Kgosi Linchwe II: A response to Sandy Grant�s rejoinder
Columns
Ndulamo Anthony Morima
EAGLE WATCH
Last week I wrote an article entitled “Remembering the unwanted: Kgosi Linchwe II (1935-2007)”. The article has attracted a rejoinder from one of our country’s renowned historians and writers, Sandy Grant. I am indebted to him for his informative rejoinder to which I respond hereunder.
But before that, I wish to note that any subject, to the extent it is based on accounts from different sources and by individuals with varying experiences and preferences, may have conflicting accounts. Such is the nature of history, the basis for my article on Linchwe.
That notwithstanding, considering that Grant had first hand interactions with Linchwe and several of the people and incidents I relate in the said article, his version is likely to be more reliable than mine. After all, compared to Grant I am a novice in the field of History and I was only born yesterday. But, for most of the facts in the said article I rely on information from a historian and writer of Grant’s class, Dr. Jeff Ramsay.
Firstly, Grant asks “If Chief Molefi took Linchwe out of the Emmerentia school in Warbaths because he didn’t want him to turn into a Boer, it needs to be explained …why he was ever sent there in the first place?”
This is indeed a good question since there seems to be a contradiction. The only answer, which needs verification through primary sources of history, could be that he changed his mind after actual experiences of apartheid which he hitherto may not have actually experienced.
Secondly, Grant raises issue with my assertion that “It is regrettable that Linchwe’s gesture notwithstanding, the Kgatleng District Council only officially lifted the ZCC ban in 1968”. The essence of this assertion is not to cast aspersions on Linchwe, but to cast aspersions on Kgatleng District Council which only lifted the ZCC ban in 1968, two years after Linchwe re-introduced the ZCC to Mochudi for his wedding in 1966.
I am indebted to Grant’s exposition that “in reality, the District Council agreed in 1968 that under the Constitution, the ZCC could not (be) banned, or indeed unbanned.” It is worth noting that if this was indeed Kgatleng District Council’s view it was misled because our recognition of the freedoms of association and religion even predate the Constitution.
Thirdly, Grant states that “whilst Kgosi Linchwe approved and supported projects, he tended not to initiate them. The one exception was the Mochudi library which he established together with Naomi Mitchison”.
I concede to this point because, as a Kgosi who had many advisors and who subscribed to the idea that Kgosi ke Kgosi ka Batho, Linchwe is likely to have got the ideas for the community’s projects from his advisors and his people. That notwithstanding he deserves commendation because other leaders receive advise from their advisors and people, but disregard such advise.
To the extent Grant states that “the Mochudi Community Centre was established by Martin Ennals and a Committee in London with myself as its first Secretary/Warden… One of its twin roles was to act as a transit centre for refugees from South Africa. Renamed the Kgatleng Development Board – to reflect changed priorities – the project ceased to have any involvement with refugees” he cannot be controverted for he is, in this case, a primary source.
Fourthly, Grant asserts that “the Centre was not established through Linchwe's contacts with Martin Ennals, who would later go on to found Amnesty International. The link, in fact, was Naomi Mitchison who had attended Linchwe's 1963 installation. It was she who helped to carry through Martin Ennal’s concern in London about refugees by introducing him to Linchwe”. I am indebted to Grant for this clarification.
Fifth, Grant states that “Amnesty International was founded by Peter Benenson in 1961… Martin Ennals became its second General Secretary in 1967”. He is right. To add, Peter Benenson was a British lawyer and, according to Amnesty International (AI)’s website, AI was founded “…following the publication of the article "The Forgotten Prisoners" in The Observer (of) 28 May 1961.”
Sixth, Grant states that “Linchwe II School was… started by Henderson Tlhoiwe. I am open to correction.” Even if Linchwe II School was started by Henderson Tlhoiwe the fact is that without Linchwe’s support the school would not have been built. No wonder it is named after Linchwe.
Seventh, Grant opines that “I much doubt, and regard as highly improbable, the statement that a door of the Dutch Reformed Church in Mochudi ever had a ‘whites only’ sign.” I served my Tirelo Sechaba in Bokaa village in Kgatleng in the mid-90s and several elderly people gave me account of this and stated that during the apartheid era the Dutch Reformed Church did not only have racist elements, but also had gender discrimination tendencies.
Eighth, in relation to my statement that “Linchwe’s sister, Tshire, did not help matters when she openly campaigned for the BPP candidate” Grant asks the question ‘Help who?’ and opines that “this is an extraordinarily subjective comment. Surely there will be others who would argue the opposite!”
The statement that Tshire did not help matters when she openly campaigned for the BPP candidate means that it exacerbated the belief that Linchwe and/or the royal family were involved in partisan politics. That this is a subjective comment and others would argue the opposite is true for that is the nature of a social science as the one under review.
Ninth, Grant requires either Dr. Ramsay or me to provide the source of the information that “Dr. Kenneth Koma was allowed to use Linchwe’s office, where he wrote Pamphlet No. 1.” I quoted Dr. Ramsay in his article published in the Sunday Standard’s edition of 26th August 2007. Just like Grant, Dr. Ramsay is a renowned historian and writer and I have no reason to doubt his account.
Tenth, Grant states that “Morima, again quoting Ramsay, is incorrect in stating that, “Linchwe acquiesced despite Ruele’s strong protests, to the use by an independent candidate, Sandy Grant, of the Bakgatla totem, a monkey as his election symbol. Grant, however, agreed to give up the symbol.”
Grant continues to say “in reality, as should have always been obvious, I could never have used the Kgabo as my election symbol unless Kgosi Linchwe had specifically approved the idea.” There is no variance between our account and Grant’s since we said “Linchwe acquiesced…” meaning that he agreed to Grant’s use of the Kgabo despite Ruele’s strong protests.
Otherwise, I am indebted to Grant for enriching our history by stating that “Whilst Ruele may well have objected to Kgosi Linchwe, his more pertinent objection was made to Festus Mogae who was then Superintendent of Elections. Mogae had previously accepted my choice of symbol as being legally permissible. He was soon to tell me, however, that he had heard Ruele’s objections and had decided to support him, despite his earlier decision.”
Grant is right that “surprisingly it has not become a matter of debate that a chosen electoral symbol could be rejected whilst being legally acceptable.” Over and above debate, this is a matter that could have been better served had Grant taken it to the courts of law so that judicial precedent is set on the matter.
Eleventh, Grant quotes me when I wrote that “In 1975 he (Linchwe) attempted to revive the male and female initiation practices of bogwera and bojale.” According to Grant this leaves the reader guessing. “Either he did or didn’t – was his attempt, as implied, a failure? Or did the ‘attempt' succeed?”
I wish to apologise to my readers for leaving them guessing. The intention of this statement was to show that though he revived the practices the practices later ceased to take place as they used to. It will be remembered that when his son and successor, Kgosi Kgafela II, took over he also tried to revive the practices, with little success.
Twelfth, Grant takes issue with my statement that “perhaps because of Mma Seingwaeng’s influence, Linchwe was also pro-women’s' rights and empowerment… In 1964 he allowed women to fully participate in kgotla meetings”.
It is true, as Grant asserts, that “In 1964 Linchwe was still unmarried but was very much influenced by Naomi Mitchison, an internationally known feminist and author… MmaSeingwaeng has not been widely known, bojale aside, as a pro-feminist.”
It is equally true that MmaSeingwaeng, having been born and bred in South Africa during the apartheid era, is likely to have been conscious not only of the evils of racism, but also of the evil of gender discrimination. She, therefore, is likely to have brought such influence to bear on Linchwe.
Certainly, Naomi Mitchison cannot have been the only influence on Linchwe in as far as women’s' rights are concerned. Grant himself admits this when he says “pinning down influence is always tricky and bound to be speculative.”
Thirteenth, Grant takes issue with my statement that “the stain in his reign remains the 1994 riots following the alleged ritual killing of a school girl, Segametsi Mogomotsi. According to Grant this statement is not credible and it is ridiculous. In his view, by making the statement, I did Linchwe a major injustice.
I apologise if that is the effect of my statement. The purpose of my article was to celebrate the hero that Linchwe remained until his death. By making the statement I was not in any way suggesting that Linchwe did anything wrong. No doubt, to promote law and order, Linchwe was right in appealing for the Police to be given time to investigate the murder. In fact he needs to be commended for averting a crisis.
But the truth is, some people lost confidence in him because they believed that he was protecting the Police. Some even made the unsubstantiated and regrettable allegations that he was involved in Segametsi Mogomotsi’s murder, an allegation that has never been proved.
Columns
GONE FISHING
In recent years, using personal devices in working environments has become so commonplace it now has its own acronym, BOYD (Bring Your Own Device). But as employees skip between corporate tools and personal applications on their own devices, their actions introduce a number of possible risks that should be managed and mitigated with careful consideration. Consider these examples:
Si-lwli, a small family-run business in Wales, is arguably as niche a company as you could find, producing talking toys used to promote the Welsh language. Their potential market is small, with only some 300,000 Welsh language speakers in the world and in reality the business is really more of a hobby for the husband-and-wife team, who both still have day jobs. Yet, despite still managing to be successful in terms of sales, the business is now fighting for survival after recently falling prey to cybercriminals. Emails between Si-Iwli and their Chinese suppliers were intercepted by hackers who altered the banking details in the correspondence, causing Si-Iwli to hand over £18,000 (around P ¼ m) to the thieves. That might not sound much to a large enterprise, but to a small or medium business it can be devastating.
Another recent SMB hacking story which appeared in the Wall Street Journal concerned Innovative Higher Ed Consulting (IHED) Inc, a small New York start-up with a handful of employees. IHED didn’t even have a website, but fraudsters were able to run stolen credit card numbers through the company’s payment system and reverse the charges to the tune of $27,000, around the same loss faced by Si-Iwli. As the WSJ put it, the hackers completely destroyed the company, forcing its owners to fold.
And in May 2019, the city of Baltimore’s computer system was hit by a ransomware attack, with hackers using a variant called RobinHood. The hack, which has lasted more than a month, paralysed the computer system for city employees, with the hackers demanding a payment in Bitcoin to give access back to the city.
Of course, hackers target governments or business giants but small and medium businesses are certainly not immune. In fact, 67% of SMBs reported that they had experienced a cyber attack across a period of 12 months, according to a 2018 survey carried out by security research firm Ponemon Institute. Additionally, Verizon issued a report in May 2019 that small businesses accounted for 43% of its reported data breaches. Once seen as less vulnerable than PCs, smartphone attacks are on the rise, with movements like the Dark Caracal spyware campaign underlining the allure of mobile devices to hackers. Last year, the US Federal Trade Commission released a statement calling for greater education on mobile security, coming at a time when around 42% of all Android devices are believed to not carry the latest security updates.
This is an era when employees increasingly use their smartphones for work-related purposes so is your business doing enough to protect against data breaches on their employees’ phones? The SME Cyber Crime Survey 2018 carried out for risk management specialists AON showed that more than 80% of small businesses did not view this as a threat yet if as shown, 67% of SMBs were said to have been victims of hacking, either the stats are wrong or business owners are underestimating their vulnerability. A 2019 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers suggests the latter, stating that the majority of global businesses are unprepared for cyber attacks.
Consider that a workstation no longer means a desk in an office: It can be a phone in the back of a taxi or Uber; a laptop in a coffee shop, or a tablet in an airport lounge. Wherever the device is used, employees can potentially install applications that could be harmful to your business, even from something as seemingly insignificant as clicking on an accidental download or opening a link on a phishing email. Out of the physical workplace, your employees’ activities might not have the same protections as they would on a company-monitored PC.
Yet many businesses not only encourage their employees to work remotely, but assume working from coffee shops, bookstores, and airports can boost employees’ productivity. Unfortunately, many remote hot spots do not provide secure Wi-Fi so if your employee is accessing their work account on unsecured public Wi-Fi, sensitive business data could be at risk. Furthermore, even if your employee uses a company smartphone or has access to company data through a personal mobile device, there is always a chance data could be in jeopardy with a lost or stolen device, even information as basic as clients’ addresses and phone numbers.
BOYDs are also at risk from malware designed to harm and infect the host system, transmittable to smartphones when downloading malicious third-party apps. Then there is ransomware, a type of malware used by hackers to specifically take control of a system’s data, blocking access or threatening to release sensitive information unless a ransom is paid such as the one which affected Baltimore. Ransomware attacks are on the increase, predicted to occur every 14 seconds, potentially costing billions of dollars per year.
Lastly there is phishing – the cyber equivalent of the metaphorical fishing exercise – whereby cybercriminals attempt to obtain sensitive data –usernames, passwords, credit card details –usually through a phoney email designed to look legitimate which directs the user to a fraudulent website or requests the data be emailed back directly. Most of us like to think we could recognize a phishing email when we see it, but these emails have become more sophisticated and can come through other forms of communication such as messaging apps.
Bottom line is to be aware of the potential problems with BOYDs and if in doubt, consult your IT security consultants. You can’t put the own-device genie back in the bottle but you can make data protection one of your three wishes!
Columns
“I Propose to Diana Tonight”
About five days before Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed landed in Paris, General Atiku, a certain Edward Williams was taking a walk in a woods in the Welsh town of Mountain Ash. Williams, then 73, was a psychic of some renown. He had in the past foretold assassination attempts on US President Ronald Reagan, which occurred on March 30, 1981, and Pope John Paul II, which came to pass on May 13, 1981.
As he trudged the woods, Williams had a sudden premonition that pointed to Diana’s imminent fate as per Christopher Andersen’s book The Day Diana Died. “When the vision struck me, it was as if everything around me was obscured and replaced by shadowy figures,” Williams was later to reminisce. “In the middle was the face of Princess Diana. Her expression was sad and full of pathos. She was wearing what looked like a floral dress with a short dark cardigan. But it was vague. I went cold with fear and knew it was a sign that she was in danger.”
Williams hastily beat a retreat to his home, which he shared with his wife Mary, and related to her his presentiment, trembling like an aspen leaf as he did so. “I have never seen him so upset,” Mary recounted. “He felt he was given a sign and when he came back from his walk he was deeply shaken.”
The following day, Williams frantically sauntered into a police station to inform the police of his premonition. The officer who attended to him would have dismissed him as no more than a crackpot but he treated him seriously in view of the accuracy of his past predictions. He took a statement and immediately passed it on to the Special Branch Investigative Unit.
The report read as follows:
“On 27 August, at 14:12 hrs, a man by the name of Edward Williams came to Mountain Ash police station. He said he was a psychic and predicted that Princess Diana was going to die. In previous years, he has predicted that the Pope and Ronald Reagan were going to be the victims of assassination attempts. On both occasions he was proved to be correct. Mr Williams appeared to be quite normal.”
Williams, General, was spot-on as usual: four days later, the princess was no more.
Meanwhile, General, even as Dodi and Diana were making their way to the Fayed-owned Ritz Hotel in central Paris, British newspapers were awash with headlines that suggested Diana was kind of deranged. Writes Andrew Morton in Diana in Pursuit of Love: “In The Independent Diana was described as ‘a woman with fundamentally nothing to say about anything’. She was ‘suffering from a form of arrested development’. ‘Isn’t it time she started using her head?’ asked The Mail on Sunday. The Sunday Mirror printed a special supplement entitled ‘A Story of Love’; The News of the World claimed that William had demanded that Diana should split from Dodi: ‘William can’t help it, he just doesn’t like the man.’ William was reportedly ‘horrified’ and ‘doesn’t think Mr Fayed is good for his mother’ – or was that just the press projecting their own prejudices? The upmarket Sunday Times newspaper, which had first serialised my biography of the princess, now put her in the psychiatrist’s chair for daring to be wooed by a Muslim. The pop-psychologist Oliver James put Diana ‘On the Couch’, asking why she was so ‘depressed’ and desperate for love. Other tabloids piled in with dire prognostications – about Prince Philip’s hostility to the relationship, Diana’s prospect of exile, and the social ostracism she would face if she married Dodi.”
DIANA AND DODI AT THE RITZ
Before Diana and Dodi departed the Villa Windsor sometime after 16 hrs, General, one of Dodi’s bodyguards Trevor Rees-Jones furtively asked Diana as to what the programme for the evening was. This Trevor did out of sheer desperation as Dodi had ceased and desisted from telling members of his security detail, let alone anyone else for that matter, what his onward destination was for fear that that piece of information would be passed on to the paparazzi. Diana kindly obliged Trevor though her response was terse and scarcely revealing. “Well, eventually we will be going out to a restaurant”, that was all Diana said. Without advance knowledge of exactly what restaurant that was, Trevor and his colleagues’ hands were tied: they could not do a recce on it as was standard practice for the security team of a VIP principal. Dodi certainly, General, was being recklessly by throwing such caution to the winds.
At about 16:30, Diana and Dodi drew up at the Ritz Hotel, where they were received by acting hotel manager Claude Roulet. The front entrance of the hotel was already crawling with paparazzi, as a result of which the couple took the precaution of using the rear entrance, where hopefully they would make their entry unperturbed and unmolested. The first thing they did when they were ensconced in the now $10,000 a night Imperial Suite was to spend some time on their mobiles and set about touching base with friends, relations, and associates. Diana called at least two people, her clairvoyant friend Rita Rogers and her favourite journalist Richard Kay of The Daily Mail.
Rita, General, was alarmed that Diana had proceeded to venture to Paris notwithstanding the warning she had given Dodi and herself in relation to what she had seen of him in the crystal ball when the couple had consulted her. When quizzed as to what the hell she indeed was doing in Paris at that juncture, Diana replied that she and Dodi had simply come to do some shopping, which though partially true was not the material reason they were there. “But Diana, remember what I told Dodi,” Rita said somewhat reprovingly. Diana a bit apprehensively replied, “Yes I remember. I will be careful. I promise.” Well, she did not live up to her promise as we shall soon unpack General.
As for Richard Kay, Diana made known to him that, “I have decided I am going to radically change my life. I am going to complete my obligations to charities and to the anti-personnel land mines cause, but in November I want to completely withdraw from formal public life.”
Once she was done with her round of calls, Diana went down to the hair saloon by the hotel swimming pool to have her hair washed and blow-dried ahead of the scheduled evening dinner.
THE “TELL ME YES” RING IS DELIVERED
Since the main object of their Paris trip was to pick up the “Tell Me Yes” engagement ring Dodi had ordered in Monte Carlo a week earlier, Dodi decided to check on Repossi Jewellery, which was right within the Ritz prencincts, known as the Place Vendome. It could have taken less than a minute for Dodi to get to the store on foot but he decided to use a car to outsmart the paparazzi invasion. He was driven there by Trevor Rees-Jones, with Alexander Kez Wingfield and Claude Roulet following on foot, though he entered the shop alone.
The Repossi store had closed for the holiday season but Alberto Repossi, accompanied by his wife and brother-in-law, had decided to travel all the way from his home in Monaco and momentarily open it for the sake of the potentially highly lucrative Dodi transaction. Alberto, however, disappointed Dodi as the ring he had chosen was not the one he produced. The one he showed Dodi was pricier and perhaps more exquisite but Dodi was adamant that he wanted the exact one he had ordered as that was what Diana herself had picked. It was a ploy on the part of Repossi to make a real killing on the sale, his excuse to that effect being that Diana deserved a ring tha was well worthy of her social pedigree. With Dodi having expressed disaffection, Repossi rendered his apologies and assured Dodi he would make the right ring available shortly, whereupon Dodi repaired back to the hotel to await its delivery. But Dodi did insist nonetheless that the pricier ring be delivered too in case it appealed to Diana anyway.
Repossi delivered the two rings an hour later. They were collected by Roulet. On inspecting them, Dodi chose the very one he had seen in Monte Carlo, apparently at the insistence of Diana. There is a possibility that Diana, who was very much aware of her public image and was not comfortable with ostentatious displays of wealth, may have deliberately shown an interest in a less expensive engagement ring. It may have been a purely romantic as opposed to a prestigious choice for her.
The value of the ring, which was found on a wardrobe shelf in Dodi’s apartment after the crash, has been estimated to be between $20,000 and $250,000 as Repossi has always refused to be drawn into revealing how much Dodi paid for it. The sum, which enjoyed a 25 percent discount, was in truth paid for not by Dodi himself but by his father as was the usual practice.
Dodi was also shown Repossi’s sketches for a bracelet, a watch, and earrings which he proposed to create if Diana approved of them.
DIANA AND DODI GUSH OVER IMMINENT NUPTIALS
At about 7 pm, Dodi and Diana left the Ritz and headed for Dodi’s apartment at a place known as the Arc de Trompe. They went there to properly tog themselves out for the scheduled evening dinner. They spent two hours at the luxurious apartment. As usual, the ubiquitous paparazzi were patiently waiting for them there.
As they lingered in the apartment, Dodi beckoned over to his butler Rene Delorm and showed him the engagement ring. “Dodi came into my kitchen,” Delorm relates. “He looked into the hallway to check that Diana couldn’t hear and reached into his pocket and pulled out the box … He said, ‘Rene, I’m going to propose to the princess tonight. Make sure that we have champagne on ice when we come back from dinner’.” Rene described the ring as “a spectacular diamond encrusted ring, a massive emerald surrounded by a cluster of diamonds, set on a yellow and white gold band sitting in a small light-grey velvet box”.
Just before 9 pm, Dodi called the brother of his step-father, Hassan Yassen, who also was staying at the Ritz that night, and told him that he hoped to get married to Diana by the end of the year.
Later that same evening, both Dodi and Diana would talk to Mohamed Al Fayed, Dodi’s dad, and make known to him their pre-nuptial intentions. “They called me and said we’re coming back (to London) on Sunday (August 31) and on Monday (September 1) they are
Columns
RAMADAN – The Blessed Month of Fasting
Ramadan is the fasting month for Muslims, where over one billion Muslims throughout the world fast from dawn to sunset, and pray additional prayers at night. It is a time for inner reflection, devotion to Allah, and self-control. It is the ninth month in the Islamic calendar. As you read this Muslims the world over have already begun fasting as the month of Ramadan has commenced (depending on the sighting of the new moon).
‘The month of Ramadan is that in which the Qur’an was revealed as guidance for people, in it are clear signs of guidance and Criterion, therefore whoever of you who witnesses this month, it is obligatory on him to fast it. But whoever is ill or traveling let him fast the same number of other days, God desires ease for you and not hardship, and He desires that you complete the ordained period and glorify God for His guidance to you, that you may be grateful”. Holy Qur’an (2 : 185)
Fasting during Ramadan is one of the five pillars upon which the structure of Islam is built. The other four are: the declaration of one’s belief in Allah’s oneness and in the message of Muhammad (PBUH); regular attendance to prayer; payment of zakaat (obligatory charity); and the pilgrimage to Mecca.
As explained in an earlier article, fasting includes total abstinence from eating, drinking, smoking, refraining from obscenity, avoiding getting into arguments and including abstaining from marital relations, from sunrise to sunset. While fasting may appear to some as difficult Muslims see it as an opportunity to get closer to their Lord, a chance to develop spiritually and at the same time the act of fasting builds character, discipline and self-restraint.
Just as our cars require servicing at regular intervals, so do Muslims consider Ramadan as a month in which the body and spirit undergoes as it were a ‘full service’. This ‘service’ includes heightened spiritual awareness both the mental and physical aspects and also the body undergoing a process of detoxification and some of the organs get to ‘rest’ through fasting.
Because of the intensive devotional activity fasting, Ramadan has a particularly high importance, derived from its very personal nature as an act of worship but there is nothing to stop anyone from privately violating Allah’s commandment of fasting if one chooses to do so by claiming to be fasting yet eating on the sly. This means that although fasting is obligatory, its observance is purely voluntary. If a person claims to be a Muslim, he is expected to fast in Ramadan.
The reward Allah gives for proper fasting is very generous. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) quotes Allah as saying: “All actions done by a human being are his own except fasting, which belongs to Me and I will reward it accordingly.” We are also told by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that the reward for proper fasting is admittance into heaven.
Fasting earns great reward when it is done in a ‘proper’ manner. This is because every Muslim is required to make his worship perfect. For example perfection of fasting can be achieved through restraint of one’s feelings and emotions. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said that when fasting, a person should not allow himself to be drawn into a quarrel or a slanging match. He teaches us: “On a day of fasting, let no one of you indulge in any obscenity, or enter into a slanging match. Should someone abuse or fight him, let him respond by saying: ‘I am fasting!’”
This high standard of self-restraint fits in well with fasting, which is considered as an act of self-discipline. Islam requires us to couple patience with voluntary abstention from indulgence in our physical desires. The purpose of fasting helps man to attain a high degree of sublimity, discipline and self-restraint. In other words, this standard CAN BE achieved by every Muslim who knows the purpose of fasting and strives to fulfill it.
Fasting has another special aspect. It makes all people share in the feelings of hunger and thirst. In normal circumstances, people with decent income may go from one year’s end to another without experiencing the pangs of hunger which a poor person may feel every day of his life. Such an experience helps to draw the rich one’s conscience nearer to needs of the poor. A Muslim is encouraged to be more charitable and learns to give generously for a good cause.
Fasting also has a universal or communal aspect to it. As Muslims throughout the world share in this blessed act of worship, their sense of unity is enhanced by the fact that every Muslim individual joins willingly in the fulfillment of this divine commandment. This is a unity of action and purpose, since they all fast in order to be better human beings. As a person restrains himself from the things he desires most, in the hope that he will earn Allah’s pleasure, self-discipline and sacrifice become part of his nature.
The month of Ramadan can aptly be described as a “season of worship.” Fasting is the main aspect of worship in this month, because people are more attentive to their prayers, read the Qur’an more frequently and also strive to improve on their inner and outer character. Thus, their devotion is more complete and they feel much happier in Ramadan because they feel themselves to be closer to their Creator.