Features
Aims of war and what to do after war
- /home/u249204778/domains/spectator.com.gh/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 27
Warning: Trying to access array offset on false in /home/u249204778/domains/spectator.com.gh/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 27
&description=Aims of war and what to do after war', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
- Share
- Tweet /home/u249204778/domains/spectator.com.gh/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 72
Warning: Trying to access array offset on false in /home/u249204778/domains/spectator.com.gh/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 72
&description=Aims of war and what to do after war', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
Why is Russia fighting Ukraine? One will ask. Nations at war are usually called upon for a definition of their war aims. In our own life what are we fighting for? To which the answer will be; we are fighting for freedom, for peace and security, for the rights of men and women everywhere.
These are good words, it is true, and they have deep meaning for each of us; but certainly they don’t mean the same thing to all people. Russia claims to fight for its security and so is Ukraine at this very moment.
And they have been so carelessly used that sometimes, and in some places, they may have stood in danger of becoming mere words. And so, suppose for a moment we try to simplify the answer, the answer to the question “What are we fighting against and what are we fighting for?” To reduce it to its simplest terms, there is only one enemy in the world that any man has, and that enemy is evil. Evil plays many roles and assumes many disguises and makes its way sometimes into the most unexpected places. It isn’t always an easy thing to put your finger on it, because sometimes evil appears to be so utterly respectable.
Perhaps this isn’t, simplifying the question at all. Perhaps it is complicating it, but the fact remains that our fight must be against evil, and for a world and a way of life that will be free from evil, the evil that opposes truth; the evil that causes a man or a nation to covet what another has; the evil that beckons to indulgence in forbidden things; the evil that causes a nation or a people to forget its principles and ideals, and to disregard the commandments of God.
Global war, so called, is even more global than we suspect, for, while there are objectives to be won in well-defined geographic areas, evil is no respecter of geography, no respecter of boundaries.
It recognises no neutrality. It is the same evil that the world has always had to fight, since the beginning of time, and before, the evil that has written on the pages of history concerning nations that could win a war on a distant front and lose it in their own hearts, in their own lives, and in their own homes. And so, in answer to the question “What are we fighting for?” We are fighting for the destruction of evil. Wherever we find it, and we must no longer tolerate it among ourselves than we do among our enemies.
In the observance of war’s end, feelings long pent-up have broken loose, with some relief, with some satisfaction, and with many varieties of expression, both thoughtful and hilarious. And now, we have been called to prayer and to thanksgiving, with sober reflection upon all the causes that took us where we were, that brought us where we are, and that may keep us going where we ought to go. After a war has started it seems to be much too late, for a time at least, to think how it might have been prevented.
The immediate fact of force must be met by force. But now we may well profit by looking both backward and forward, and we may well remember that essentially we are still the same people we were yesterday — even if somewhat sobered; and, being the same people, if we are forgetful, we may lapse into the same ways that twice in one generation have led us where we didn’t want to go. We have been prayerful at war.
We have sought the Lord God for His help, for the protection of our loved ones, for their safe return, for the favour of our cause, for deliverance from death and danger. War often drives men to extremes, in prayer and in other things and some of our prayers came by fear and dire need and of such the Lord God has given us pointed reminder: “In the day of their peace they esteemed lightly my counsel; but, in the day of their trouble, of necessity they feel after me.”It is not so difficult to be humble in trouble, but it is exceedingly difficult to be humble in triumph. And this we need to be. Mercifully, the Lord has answered the prayers of our extremity; He has helped us to achieve the moral and the material strength to do what has been done. As a people we have been granted deliverance as real as any recorded anciently in Holy Writ. Now, the opportunity is ours to fulfil in peace some of the promises we have made to ourselves and to our God while war was breathing upon us the hot breath of necessity.
War destroys many things, but it does not destroy its own basic causes; but it multiplies the problems of peace, which were great beyond measure even before war added to them. And only by the help of God and in conformance with His ways can we hope to solve the problems and avoid the pitfalls of the future. And so with full hearts we remember before God those who have given their lives, and to dedicate ourselves “to follow in His ways,” praying that God “will support and guide us into the paths of peace.” It is so easy to forget, but so costly and so stupid. Our Father who are in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name: May we in peace have the prayerful humility that will be deserving of the deliverance thou hast again given us.
There is a culture that permeates all aspects of leadership in the advanced countries which I believe has contributed to the success in all aspects of their national lives. Citizens strive to excel so that they will not find themselves in a situation where they would have failed, to necessitate a decision to resign.
Countries where failure is frowned upon, it pushes the citizens to strive for success. In our part of the world, failure and mediocrity has become an accepted norm and therefore, there is no shame in failing in a particular position of leadership.
A head of an organisation mismanages the place and he does not see the need for him to resign. The appointing authority does not also see the need to sack him and so the merry go round continues.
It becomes friends and family as usual and if care is not taken, the rest of the world will leave us far, far behind.
The practice of resignation in parts of the world for failure in some parts of the world has to be institutionalised in our country too. It encourages the principle of accountability which is good for any organisation, sector of an economy or a country.
It promotes good governance, a necessary ingredient in the growth of the economy of any country.
When this practice becomes a culture, every individual, privileged to hold a position of trust, gives his or her full attention to the job assigned him or her, to ensure that objectives are achieved.
This trickles down to every individual down the chain of command and there are no rooms for errors.
That is how efficient systems are built over time and this is the difference between advanced nations and third world countries.
Where systems are designed such that people take responsibility for things that go wrong under their supervision or ultimate responsibility, there is evidence of development.
There are a few people that I admire in Ghana as far as this culture of resignation based on principled stance. One of them is the late Mrs Emma Mitchell. She was a cabinet member but chose to resign after the confrontation between late President Jerry Rawlings and late Vice President Kow Akaah.
She was not prepared to be part of a cabinet which was lying to the general public that Rawlings did not assault Akaah.
She was of the conviction that telling the truth is more honourable than telling lies and that if she was bound by confidentiality oaths to tell a lie, then she would resign and she did exactly that.
That is how we build a culture of truth and accountability. We have people in positions who have not lived up to expectation but are still holding on to their positions not prepared to let go of it.
This is a clear case of display of selfishness, trying to be a Boss instead of a Servant to serve the people, which leadership is all about.
The ineffectiveness of some leaders, often result in waste of resources which could have been channeled to other sectors of the economy which could have been more productive. A culture of voluntary resignation must be advocated for by all stakeholders, especially the CSOs, traditional leaders and the clergy.
This is the only way the needed growth in every sector of our national life would manifest.
Presidents, Prime Ministers, heads of reputable organisations have voluntarily resigned by taking ultimate responsibility and it is about time, we started seeing it manifest in our country.
The people in charge of our sports especially our soccer, can initiate this long desired culture and resign in view of the embarrassment witnessed from the defeat of the Black Stars by Gambia. God bless.
BY LAUD KISS-MENSAH
SKIP THE QUEUE, TAP THE NEWS
You can now read the Ghanaian Times and The Spectator newspapers from the comfort of your device via TimesNewsPlus.
Join our WhatsApp Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBElzjInlqHhl1aTU27
THE QUR’AN FORBIDS RELIGIOUS PROVOCATION
There is a remarkable verse in the Qur’an which every Muslim preacher should memorise.
Allah says:
“And do not insult those they invoke besides Allah, lest they insult Allah in hostility without knowledge.” (Qur’an 6:108).
Think about this carefully.
Allah knows that the unbelievers worship false gods.
Yet Allah tells Muslims: Do not insult their objects of worship.
Why?
Because your speech may provoke an even greater offence.
This establishes a profound principle:
A Muslim must not fight religious provocation with religious provocation.
If someone insults what we hold sacred, we do not respond by insulting what they hold sacred.
If someone attacks Islam, we defend Islam with knowledge.
If someone misrepresents Muhammad (pbuh), we explain who is Muhammad to him.
If someone lies about Islam, we answer with truth and knowledge.
We do not allow another person’s bad behaviour to dictate our own morality.
LOOK AT MUHAMMAD (PBUH) — HE WAS INSULTED BEFORE WE WERE
Servant of Allah,
Sometimes we speak as though the Prophet (pbuh) lived in a world where everyone respected him.
No.
He was mocked and insulted. Quran 37:36, Quran 15:6
He was called a liar, magician, and a mad man. Quran 51:52, Quran 17:47
He was ridiculed. Quran 6:10
His followers were tortured, and some were killed. Quran 85:8-10
He himself was persecuted, leading to his migration to Madina.
Yet he remained the Messenger of Allah.
Allah said:
“Indeed, we know that your heart is distressed by what they say.” (Qur’an 15:97)
Allah acknowledged the Prophet’s pain.
Islam does not say that insults do not hurt. They hurt.
But the question is: What do you do with the pain?
THE DAY OF TA’IF: WHEN THE PROPHET (PBUH) COULD HAVE CHOSEN
REVENGE
One of the most powerful examples is the journey of the Prophet (pbuh) to Ta’if.
He went seeking support for his message.
Instead, the people rejected him and incited their children and others against him.
He was chased.
He was insulted.
He was struck with stones until his feet bled.
He was physically and emotionally exhausted.
Then the Angel of the Mountains came to him.
The two angels offered to crush the people of Ta’if between the mountains.
The Prophet (pbuh) could have said: “Do it.”
But he did not.
Instead, he hoped that Allah would bring from their descendants people who would worship Him.
This account is recorded in the authentic hadith literature, including Sahih Muslim (Muslim, 1795).
What a lesson!
The Prophet (pbuh) had suffered injustice.
But he did not turn his pain into indiscriminate revenge.
He saw beyond the offender.
He saw the possibility of tomorrow.
And this is one of the greatest characteristics of prophetic leadership:
The Prophet (pbuh) did not merely ask, “What punishment does this person deserve?”
He also asked, in effect: “What can this person become?”
THE PROPHET IN MADINAH: LEADER OF A DIVERSE SOCIETY
When Muhammad (pbuh) migrated to Madinah, he did not enter an empty city.
Madinah contained different communities, including Muslims and Jews, and there were also Christians who interacted with the Muslim community.
The Prophet became the political and communal leader of Madinah.
The Sahifah (A Covenant) of Madinah, preserved in the early sīrah (Prophet’s biography) tradition, established arrangements concerning mutual obligations, security, justice and relations among the communities of the city.
This is important:
The Prophet did not build Madinah by teaching Muslims to hate everyone who was not Muslim.
He built a society governed by covenant, responsibility and justice.
Allah says:
“Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just to those who have neither fought you because of your religion nor driven you from your homes. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Qur’an 60:8)
This is not weakness.
This is Islam.
THE PROPHET DEALT WITH JEWS IN MADINAH
‘A’ishah (Wife of the Prophet) narrated that the Prophet (pbuh) bought food from a Jewish man on credit and gave him his iron armour as collateral.
“The Prophet purchased food from a Jew on credit and mortgaged his iron armour to him.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 2068)
Think about it.
This was Muhammad.
The Messenger of Allah.
Yet he conducted lawful commercial dealings with a Jewish citizen.
He did not say: “He is not a Muslim, therefore I cannot deal with him.”
No.
Islam gave him a relationship governed by justice and trust.
Jabir رضيهللاعنه narrated:
“A funeral procession passed before us and the Prophet (pbuh) stood up, and we stood with him. We said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, it is the funeral of a Jew.’ He said: ‘When you see a funeral procession, stand.’” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 1311)
Another narration records his response: “Is it not a soul?” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 1312–1313)
What kind of heart did Muhammad (pbuh) possess?
A heart that recognised human dignity even in death.
THE PROPHET AND THE CHRISTIANS OF NAJRAN
The Prophet also received the Christian delegation of Najran.
They disagreed with him theologically.
Yet when they requested a trustworthy person, he did not choose someone because of hatred.
He selected Abu ‘Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah.
The Prophet said:
“I shall send with you a man who is truly trustworthy.”
He then appointed Abu ‘Ubaydah.
This is authentically reported in Sahih al-Bukhari 4380–4381.
Notice something profound:
The Prophet could disagree with people without becoming dishonest toward them.
That is the standard we need today.
The author is the chief Imam of Katamanso Municipal and Certified Counsellor and Governance Expert.
