OPINION

Peace via conquest

Re: "Islamic head preaches message of peace", (Spectrum, April 15).

The example chosen by the Caliph of Islam, Mirza Masroor Ahmad, to illustrate the message of peace of Islam is quite illuminating. He clearly explains that peace is the condition achieved under Islamic rule, when each member of society remains committed to peace. It is useful then to remember that Islamic rule was expanded through war and conquest (such as in Mecca).

Conquered people were, indeed, under a treaty imposed by the conquerors (dhimma), conceded the right to continue to exercise their religion, and given an inferior social and economic status (dhimmi). Although you can try to argue that the dhimmi status provided protection against being killed outright, massacres and pogroms of dhimmi were in fact rather frequent throughout history. Remaining committed to peace means, quite precisely, remaining submitted to Islamic rule, or else.

I was interested to read in Spectrum, April 15, the message of peace by Mirza Masroor Ahmad.

Unfortunately many humans do not have a strong moral compass. This is manifested by the increase in obesity, corruption, discarding litter without thinking, and being easily attracted by temptation. I read a Chinese folk story which epitomises the thoughts of the Caliph of Islam. There were two neighbouring counties in China and the farmers on both sides grew some fruit. Relations between the neighbours were not very harmonious. One county always had good crops whereas those of the neighbour were often poor. One day the farmers whose crop was good found that their trees had been vandalised so they went to see the head to get permission to go to the other county at night to vandalise their crops. But the head was wise and told the farmers, "No, do not do that, but rather go to prune the trees in the neighbour's orchards and fertilise them so they can also get a good crop".

After this relations between the two counties were very good.

I agreed with Felix Qui, ("Morality of our rights", PostBag, April 16), until he said that if animals have a life free of suffering before being painlessly killed, it seems OK to enjoy the taste of their flesh. But if it's OK to painlessly rob non-human animals of their valued lives -- for something as trivial as taste bud pleasure -- shouldn't it likewise be OK to rob human animals of their valued lives for equally trivial reasons? But I'm sure none of us would agree with this. Not one of us would want our precious lives prematurely snuffed out -- and every animal feels the same.

And of course, none of the animals we kill for food are ever "painlessly killed". By the time they arrive at the slaughterhouse they will likely have endured a long, frightening, uncomfortable journey. They will be filled with panic as they smell death and hear the cries of those ahead of them. If the captive bolt isn't positioned correctly they may regain consciousness before their throats are cut and they will still be conscious when they are cut to pieces.

"Morality of our rights", (PostBag, April 16), might tend to fall on deaf ears. Other than religious leaders lecturing to their minions, I don't know how many adults appreciate being lectured on morality. Most adults know right from wrong, morality vs immorality, and know all about animal rights, life and death, the need to slaughter animals for food.

Mankind is in the process of exterminating itself by war, chemical warfare, factional warfare, and religious warfare. Until mankind understands morality toward its own, animal rights and other moralities will be on the second burner.

Contact: Bangkok Post Building 136 Na Ranong Road Klong Toey, Bangkok 10110 fax: +02 6164000 Email:

postbag@bangkokpost.co.th

All letter writers must provide full name and address.

All published correspondence is subject to editing at our discretion.