We all have rights to express our extreme aversions to views or opinions expressed by others but it is a shocking breach of discipline to undermine, embarrass or ridicule individuals or organisations in a language which crosses all norms of decorum and decency. And to some in attendance the meeting was probably more of a Saturday afternoon show or contest of words rather than a meeting to seriously discuss the deletion of a Clause and they made no effort to hide this by gleefully jeering and pounding their fists on the tables when carried away by oratory rhetoric that undermined others more by the misuse of words rather than the sense and truth in them.

At one stage two entire terms of the Africa Federation were described as wasted just to create a situation to justify deletion of the Clause. In polite words that really meant stooping too low because the same situation could have been created by a hypothetical example. But again opinions without adequate elaboration can even make a moon out of the sun and does not the age-old Shakespearean cliché say, there nearly always is method in madness—meaning there is an underlying purpose even in deranged verbosity!

As if the unpropitious language was not enough, we had the sayings of our respected Imams brought in to support arguments but this was rather paradoxical because in Islam there is a deep philosophy teaching us not to use lewd language and mock others in public even if they behave inhumanely. If the sayings of our Prophet (S.A.W.) or Imams were to be brought up, the ideal quotes should have been on how Islam emphasises on unity and respect and despises anger and contemptuous talk in all circumstances.

When the Extra-ordinary meeting was convened it was to decide on whether to adopt or scuttle the deletion of Clause 20.1. There was just no question of a war between the World Federation and Africa Federation. Surely, there was a difference in opinion which put more strongly could be defined as a heated resistance to the deletion by the Africa Federation. The irony is that a Federation which has members who differ in their opinions is healthy because it portrays objective thinking by its members thereby leading to constructive dialogue prior to a decision being made or a resolution passed. In a Federation where members are expected to always agree or to toe the line when major decisions are to be made, objective thinking is undermined. Impartial opinions are a human right and a religiously correct attitude against even a solid phalanx of opposition but as long as they are supported by sound reasoning.

When the Africa Federation discussed Clause 20.1 at the last Supreme Council Meeting held in April, 1997 in Kampala, its Chairman remained impartial at all times. The dialogue that ensued for and against the deletion was corroborated by numerous reasons and this was followed by a secret ballot which allowed even the meek to vote according to their conscience rather than by fearing personalities. The Kampala Conference voted against deletion of the Clause in a manner which enables nobody to point an accusing finger that it influenced the decision to uphold the Clause.

The London meeting with its many derogatory references will keep coming back like a recurring nightmare to haunt us on our religious sincerity because speaking about religion and practicing are two different demeanours. Ultimately however, the result reflected the opinion of the majority of voters and hence all, including the Africa Federation, would be expected to honour the result without exceptions.

- Munir Daya