic Sharia rulings. If not then injustice, corruption, chaos, wrong doings and falsehood will prevail. Human societies based on pluralism will face problems of religious differences, cultural diversity and differences in values and ethics, due to the diversity of the institutional backgrounds of this plurality.

Problems can be dealt practically with awareness which will transform contradiction into integration, collision into coexistence, and intolerance into tolerance, or it can be dealt by manipulating with the emotions of the people, which will only add fuel to the fire and lead to destruction.

What is Coexistence?

Coexistence is that you are open-minded and pleased with the person who lives with you, that he lives by his doctrine, or his religion, or his group.

Establishing Peaceful coexistence—Realistic knowledge of self and of others

Man is an enemy of which he has no knowledge of and lack of knowledge makes one fanatic and irritable. Verily there are many incidents happened due to the lack of proper assessment like self-conceited attitude and belittlement of the others.

Some scholars said, “Verily we gathered many forums for religious conversations with Christians, so it made us realize that we did not understand each other properly, as we deal with them on the basis of what we know about them from our books, while many developments have occurred in their ideas and beliefs. The misunderstanding between us has complicated the crisis and expanded the split. It is our lack of understanding of others that puts us in systematic errors, and resulting in strategic mistakes”.

Tolerance

In this multicultural society, it is necessary for one to live with tolerance. We should not harm the people of other religion nor make their lives difficult whereas, we should tolerate with each other and live in peace.

God says in Quran (6:108), “Do not abuse those who invoke other than Allah, because they will abuse Allah in ignorance out of spite”.

Positive Dialogue

The only way to achieve this reconciliation (establishment of harmonious relations), is through dialogues, and dialogue is not through philosophical discourse, or winning over other’s opinion, and to triumph over it, and wanting the others to be defeated.

The dialogue that we propose and support is so, that we reach ideas that coexist in them without compromising on basic fundamentals of each group. The idea is to keep the fundamentals intact and come to terms with the others to live peacefully.

Dialogue is a legal matter, and it is derived from the Noble Quran. The term dialogue is mentioned thrice in the Quran. This shows the importance of dialogue and it is considered a fixed origin of the Islamic civilizations and a fundamental of Sharia law.

Civilization deals with tolerance, freedom, peace and tranquillity with all those who entered it. Therefore, it has made pluralism as a characteristic. Pluralism in religion, languages and sects and as a result of that a new culture has been evolved over time.

Any civilization in the world and any major country will accept pluralism, because if they intent to wipe out another civilization or other language or other religion, it will be self-destructive action. The downfall of any civilization begins when it eliminates the minorities in it. The power of great states or any civilization comes from the power of the minorities in them.

Importance of dialogue cannot be denied. Not only it is used for self-defence but rather as a step towards a peaceful mankind and building a single civilized conception for an integrated world. Positive and effective dialogue is achieved when both the parties opens up to each other and clears all the misunderstandings.

Coexistence is the building of the human civilization that we live in it. We live in this land, whether we are Muslims or non-Muslims, there is no difference in this. We all eat, we all drink, we all sleep, we all study, and we all learn and we all have our own rights in humanitarian matters.

Goals of Dialogue

Some of the important goals in dialogue are:

1. Search for commonalities with others to solve existing problems, or lessen their effects on man in our mission in essence.
2. Ensuring access to the truth, narrowing the gaps in the dispute as much as possible, and bringing views closer.
3. Responding to suspicions and appeals against Islam. In order to show Islam as it is of perfection and beauty.
4. Benefiting from the scientific achievements and civil progress of others.

Communication between religious groups

Knowledge about coexistence and communication deepens when one practically knows and experiences the culture of others, because the actual reality is more informative than theorizing, as many people take their positions on the basis of incomplete information and they are wronged and oppressed. And they may testify based on that information that is part of the truth, not all of them.

The media, for example, convey the information from their available angle, that is, of the cameraman or the viewer’s point of view, but there are still other angles that the media has not been able to access.

Genuine information about the people of any culture requires personal touch and to connect with the real people to know and understand the reality of their culture. Therefore, one of the means of consolidating (bringing together) a culture of joint coexistence is the exchange of visits and entry into the society concerned to know the rules that are based on it, and the systems by which it manages its affairs. 

Collaborative Activities

There are various fields which provide joint work among diverse people irrespective of their belief, culture, ethnicity, like human knowledge, economic activities, humanitarian aid for the war, natural disaster victims etc.

Implementing the joint programs by mutual cooperation with those who are affiliated to different religions, cultures and ethnicities will definitely give a practical model for co-existence. Such programs indeed broke many barriers and crossed many hurdles. 

Resolving conflict

That which strengthen the idea of co-existence is the strong resolve to be present between the people. Because lack of resolve is a reason for incoherence, conflict, division and disagreement.

And the need for peaceful coexistence should be a concern to everyone; be it an educator, preacher, citizen, journalist or politician. We all are required to be as much responsible in this regard.

One of the most important things is to establish a culture of tolerance, which is to know the factors of conflict and the causes of conflict and get rid of them so that the way is clear towards relations based on trust and sustainability.

Good neighbourliness

Peaceful coexistence is a great asset. One of the ways by which it can be promoted is by understanding the importance of good neighbourliness. Being good to the neighbour is necessary for living in a cohesive society. 

God says in Quran (4:36), “Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbour, the neighbour farther away, the companion at your side, the traveller, and those whom your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful.”

Good neighbourliness brought out the characteristics of the Muslims. Their kindness, behaviour and refrainment from harming their neighbour which made other people realize and bond with the Muslims.

Fulfilling the promise

It is important that every group of the society fulfils the agreement that was discussed among themselves for a peaceful living.

God says in Quran (17:34), “And fulfil [every] commitment. Indeed, the commitment is ever [that about which one will be] questioned”.

The Threats of Coexistence

Just as there are factors that promote peaceful coexistence, there are threats to it that must be recognized and addressed consciously. Among these are the following:

First Threat: Cultural Superiority

When a group of citizens exercise superiority over other groups on the basis that they have the sole right to the homeland and that their culture is superior over all others, this attitude would threaten the social fabric where others feel inferior to the dominant culture, and this would lead to the small groups’ apprehension because of its weakness, lack, strength, and abundance of others, for fear of absorption and melting, which makes them apprehensive of any activity carried out by others, interpreting it as targeting it and seeking to eradicate it.

Supremacy may be apparent or implied in social culture, it may be real or dead, and in all cases, it will be an obstacle and threatening the unity of the social fabric.

Second Threat: Inequality in Rights and Duties

If the state distinguishes its citizens according to belief, culture, race, or any difference other than giving, then this is considered the greatest threat to coexistence.

Third Threat: Provocation

A normal person respects and appreciates others because he has self-respect, and treats people as he likes others to treat him, just as he does not accept humiliation, and offense to himself. It is natural from him not to insult others and humiliate others. In any society, people need to respect each other. If people start to humiliate each other then it is difficult to live in coexistence and peace.

Once while a Jew was selling something, he was offered a price that he was not pleased with. So, he said, “No, by Him Who gave Moses superiority over all human beings!” Hearing him, an Ansari Muslim man got up and slapped him on the face and said, “You say: By Him Who Gave Moses superiority over all human beings although the Prophet (Muhammad) is present amongst us!”

The Jew went to the Prophet and said, “O Abu-l-Qasim! I am under the assurance and contract of security, so what right does so-and-so have to slap me?”

Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) asked the other, “Why have you slapped”. He told him the whole story.

The Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) became angry, till anger appeared on his face, and said, “Don’t give superiority to any prophet amongst Allah’s Prophets, for when the trumpet will be blown, everyone on the earth and in the heavens will become unconscious except those whom Allah will exempt.

“The trumpet will be blown for the second time and I will be the first to be resurrected to see Moses holding Allah’s Throne. I will not know whether the unconsciousness which Moses received on the Day of Tur has been sufficient for him, or has he got up before me. And I do not say that there is anybody who is better than Yunus bin Matta”.

Reference of this incident is the Hadith book of Sahih al-Bukhari. In this narration, Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) prevented his companion to prefer him over Moses in order to respect the feelings of the Jew and not to hurt him. 

Fourth Threat: Discrepancy in discourse within one group

There should be unity among the people who follow a particular religion. If differences exist among themselves, then it is difficult to live in coexistence with the people of the other religion.

Desired Coexistence

It has been proven that the difference is a universal reality and a divine will that cannot be abolished. Pluralism is a social necessity, and citizenship is a human right. We have to deal with this reality consciously, achieving unity in light of diversity and complementarity with pluralism and cooperation in the common denominations. To trust the following:

1. That the state in all its institutions embody the diversity upon which society is based.
2. Commitment to citizenship rights for all.
3. Ensuring freedom of belief and worship and preaching to all.
4. Establishing institutions for collaborative joint activities.
5. Adherence to the principles and values of the nation.
6. Justice in the distribution of rights.
7. Equal treatment.
8. Respect for excellence and quality in work.
9. The use of dialogue as a means to settle disputes.
10. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Freedom is priceless in the life of man. He should have freedom of religion, freedom of thought and expression and in his dealings. No one has the right to force or impose one’s thoughts on others.

Second caliph of Islam Umar al-Khattab said, “Since when did you start enslaving people, when their mothers gave birth to them free?”

Some practical steps to establish a peaceful society

1. Apart from religious programs, conducting workshops or seminars that focus on national issues in which personalities from all the communities take part.
2. To invite dignitaries of the community in our occasions like marriage and school functions.
3. Making our neighbours of the other religion as a part of our family occasions.
4. Paying a visit to their sick. 
5. To have good relations with the police and the members in the government.
6. Inviting them over to our iftar parties.
7. Organizing Eid Milan parties on Eid-ul-Fitr.
8. To distribute water bottles to the Police officers when they are in duty especially during summer.
9. There should be a committee to eradicate the misconceptions of Islam prevalent in the society by meeting the required people in person in order to throw light on the reality of Islam.
10. There should be a Peacemaker Committee in each and every area of the cities and the villages in our country, which consist of important personalities from various religions. 
11. Establish human rights centres.
12. Spread the welfare activities, feed the people, as food brings cultures together.

Conclusion

Abdullah bin Salam, a resident of Medina at the time of Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) narrated that, “When the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) arrived in Medina – the people came out to meet him. It was said that the Messenger of Allah had arrived, so I went among the people to get a look at him. When I gazed upon the face of the Messenger of Allah, I knew that this face was not the face of a liar. The first thing that he spoke about was that he said: ‘O you people! Spread the Salam, feed (others), and perform Salaat while the people are sleeping; you will enter Paradise with (the greeting of) Salam”.

Dr. R.K.Noor Mohammad is from south-Indian state of Tamil Nadu. He is PhD in Hadith Sciences from Islamic University of Madina, Saudi Arabia. He was awarded Gold Medal by the University for his research in 1991.

He is blind just because he is a Christian; and he lacks human dignity just because he is a Christian…

With the dust settling from a multitude of conflicts In the Balkans, Italian-Ottoman war, and the rise of the New Saudi state that started in 1902 and successfully gained more lands and support in the Arabian peninsula further aggravating the Turkish nationalist leading to internal turmoil the 1913 Treaty of London, signed between the victorious Balkan League nations and the Ottoman Empire, the Turks lost not only the Balkans, but also the Christians and Arabs living in the Middle East as well.

These factions had not been successfully assimilated to that of the Ottoman Empire for centuries, and following the successes of the new nation states, it was almost impossible for these Middle Eastern counterparts to the Balkan League to acquiesce the sultanate anymore.

The Young Turks were especially wary of Hellenism spreading from western Anatolia and the Black Sea regions to central Anatolia since the Greeks at the time were both economically stronger and more literate than the Turks.

Another significant minority within the Ottoman Empire with financial means were the Armenians.

The Young Turks believed these two Christian factions threatened the existence and power of the state, and their presence was a direct result of the tolerance of the previous Ottoman governments.

The Young Turks maintained that, with the influence of the Germans, the Christian minorities that were slowly becoming an economic and political power would eventually seize control of the state.

After the Second Balkan War, ended in 1913 a decision to destroy all Christian elements in Ottoman society and to seize and confiscate their wealth was made. A systematic plan to achieve this goal was implemented. Towards the autumn of 1913, local militias started to form.

While the militias were gearing up for possible clashes, the local inhabitants were subjected to intense propaganda against the Christian minorities. Journalists wrote inflammatory articles to radicalize the public.

Huseyin Kazim, a member of the pan-Islamist association, wrote:

“The existence of such infidels among us is an abscess for us and is a curse for our religion. Every relationship with them is a stain for us, and every connection is spiritual calamity.’

“Regardless of the standing of any Christian, for us, he is blind just because he is a Christian; and he lacks human dignity just because he is a Christian.”

Every possible method was employed to incite hatred against Christians, especially the Greeks. The state spread propaganda that as long as these Christian elements remained, Turkish people were destined to be poor. Muslims were doomed to live without safety or dignity, and the Turkish state was under tremendous danger.

The counties that seceded were coloured black on maps, and those maps were hung on school walls marked with the word “revenge”. The clergy and government mouthpieces spread vengeful and hateful rhetoric across the country.

The attacks launched against the Greeks in 1914 would target the Armenians a year later.

For the armed forces, Pan-Turanism almost became a new denomination; lower-ranking officers were taught Pan-Turanist theories.

For the Turkish Unionists, it was clear as day that the Arabs, who had resisted assimilation for centuries, could not be spared either. According to this mindset, Arabs, who evidently could not be Turkified, had to be humiliated with a huge blow to stop them from seceding.

The Arabs had never accepted Turkish rule and always demanded autonomy. They considered themselves as a noble race, being the proprietors of Islam and proud of the fact that the Quran was revealed in their language.

The abuses of Turkish officials who did not know Arabic or Arab culture angered many Arabs. Security forces suppressed all Arab protests with extreme force.

Among the Arabic-speaking regions, Syria stuck out like a sore thumb for the Turks. Syria had a wealthy class that was in correspondence with the politicians and business people of European countries.

Christians and Muslims living in Syria wanted to build and maintain a harmonious system for themselves in line with their multicultural past. The Turkish Unionists were bitter and annoyed of these attempts to secede and were waiting for an opportunity to implement their anti-Christian and anti-Arab policies in Syria.

The unionists had no intention of granting autonomy to the Arabs even at the expense of losing the hearts and minds of Arabs altogether. Lebanon, which had gained autonomous status with the support of the French, was the first target of the Turkish Unionists.

Lebanon’s autonomous status was abolished on Nov. 1, 1916, and the Christian administrator Ohannes Kuyumcuyan was removed to be replaced by Pan-Turkist Ali Munif. Istanbul deputy Salih Cimgöz said: “Lebanon become a part Turkey instead of being a cyst on (the Empire’s) body.”

The seizure of animals in Lebanon accompanied with a shortage of seed, resulted in mass starvation.

On March 10, 1917, during a congressional meeting, Lebanon deputy Emir Adil, speaking of the deaths of thousands, said: “We consider no difference between dynamite or bread when it comes to Lebanon and Beirut. For example, it is forbidden to transfer even one okka (about 1280 grams) of flour.”

The Ottoman government also seized camels in Syria, making it impossible to transfer trade goods to Lebanon.

Cemal Pasha, who played the leading role in the oppression of the Arabs, threatened bankers and merchants to keep the paper money and gold on par. When he rejected U.S. aid to the region, a large part of the population quickly vanished.

Cemal Pasha persecuted leaders in Syria, especially those holding higher positions in local governments and the educated.

Abdulhamit Zohravi, a member of the delegation of Ayan, and former deputy, Sefik al-Mawyid, was among 36 people executed on the orders of Cemal Pasha during this period. The families and relatives of those convicted were exiled from Syria to Anatolia, hence, wiping out the local leaders of the Syrian people.

Their crime, according to the military courts, was “forming an underground organisation”. The activity of the organisation was determined to be establishing relations with British and French diplomats in order to gain autonomy for Syria.

Military courts were closed to the public, they did not allow defendants to bring their own counsel, and verdicts were immediately carried out.

When Mecca’s Amir Hussain Pasha’s son, Faisal, made a plea to Cemal Pasha on behalf of prisoners, Cemal Pasha not only declined the request, but also ordered the arrest of Faisal for constituting a danger to the state.

Following these events, Mecca’s Amir Hussein, a descendant of Prophet Muhammad, declared his independence in July 1916 and occupied a large part of the Hijaz region. Hussein afterward restated his commitment to the Caliphate and the Sultanate. His rebellion was against the Turkish Unionists and he cited Cemal Pasha’s atrocities, including the persecution of the Christians.

Because of the oppressive security policies and the atrocities of Ottoman Empire officials, Arab nationalists (Pan Arabs) ended up cooperating with the British in Syria and Mesopotamia. Thus, the empire lost control two of the Ibrahimic sacred cities, slashing the clout of the caliphate in the region and denying the Sultans the status of God representative on earth.

400 years of strict centralized, racist, nationalist and oppressive policies cost the empire the hearts and minds of the people before the lands, even when fading into obscurity the Ottomans adapted a policy of genocide against the Christians and Arabs (Arminian Genocide, Safr Burlik, Great Famine of Mount Lebanon and The Greek genocide).

History, tends to keep repeating itself. As the Neo Ottoman aimed to hide the horrors that plagued the Ottoman empire’s history employing Islamists and pan Arabs who find themselves pawns in the game of Neo Ottomans ambitious plans to dominate and control the region and restore the Empire.

Khaled Homoud Alshareef holds PhD in Business and he earned Masters in Philosophy. He regularly tweets under @0khalodi0.

You have to show compassion and respect for others who hold non-Muslim beliefs

Nearly two decades after 9/11, America is washing its hands of the Middle East — a withdrawal that began with President Barack Obama and has accelerated under his successor, even as the Islamist threat persists.
The pullout of US troops from northern Syria, for example, raises legitimate fears of ISIS ­regrouping — as well as utterly hypocritical criticism from the very Obama-ites who presided over ISIS’s rise.

Lost amid the rancor that ­attends every Trumpian move, however, are the philosophical and theological crises that lie ­behind the Islamist threat.

“The War on Terror started 18 years ago,” says Sheik Mohammed al-Issa, the secretary-general of the Muslim World League, as we sit down for an ­interview in a Ritz Carlton penthouse suite overlooking Central Park. “What do we see now? Has terrorism shrunk or has it ­expanded? There is something wrong with the equation.”

The sheik isn’t opposed to counterterror operations. His point is that military action alone will never be enough to win a war of ideas.

Since assuming leadership of the Mecca-based league in 2016, the former Saudi justice minister has emerged as a force for Islamic moderation. His main project is to change how Muslims understand their own faith — in relation to other religions, to non-Mus­lim-majority states in the case of the Muslim diaspora and, ­especially, reason itself.

God’s reasonableness is a complex question, the subject of a vast theological library. In some strands of Islam, God is believed to be so utterly beyond human understanding that he can ­demand unreasonable violence.

Yet Issa is committed to an eminently reasonable vision of God. All three monotheistic faiths, he tells me, “agree on the existence of God, that he is the Lord of heaven and earth. And all three agree that God’s demands are reasonable. Whether we realize the reasonableness of God’s ­demands, whether we can fully penetrate into it, we all agree that his demands are reasonable.”

Whether Issa’s vision succeeds theologically is for Muslim scholars to judge. But its practical fruits are undeniable.

He has vowed to visit Auschwitz next year to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the camp’s liberation. And in a letter to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, he decried the Shoah as “an event whose horrors could not be denied or underrated by any fair-minded or peace-loving person” — no small step for a leader in a region where Holocaust-denial is part of the ­ideological air people breathe.

As important, Issa’s league regularly convenes Muslim imams and scholars to change their minds. “We talk to Muslims in non-Muslim countries,” he says. “We tell them to respect the constitutions of the countries where they live and likewise the culture. You have to show compassion and respect for others who hold non-Muslim beliefs.”

He has even called on our own Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar to promote Muslim integration and to renounce playing the Muslim “victim card.”

His efforts culminated in May in a statement drafted under his auspices and signed in Mecca by some 1,200 Islamic scholars. The Charter of Mecca declares that “all people … are equal under God,” and that Muslims have a special responsibility to “deter the promotion of hatred and the instigation of violence and terrorism.”

How far does Issa take the commitment to reasonable dialogue? He asks an aide to pull up a photo of the sheik standing next to Marine Le Pen, the French nationalist leader, who isn’t exactly known for charitable views of Islam.

“She is a friend now,” the sheik says. “She told me, ‘Why isn’t everyone else teaching what you teach?’ She has the right to say what she wants, especially when she said, ‘I’m not against the existence of Muslims. I have one point: I fear for the French culture, and I don’t want anyone to hurt our culture.’  ”

The sheik’s response: “Me, too” — he is protective of Saudi culture and so understands the non-Muslim majorities’ anxieties about Islam’s place in their societies.

“Those [Muslims] who do not agree with Western concepts,” Issa says, “they are free to leave. They can’t impose their ideologies on the majority. They can use channels like courts, parliaments and so on, but at the end of the day they have to ­respect the laws of the land.”

Fair, but is he also worried about the rise of aggressive secular liberalism in the West, the kind that seeks to banish faith, Islam as much as Christianity, from the public square? “Let’s assume the secularists vote that all religion is wrong,” Issa replies. “Are they going to resort to the same methods like Communism under Soviet Union, to ban all religion?”

Then he adds with a smile: “Look what happened to Soviet Communism 40 years later.”

Article first published on New York Post.

Sohrab Ahmari is NYPost’s op-ed editor. He tweets under @SohrabAhmari.

Hindus, who make up 80% of the Indian population, are major meat-eaters. Even only a third of the privileged, upper-caste Indians are vegetarian.

What are the most common myths and stereotypes about what Indians eat?

The biggest myth, of course, is that India is a largely vegetarian country.

But that’s not the case at all. Past “non-serious” estimates have suggested that more than a third of Indians ate vegetarian food.

If you go by three large-scale government surveys, 23%-37% of Indians are estimated to be vegetarian. By itself this is nothing remarkably revelatory.

But new research by US-based anthropologist Balmurli Natrajan and India-based economist Suraj Jacob, points to a heap of evidence that even these are inflated estimations because of “cultural and political pressures”. So people under-report eating meat – particularly beef – and over-report eating vegetarian food.

Taking all this into account, say the researchers, only about 20% of Indians are actually vegetarian – much lower than common claims and stereotypes suggest.

Hindus, who make up 80% of the Indian population, are major meat-eaters. Even only a third of the privileged, upper-caste Indians are vegetarian.

The government data shows that vegetarian households have higher income and consumption – are more affluent than meat-eating households. The lower castes, Dalits (formerly known as untouchables) and tribes-people are mainly meat eaters.

Vegetarian cities in India
Indore: 49%
Meerut: 36%
Delhi: 30%
Nagpur: 22%
Mumbai: 18%
Hyderabad: 11%
Chennai: 6%
Kolkata: 4%

(Average incidence of vegetarianism. Source: National Family Health Survey)

On the other hand, Dr Natrajan and Dr Jacob find the extent of beef eating is much higher than claims and stereotypes suggest.

At least 7% of Indians eat beef, according to government surveys.

But there is evidence to show that some of the official data is “considerably” under-reported because beef is “caught in cultural political and group identity struggles in India”.

Narendra Modi’s ruling Hindu nationalist BJP promotes vegetarianism and believes that the cow should be protected, because the country’s majority Hindu population considers them holy. More than a dozen states have already banned the slaughter of cattle. And during Mr Modi’s rule, vigilante cow protection groups, operating with impunity, have killed people transporting cattle.

The truth is millions of Indians, including Dalits, Muslims and Christians, consume beef. Some 70 communities in Kerala, for example, prefer beef to the more expensive goat meat.

Dr Natrajan and Dr Jacob conclude that in reality, closer to 15% of Indians – or about 180 million people – eat beef. That’s a whopping 96% more than the official estimates.

And then there are the stereotypes of Indian food.

Delhi, where only a third of residents are thought to be vegetarian, may well deserve its reputation for being India’s butter chicken capital.

But, the stereotype of Chennai as the hub of India’s “south Indian vegetarian meal” is completely misplaced. Reason: only 6% of the city’s residents are vegetarian, one survey suggests.

Many continue to believe that Punjab is “chicken loving” country. But the truth is that 75% of people in the northern state are vegetarian.

So how has the myth that India is a largely vegetarian country been spread so successfully?

For one, Dr Natrajan and Dr Jacob told me, in a “highly diverse society with food habits and cuisines changing every few kilometres and within social groups, any generalisation about large segments of the population is a function of who speaks for the group”.

“This power to represent communities, regions, or even the entire country is what makes the stereotypes.”

Also, they say, “the food of the powerful comes to stand in for the food of the people”.

• Cooking the world’s oldest known curry.
• The Indian street food bringing theatre to your plate.
• Why India is a nation of foodies.

“The term non-vegetarian is a good case in point. It signals the social power of vegetarian classes, including their power to classify foods, to create a ‘food hierarchy’ wherein vegetarian food is the default and is having a higher status than meat. Thus it is akin to the term ‘non-whites’ coined by ‘whites’ to capture an incredibly diverse population who they colonised.”

Migration

Secondly, the researchers say, some of the stereotype is enabled by migration.

So when south Indians migrate to northern and central India, their food comes to stand in for all south Indian cuisine. This is similarly true for north Indians who migrate to other parts of the country.

Finally, some of the stereotypes are perpetuated by the outsider – north Indians stereotype south Indians just by meeting a few of them without thinking about the diversity of the region and vice versa.

The foreign media, say the researchers, is also complicit “as it seeks to identify societies by a few essential characteristics”.

Chicken is thought to be the most popular form of meat eaten by Indians

Also, the study shows up the differences in food habits among men and women. More women, for example, say they are vegetarian than men.

The researchers say this could be partly explained by the fact that more men eat outside their homes and with “greater moral impunity than women”, although eating out may not by itself result in eating meat.

Patriarchy – and politics – might have something to do with it.

“The burden of maintaining a tradition of vegetarianism falls disproportionately on the women,” say Dr Natrajan and Dr Jacob.

Couples are meat eaters in about 65% of the surveyed households and vegetarians only in 20%. But in 12% of the cases the husband was a meat eater, while the wife was a vegetarian. Only in 3% cases was the reverse true.

Clearly, the majority of Indians consume some form of meat – chicken and mutton, mainly – regularly or occasionally, and eating vegetarian food is not practiced by the majority.

So why does vegetarianism exert a far greater influence on representations of India and Indians around the world? Does it have to do with “policing” of food choices and perpetuating food stereotypes in a vastly complex and multicultural society?

Article first published on BBC.