An analysis by Dr Farrukh Saleem:
Education is the key.
Read more...
Showing posts with label Muslims. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muslims. Show all posts
Sunday, 4 October 2009
Thursday, 6 November 2008
What is wrong with the assessment of many Pakistanis regarding the change of government in the United States?
After America has spoken for Obama
Pakistanis have been discussing Obama these past months with a lot of hope and some misgiving. This is in line with the general Muslim sentiment in the world, as expressed by some debates televised from the Middle East where America is judged every living moment. The vote was for Obama, barring some Arabs who thought the Democrats would lean more heavily in favour of Israel and not do much to stave off the danger of Iran in the region.
In Pakistan, the view that Mr Obama will initiate a policy of “engagement” rather than insist on unilateral “pre-emption” gave him full marks. Similarly, the hope is that he will positively “engage” with Iran instead of threatening it with attack. His selection of Joseph Biden as vice-president has also been well received. Mr Biden has introduced a bill in Congress that will triple the American annual aid to Pakistan. And Congress is expected to be “conquered” on both sides of the Hill by the Democrats.
Of course, raging anti-Americanism in Pakistan has filled some with misgivings over what he will do from across the Durand line. He has promised to target Al Qaeda inside Pakistan if Pakistan can’t manage to do it. He also has pledged to beef up the force in Afghanistan by transferring troops from Iraq. Will that mean that he will increase the “drone attacks” hurting Pakistan today as its army actually makes headway in its fight against the terrorists or “militants” in the Tribal Areas? The balanced view is that there are better chances of Mr Obama listening to the democratic government in Islamabad than was the case under Mr Bush.
But there is still something wrong with the assessment of many Pakistanis regarding the change of government in the United States. The main flaw is that we want the outside world to adjust to our feelings without first examining the validity of the way we feel and think. If we protest “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity” against the ISAF-NATO raids, why don’t we protest the terrorists who have violated our territory much more palpably and have shown to the world that our state is not capable of controlling its own territory? This unrealistic attitude also attaches to Mr Obama’s presumed reference to Kashmir. We are overjoyed at Mr Obama’s statement that he will work on normalising relations between Pakistan and India and helping us resolve our disputes. We “assume” that he will address himself to the Kashmir dispute because in our eyes that is the only obstacle on the road to peace with India. But it is clear that that is not how the coming diplomacy will proceed. America relates to India and Pakistan in accordance with the positions they occupy in the world. India belongs to the category of strong nations which don’t take external pressure for policy change. Pakistan belongs to the category of weak nations that have to adjust their policy to external developments. It suffers if it doesn’t conform to the rules of this category.
Luckily, Pakistan is adjusting much better under the current democratic government than it did under General Pervez Musharraf. Its security is threatened from within rather than from India. One can easily perceive this to be true if one takes off the old strategic goggles. The “proxy” war with India in Afghanistan, in Balochistan, and in the Tribal Areas is becoming a problem, and this is where Mr Obama will most probably concentrate. This is where Pakistan and India can both make adjustments without feeling cheated of their sovereignty.
All in all, a new era of global change seems to be in the offing. The question is: will Pakistan trim its sails in line with the changes as they occur, and in the light of its economic interest which should override all other “strategically” invented ones, or insist on behaving recklessly as it has done in the past? (Daily Times)
A prayer: May God save Pakistan from psuedo-intellectuals such as Hamid Gul, Roedad Khan, Irfan Siddiqi, and Mullah leaders such as Mullah Imran Khan and Mullah Qazi Hussain Ahmed.
Read more...
Pakistanis have been discussing Obama these past months with a lot of hope and some misgiving. This is in line with the general Muslim sentiment in the world, as expressed by some debates televised from the Middle East where America is judged every living moment. The vote was for Obama, barring some Arabs who thought the Democrats would lean more heavily in favour of Israel and not do much to stave off the danger of Iran in the region.
In Pakistan, the view that Mr Obama will initiate a policy of “engagement” rather than insist on unilateral “pre-emption” gave him full marks. Similarly, the hope is that he will positively “engage” with Iran instead of threatening it with attack. His selection of Joseph Biden as vice-president has also been well received. Mr Biden has introduced a bill in Congress that will triple the American annual aid to Pakistan. And Congress is expected to be “conquered” on both sides of the Hill by the Democrats.
Of course, raging anti-Americanism in Pakistan has filled some with misgivings over what he will do from across the Durand line. He has promised to target Al Qaeda inside Pakistan if Pakistan can’t manage to do it. He also has pledged to beef up the force in Afghanistan by transferring troops from Iraq. Will that mean that he will increase the “drone attacks” hurting Pakistan today as its army actually makes headway in its fight against the terrorists or “militants” in the Tribal Areas? The balanced view is that there are better chances of Mr Obama listening to the democratic government in Islamabad than was the case under Mr Bush.
But there is still something wrong with the assessment of many Pakistanis regarding the change of government in the United States. The main flaw is that we want the outside world to adjust to our feelings without first examining the validity of the way we feel and think. If we protest “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity” against the ISAF-NATO raids, why don’t we protest the terrorists who have violated our territory much more palpably and have shown to the world that our state is not capable of controlling its own territory? This unrealistic attitude also attaches to Mr Obama’s presumed reference to Kashmir. We are overjoyed at Mr Obama’s statement that he will work on normalising relations between Pakistan and India and helping us resolve our disputes. We “assume” that he will address himself to the Kashmir dispute because in our eyes that is the only obstacle on the road to peace with India. But it is clear that that is not how the coming diplomacy will proceed. America relates to India and Pakistan in accordance with the positions they occupy in the world. India belongs to the category of strong nations which don’t take external pressure for policy change. Pakistan belongs to the category of weak nations that have to adjust their policy to external developments. It suffers if it doesn’t conform to the rules of this category.
Luckily, Pakistan is adjusting much better under the current democratic government than it did under General Pervez Musharraf. Its security is threatened from within rather than from India. One can easily perceive this to be true if one takes off the old strategic goggles. The “proxy” war with India in Afghanistan, in Balochistan, and in the Tribal Areas is becoming a problem, and this is where Mr Obama will most probably concentrate. This is where Pakistan and India can both make adjustments without feeling cheated of their sovereignty.
All in all, a new era of global change seems to be in the offing. The question is: will Pakistan trim its sails in line with the changes as they occur, and in the light of its economic interest which should override all other “strategically” invented ones, or insist on behaving recklessly as it has done in the past? (Daily Times)
A prayer: May God save Pakistan from psuedo-intellectuals such as Hamid Gul, Roedad Khan, Irfan Siddiqi, and Mullah leaders such as Mullah Imran Khan and Mullah Qazi Hussain Ahmed.
Read more...
Thursday, 30 October 2008
Being secular and a Muslim - By Aneela Babar
By Aneela Babar
IF Pakistan had an annual Eid address to the nation, much like the Queen’s Christmas address, the president would not have been amiss in quoting her in referring to the past year as Pakistan’s annus horribilis.
As Pakistanis at home and overseas witnessed the bloodshed that has engulfed their country, they wondered how long will be the wait for dawn to break? In this era of globalisation some have attempted to articulate the tragedy befalling our nation this Ramazan in the very New York-words of ‘Pakistan’s 9/11’, however it is very clear that the crisis that faces our country is one unlike any other.
So, at such a difficult time in Pakistan’s history as we are battling numerous domestic and international crises, would it be a case of misplaced priorities on my part if I revisit the long-debated argument on whether it is possible to be secular, Muslim and Pakistani today?
I am confronted with the same barrage of queries every time there is an act of violence in our part of the world, “do many Pakistanis want to be fundamentalist?” Every time I fumble to explain that it is just not religion but a smorgasbord of ethnicity, history, deprivation and location that drives some to violence, so yes it still remains pertinent to return to some debates that we have long abandoned.
It is not that our leadership has abandoned these questions, in fact it is the first exercise that any Pakistani head of state undergoes to exhibit the ‘urbane face’ of Pakistan to the rest of the world. It is the sign of the times and the deterioration of the quality of our leadership that these attempts have corroded from Jinnah’s astute observation of the difference between a country for Muslims that maintained a secular spirit and an Islamic nation that was a theocracy per se. This as elaborated in his much quoted address to the Constituent Assembly when he asked of us to embrace our freedom to frequent our places of worship in the new state of Pakistan and told us how our caste, religious or ethnic affiliation was outside the purview of the state.
It is our misfortune that in more recent times our leaders have shown less imagination. So for President (then Chief Executive) Pervez Musharraf a ‘secular Muslim’ meant posing with his pet dogs. This to assure the world that unlike other military men who took to wooing the clergy to bolster their popular support, this general could afford to be a bit daring.
President Zardari might have thought he could accomplish it by conducting his charm offensive in New York. That his attempts towards being the sophisticated man about town became the stuff that enrages women everywhere and that makes late-night talk show hosts rub their hands in glee is another story.We have suffered the lack of a coherent debate on this issue because for one we have absorbed an authoritarian and one-dimensional narrow definition of Islam. For another there has been state control of any kind of dissent towards the ‘official definition’ of Pakistani Islam, whether it has been the particularly Wahhabi shades of the ’80s or the post-9/11 diktat that today we are all Sufis.
This has coincided with the religious extremists controlling any available platform to conduct such a debate. For instance, what would one mean by a secular Pakistani? This is crucial, for religious elements in Pakistan read secularism as ladeeni (having no belief system at all).
In today’s times we have to lower our expectations of the Pakistani public’s perception of secular Islam, suffice to say it would be enough if they interpret it as not approving acts of violence in the name of defending their Muslim brethren.
There are many voices, especially amongst young Muslim men that I encounter in my classroom lately, with their own common-sense perception of what being Muslim means. They are of the thought that being violent or militant comes naturally to Muslims. Hence the urgency to bring to their attention alternative spaces and definitions where one can be both a good Muslim and non-violent and identify an ethic of self- reform that makes legitimate other readings of Islam.
Amartya Sen’s work on inter-communal dialogues in the recent past has shown that “tolerance towards diversity of opinion was not alien to the South Asian region” (this is Sen, 2005 in The Argumentative Indian). Episodes where our leaders have sponsored and supported dialogues to address difficult problems of religious upheaval should be dusted off the cobwebbed library shelves and be shared with the larger public.
Even if they are the ubiquitous tales of Akbar’s “pursuit of reason” rather than “reliance on tradition” and his “visionary insistence on the need to have conversations and interchanges among holders of different convictions”. (All this as Sen impresses on us in a time when “Giordano Bruno was being burnt at the stake in Rome for heresy, in the public space of Campo dei Fiori.”)
However it was the father of our nation who impressed upon us in his much-censored and diluted address of 1947 how he believed that: “History shows that in England conditions some time ago were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some [s]tates in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class.
“Thank God we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days when there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens of one state.”
Words to remember and stand by in the long, difficult months ahead as we turn upon particular ethnicities within our nation accusing them of sponsoring violence, accuse a particular class and ‘liberal ideology’ for being the bane of all our woes, and emulate an ostrich head in the sand in our declaration that abandoning a particular alliance will resolve our current woes. Yes, an absence of the background noise of drones might simplify our conflict but it is not the only solution. May we be blessed with wisdom and prudence today and tomorrow. (Dawn)
Read more...
IF Pakistan had an annual Eid address to the nation, much like the Queen’s Christmas address, the president would not have been amiss in quoting her in referring to the past year as Pakistan’s annus horribilis.
As Pakistanis at home and overseas witnessed the bloodshed that has engulfed their country, they wondered how long will be the wait for dawn to break? In this era of globalisation some have attempted to articulate the tragedy befalling our nation this Ramazan in the very New York-words of ‘Pakistan’s 9/11’, however it is very clear that the crisis that faces our country is one unlike any other.
So, at such a difficult time in Pakistan’s history as we are battling numerous domestic and international crises, would it be a case of misplaced priorities on my part if I revisit the long-debated argument on whether it is possible to be secular, Muslim and Pakistani today?
I am confronted with the same barrage of queries every time there is an act of violence in our part of the world, “do many Pakistanis want to be fundamentalist?” Every time I fumble to explain that it is just not religion but a smorgasbord of ethnicity, history, deprivation and location that drives some to violence, so yes it still remains pertinent to return to some debates that we have long abandoned.
It is not that our leadership has abandoned these questions, in fact it is the first exercise that any Pakistani head of state undergoes to exhibit the ‘urbane face’ of Pakistan to the rest of the world. It is the sign of the times and the deterioration of the quality of our leadership that these attempts have corroded from Jinnah’s astute observation of the difference between a country for Muslims that maintained a secular spirit and an Islamic nation that was a theocracy per se. This as elaborated in his much quoted address to the Constituent Assembly when he asked of us to embrace our freedom to frequent our places of worship in the new state of Pakistan and told us how our caste, religious or ethnic affiliation was outside the purview of the state.
It is our misfortune that in more recent times our leaders have shown less imagination. So for President (then Chief Executive) Pervez Musharraf a ‘secular Muslim’ meant posing with his pet dogs. This to assure the world that unlike other military men who took to wooing the clergy to bolster their popular support, this general could afford to be a bit daring.
President Zardari might have thought he could accomplish it by conducting his charm offensive in New York. That his attempts towards being the sophisticated man about town became the stuff that enrages women everywhere and that makes late-night talk show hosts rub their hands in glee is another story.We have suffered the lack of a coherent debate on this issue because for one we have absorbed an authoritarian and one-dimensional narrow definition of Islam. For another there has been state control of any kind of dissent towards the ‘official definition’ of Pakistani Islam, whether it has been the particularly Wahhabi shades of the ’80s or the post-9/11 diktat that today we are all Sufis.
This has coincided with the religious extremists controlling any available platform to conduct such a debate. For instance, what would one mean by a secular Pakistani? This is crucial, for religious elements in Pakistan read secularism as ladeeni (having no belief system at all).
In today’s times we have to lower our expectations of the Pakistani public’s perception of secular Islam, suffice to say it would be enough if they interpret it as not approving acts of violence in the name of defending their Muslim brethren.
There are many voices, especially amongst young Muslim men that I encounter in my classroom lately, with their own common-sense perception of what being Muslim means. They are of the thought that being violent or militant comes naturally to Muslims. Hence the urgency to bring to their attention alternative spaces and definitions where one can be both a good Muslim and non-violent and identify an ethic of self- reform that makes legitimate other readings of Islam.
Amartya Sen’s work on inter-communal dialogues in the recent past has shown that “tolerance towards diversity of opinion was not alien to the South Asian region” (this is Sen, 2005 in The Argumentative Indian). Episodes where our leaders have sponsored and supported dialogues to address difficult problems of religious upheaval should be dusted off the cobwebbed library shelves and be shared with the larger public.
Even if they are the ubiquitous tales of Akbar’s “pursuit of reason” rather than “reliance on tradition” and his “visionary insistence on the need to have conversations and interchanges among holders of different convictions”. (All this as Sen impresses on us in a time when “Giordano Bruno was being burnt at the stake in Rome for heresy, in the public space of Campo dei Fiori.”)
However it was the father of our nation who impressed upon us in his much-censored and diluted address of 1947 how he believed that: “History shows that in England conditions some time ago were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some [s]tates in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class.
“Thank God we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days when there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens of one state.”
Words to remember and stand by in the long, difficult months ahead as we turn upon particular ethnicities within our nation accusing them of sponsoring violence, accuse a particular class and ‘liberal ideology’ for being the bane of all our woes, and emulate an ostrich head in the sand in our declaration that abandoning a particular alliance will resolve our current woes. Yes, an absence of the background noise of drones might simplify our conflict but it is not the only solution. May we be blessed with wisdom and prudence today and tomorrow. (Dawn)
Read more...
Wednesday, 29 October 2008
Congratulations Imran Khan. Your friends Taliban kill Gayle Williams, a British-South African aid worker, who believed in doctrine of love...
In the name of love
SOME would see it as a profession of faith. Others may call it a religion of humanity. Either way, such intrepid devotion to the cause of basic humanism can only merit pure homage — as chaste as the aspiration itself, free of doubt and dismay. Gayle Williams, a 34-year-old British-South African aid worker, was one of many who believed in the doctrine of love. Last week, she lost her life to a bullet in Afghanistan and was laid to rest amid tight security in a Kabul cemetery where, reportedly, 50 family, friends and colleagues were in attendance — and in tears. Williams’ end may have been both unfortunate and dramatic but her last wish was nothing short of memorable — she had asked to be buried in Afghanistan where she worked with disabled children. Her murder has been claimed by the Taliban and fellow aid workers assert that the deceased had been targeted because Serve Afghanistan, the organisation she worked for, was spreading Christianity. Perhaps her desire to be put in the ground in a beleaguered Muslim country — instead of her own, amid her kin — will put such callous cynicism to rest.
Regrettably, Gayle Williams is not the first whose desire to serve humankind in the name of love has been denigrated in the name of either religion or suspicious intentions. Take the case of arguably the greatest ‘seraph’ of our times, Mother Teresa, hailed as the Saint Of The Gutters; she was also subjected to barbs such as the infamous book The Missionary Position and undying accusations of accepting aid regardless of its source. Then there is our indigenous and legendary humanitarian Abdul Sattar Edhi who, despite working miracles in areas such as rescue, refuge and rehabilitation, has been hounded by accusations as vile as child trafficking. Perhaps societies such as ours deserve fallen heroes. We either destroy our own idols or ensure that they are not free of clay feet. (Dawn)
Read more...
SOME would see it as a profession of faith. Others may call it a religion of humanity. Either way, such intrepid devotion to the cause of basic humanism can only merit pure homage — as chaste as the aspiration itself, free of doubt and dismay. Gayle Williams, a 34-year-old British-South African aid worker, was one of many who believed in the doctrine of love. Last week, she lost her life to a bullet in Afghanistan and was laid to rest amid tight security in a Kabul cemetery where, reportedly, 50 family, friends and colleagues were in attendance — and in tears. Williams’ end may have been both unfortunate and dramatic but her last wish was nothing short of memorable — she had asked to be buried in Afghanistan where she worked with disabled children. Her murder has been claimed by the Taliban and fellow aid workers assert that the deceased had been targeted because Serve Afghanistan, the organisation she worked for, was spreading Christianity. Perhaps her desire to be put in the ground in a beleaguered Muslim country — instead of her own, amid her kin — will put such callous cynicism to rest.
Regrettably, Gayle Williams is not the first whose desire to serve humankind in the name of love has been denigrated in the name of either religion or suspicious intentions. Take the case of arguably the greatest ‘seraph’ of our times, Mother Teresa, hailed as the Saint Of The Gutters; she was also subjected to barbs such as the infamous book The Missionary Position and undying accusations of accepting aid regardless of its source. Then there is our indigenous and legendary humanitarian Abdul Sattar Edhi who, despite working miracles in areas such as rescue, refuge and rehabilitation, has been hounded by accusations as vile as child trafficking. Perhaps societies such as ours deserve fallen heroes. We either destroy our own idols or ensure that they are not free of clay feet. (Dawn)
Read more...
Sunday, 26 October 2008
Muslims should stand up and denounce al-Qaeda: The extremist Wahhabi ideology and the rise of Talibans in Pakistan...
Muslims should stand up and denounce al-Qaeda
The recent wide distribution of a DVD, Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West, by a New York-based tax-exempt organization has provoked an angry response from Muslims and non-Muslims. Now a second wave of distribution via direct mailings to households in swing states is taking place. The politics of this distribution so close to the presidential election aside, it is the Muslim response to the DVD that raises some interesting and intriguing questions.
There is no denying that the film leaves a residue of bad taste, not only against the perpetrators of violence but also, as I explained in my last column two weeks ago, against the whole body of Islam.
The DVD contends that radical Islam - read Islam - is on the warpath to destroy Western civilization. While one could and should point out the superimposition and juxtaposition of historic images from Nazi Germany with contemporary footage from suicide bombers to equate Islam with Nazism, this is not my purpose here. I want to focus on the Muslim response to such provocation and argue that they could do better than a now-familiar knee-jerk response. To put it bluntly, moderate and peace-loving Muslims are also to blame for the confusion between radical and mainstream Islam.
Anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of Islam knows that Islam, just as other great religions of the world, is not a monolith. It has hundreds of sects and groups based on varying interpretations of Islamic sacred texts and Islamic cultural traditions. So why doesn't the peaceful majority become enraged and denounce the fanatic murderers who claim to be pious Muslims, but in their deeds and actions are anything but? Why can't the majority declare them outside the pale of Islam and shut off their oxygen?
A bit of history might explain the reasons.
The roots of present-day Islamic militancy can be traced to 18th-century Arabia when a preacher by the name of Abdul Wahab took the peninsula by storm when he started a revival movement to rid Islam of its cultural trappings and return to the pristine teachings of the eighth century. A political accommodation with Ibn Saud, a tribal chief, resulted in the establishment of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia where the House of Saud ruled the country and all matters religious were left to the followers of Abdul Wahab.
However, somewhere in the course of history, the pristine and sublime turned into a coarse and uncompromising dogma.
Using petrodollars and encouragement by the West, this bizarre mind-set was exported to Pakistan - and many other Muslim countries - and used unabashedly to wage jihad against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Since the majority of Muslims do not subscribe to the extreme Wahhabi philosophy of al-Qaeda, why don't they stand up in defiance?
Muslims have always taken solace and pride in the mostly hypothetical and metaphysical concept of Ummah, or the worldwide community of believers. This prevents them from declaring other Muslims outside the pale of Islam.
They have been, in all fairness, shouting condemnations of al-Qaeda from the minarets and rooftops and have labeled their actions un-Islamic. But they have not - and they should - cross the threshold and declare them outside the circle of the religion. In this, they are no different than other world religions where there is always hesitation to kick people out.
Another hurdle in the way of such a pronouncement is the lack of a central authority in Sunni Islam. Unlike the Shias, where a strong religious hierarchy speaks for them, the Sunnis have traditionally relied on individual scholars to issue edicts to interpret religion.
A divide between those Muslims who believe Islam is a peaceful religion and can co-exist with other religions and philosophies and those who believe violence is the only way to achieve their objective of dominance is beginning to surface. But it needs to be strengthened.
If the Muslims in the West wish to be understood and respected, and if they wish to counter the toxic propaganda put forth in films like Obsession, then they ought to be doing more than just giving public statements and addressing church groups. They should publicly reject the brand of Islam championed by al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
For a great majority of Muslims in the world, and particularly those living in the West, the al-Qaeda philosophy is a bizarre chimera conceived through the amalgamation of historic grievances, politics, and a selective and self-serving interpretation of religion with an eye toward domination. For their own sakes, Muslims should reject this monster.
Permanent Link
Dr. S. Amjad Hussain is a Toledo surgeon whose column appears every other week in The Blade.
» E-mail him at aghaji@buckeye-express.com
» Read more Dr. Hussain columns at www.toledoblade.com/hussain
Read more...
The recent wide distribution of a DVD, Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West, by a New York-based tax-exempt organization has provoked an angry response from Muslims and non-Muslims. Now a second wave of distribution via direct mailings to households in swing states is taking place. The politics of this distribution so close to the presidential election aside, it is the Muslim response to the DVD that raises some interesting and intriguing questions.
There is no denying that the film leaves a residue of bad taste, not only against the perpetrators of violence but also, as I explained in my last column two weeks ago, against the whole body of Islam.
The DVD contends that radical Islam - read Islam - is on the warpath to destroy Western civilization. While one could and should point out the superimposition and juxtaposition of historic images from Nazi Germany with contemporary footage from suicide bombers to equate Islam with Nazism, this is not my purpose here. I want to focus on the Muslim response to such provocation and argue that they could do better than a now-familiar knee-jerk response. To put it bluntly, moderate and peace-loving Muslims are also to blame for the confusion between radical and mainstream Islam.
Anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of Islam knows that Islam, just as other great religions of the world, is not a monolith. It has hundreds of sects and groups based on varying interpretations of Islamic sacred texts and Islamic cultural traditions. So why doesn't the peaceful majority become enraged and denounce the fanatic murderers who claim to be pious Muslims, but in their deeds and actions are anything but? Why can't the majority declare them outside the pale of Islam and shut off their oxygen?
A bit of history might explain the reasons.
The roots of present-day Islamic militancy can be traced to 18th-century Arabia when a preacher by the name of Abdul Wahab took the peninsula by storm when he started a revival movement to rid Islam of its cultural trappings and return to the pristine teachings of the eighth century. A political accommodation with Ibn Saud, a tribal chief, resulted in the establishment of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia where the House of Saud ruled the country and all matters religious were left to the followers of Abdul Wahab.
However, somewhere in the course of history, the pristine and sublime turned into a coarse and uncompromising dogma.
Using petrodollars and encouragement by the West, this bizarre mind-set was exported to Pakistan - and many other Muslim countries - and used unabashedly to wage jihad against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Since the majority of Muslims do not subscribe to the extreme Wahhabi philosophy of al-Qaeda, why don't they stand up in defiance?
Muslims have always taken solace and pride in the mostly hypothetical and metaphysical concept of Ummah, or the worldwide community of believers. This prevents them from declaring other Muslims outside the pale of Islam.
They have been, in all fairness, shouting condemnations of al-Qaeda from the minarets and rooftops and have labeled their actions un-Islamic. But they have not - and they should - cross the threshold and declare them outside the circle of the religion. In this, they are no different than other world religions where there is always hesitation to kick people out.
Another hurdle in the way of such a pronouncement is the lack of a central authority in Sunni Islam. Unlike the Shias, where a strong religious hierarchy speaks for them, the Sunnis have traditionally relied on individual scholars to issue edicts to interpret religion.
A divide between those Muslims who believe Islam is a peaceful religion and can co-exist with other religions and philosophies and those who believe violence is the only way to achieve their objective of dominance is beginning to surface. But it needs to be strengthened.
If the Muslims in the West wish to be understood and respected, and if they wish to counter the toxic propaganda put forth in films like Obsession, then they ought to be doing more than just giving public statements and addressing church groups. They should publicly reject the brand of Islam championed by al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
For a great majority of Muslims in the world, and particularly those living in the West, the al-Qaeda philosophy is a bizarre chimera conceived through the amalgamation of historic grievances, politics, and a selective and self-serving interpretation of religion with an eye toward domination. For their own sakes, Muslims should reject this monster.
Permanent Link
Dr. S. Amjad Hussain is a Toledo surgeon whose column appears every other week in The Blade.
» E-mail him at aghaji@buckeye-express.com
» Read more Dr. Hussain columns at www.toledoblade.com/hussain
Read more...
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
War on terror is Pakistan's own war —Ijaz Hussain
Is this our war? —Ijaz Hussain
The mere ownership of the war by the government is not enough to fight it effectively. It is imperative that the people own it too
Ever since Pakistan joined the US-led war on terror in 2001, controversy has raged on whether it is our war or America’s. When Pervez Musharraf ruled the roost, his government owned it while most political parties, including his own PMLQ, refused to. Despite this divide, the debate on the ownership of the war remained low-key.
The devastating Marriott bomb blast has, among other things, revived this debate as never before. Whereas the Pakistan government has reaffirmed its ownership, opposition political parties and the public at large do not seem convinced. Given the shrill, passionate debate that has taken place on the issue in the media following the Marriott tragedy, the divide seems to have widened. Further, it has raised the question: why, if it is our war, has the government failed to sell it to the public?
There is little doubt that when we joined the war, it was not ours. The Musharraf government owned it because the Bush administration imposed it on us as testified by the reported infamous threat by Richard Armitage to bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age if we did not join the effort.
As a consequence, we abandoned the Taliban and helped the US capture Kabul. Musharraf justified the volte-face on the ground of protecting Pakistan’s vital national interests such as the nuclear assets, the Kashmir cause, etc. However, he failed to mention his own survival as president, which must have factored in this decision.
The war started becoming ours too when Al Qaeda and Taliban escapees from the American bombing started pouring into our tribal areas. With the passage of time they consolidated their positions and as the resistance against foreign forces in Afghanistan picked up, they, along with the Pakistani Taliban, started using these sanctuaries for operations across the Durand Line.
To stop them from doing so, the Musharraf government introduced Pakistani troops in the tribal areas. It did so because in addition to American pressure, international law (chapter on international state responsibility) obligated it to stop elements from using its territory against Afghanistan. Besides, the UNSC resolution on terrorism also required it to fight against them, failing which sanctions could be imposed. It is undeniable that the Pakistani tribals feel free to mount military operations across the border as they do not recognise the Durand Line. However, international law takes no cognisance of this argument.
The war also became ours when the terrorists decided to cause mayhem not only in the tribal areas but also across the length and breadth of Pakistan. They are doing so with the objective of pressurising the government to abandon support for the Bush administration in its war on terror and letting them use Pakistani territory for military operations in Afghanistan. The terrorists also seek to incrementally take over the whole or part of the state of Pakistan and run it according to their ideology. One has sporadic glimpses of this strategy in areas where the Pakistan government has lost its writ in favour of the Taliban.
This is also our war in another sense. The Taliban ideology at present being practiced in parts of Pakistan is nothing but evil incarnate. Even its milder version, practiced when they were in power in Kabul during 1996-2001, was no less evil because it struck at the roots of the progressive and moderate worldview of Islam that we cherish.
If tomorrow the Taliban succeed in militarily chasing foreign forces out of Afghanistan and establish their own government there, they would pose a threat to Pakistan’s polity. Those who reject it as an alarmist view and believe that the Taliban government in Afghanistan would be as benign towards Pakistan as the one that flourished there during the late 1990s are sadly mistaken. Flushed with victory in Afghanistan, this time the Taliban may not rest until they overpower nuclear Pakistan.
Had Musharraf not committed the ‘original sin’ of joining the Bush’s war on terror, could we have been spared the agony of owning it? Our answer is in the negative because even if Pakistan had refused to join it, the terrorists would have forced it on us.
This is so because they would have mounted operations against foreign forces across the Durand Line, which we would not have been able to stop. That in turn would have invited American attacks on the Pakistani territory, as is the case at the moment.
If it is our war as shown above, why has the Pakistani government failed to sell it to the people? There are four main reasons.
First, as is well known, it has failed because of the American dimension of the issue. The US is highly unpopular in the Muslim world for a host of reasons, which includes not only its occupation of two Muslim lands but also the blind support that it extends to Israel against the Palestinians. Besides, the way the Bush Administration has conducted the so-called war on terror has given rise to a common perception in the Muslim world that the US is waging a crusade against Islam instead of fighting terrorism.
Resultantly, Muslims generally hate the US, which in turn has made them lose sight of the fact that American and the Muslim interests could coincide as is the case at present, though the two differ, inter alia, on the methodology to deal with it.
Second, the government has failed to market this war because of the gullibility of our people. The latter are generally so driven by religion they can be easily duped by any clever operator. Taking advantage of this weakness, the Pakistani clerics who have their own axe to grind have taken a line that encourages sympathy rather than revulsion against Taliban.
For example, they believe that the Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan during 1996-2001 was the closest ever to the Khulfa-e-Rashidin. Similarly, though they denounce suicide bombings as un-Islamic, they consistently refuse to support the government against the Taliban unless it disassociates itself from the US and/or enforces sharia in the country.
Third, there is constant propaganda that the government is guilty of genocide against its own people. This argument has lot of appeal for the common man though it is utterly fallacious because if the terrorists are bent upon forcing their views upon the people through suicide bombings and other acts of violence, should the government treat them with kid glove methods simply because they are our own people?
Fortunately, Asfandyar Wali Khan, who until recently was one of the principal protagonists of this viewpoint (which he often combined with the lethal plea that military operations in FATA and Swat were a conspiracy against Pukhtuns), has abandoned it with the ascent to power of his ANP. However, notwithstanding this development, the argument continues to have wide appeal, which stops people from owning this war.
Fourth, the government lacks credibility. For example, many believe that suicide bombings and other acts of violence are the handiwork of secret agencies, and that the Taliban living in caves are incapable of mounting sophisticated operations like the Marriott bombing. A variant of this line is the plea by Islamist parties that these atrocious acts are perpetrated by foreign agencies like RAW and Mossad, and that no Muslim can ever imagine to kill another Muslim. Though both arguments are nothing but rubbish, many people believe them. The Taliban are the net beneficiaries of this situation.
It is clear that the mere ownership of the war by the government is not enough to fight it effectively. It is imperative that the people own it too. This can only come about if the government conducts a systematic analysis of the factors that make the people shun the war, and then makes concerted efforts to shape public opinion to its viewpoint. It seems to have done neither. Unless it is prepared to undertake this gargantuan task, it may not win this war.
The writer is a former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University. He can be reached at hussain_ijaz@hotmail.com (Daily Times)
Read more...
The mere ownership of the war by the government is not enough to fight it effectively. It is imperative that the people own it too
Ever since Pakistan joined the US-led war on terror in 2001, controversy has raged on whether it is our war or America’s. When Pervez Musharraf ruled the roost, his government owned it while most political parties, including his own PMLQ, refused to. Despite this divide, the debate on the ownership of the war remained low-key.
The devastating Marriott bomb blast has, among other things, revived this debate as never before. Whereas the Pakistan government has reaffirmed its ownership, opposition political parties and the public at large do not seem convinced. Given the shrill, passionate debate that has taken place on the issue in the media following the Marriott tragedy, the divide seems to have widened. Further, it has raised the question: why, if it is our war, has the government failed to sell it to the public?
There is little doubt that when we joined the war, it was not ours. The Musharraf government owned it because the Bush administration imposed it on us as testified by the reported infamous threat by Richard Armitage to bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age if we did not join the effort.
As a consequence, we abandoned the Taliban and helped the US capture Kabul. Musharraf justified the volte-face on the ground of protecting Pakistan’s vital national interests such as the nuclear assets, the Kashmir cause, etc. However, he failed to mention his own survival as president, which must have factored in this decision.
The war started becoming ours too when Al Qaeda and Taliban escapees from the American bombing started pouring into our tribal areas. With the passage of time they consolidated their positions and as the resistance against foreign forces in Afghanistan picked up, they, along with the Pakistani Taliban, started using these sanctuaries for operations across the Durand Line.
To stop them from doing so, the Musharraf government introduced Pakistani troops in the tribal areas. It did so because in addition to American pressure, international law (chapter on international state responsibility) obligated it to stop elements from using its territory against Afghanistan. Besides, the UNSC resolution on terrorism also required it to fight against them, failing which sanctions could be imposed. It is undeniable that the Pakistani tribals feel free to mount military operations across the border as they do not recognise the Durand Line. However, international law takes no cognisance of this argument.
The war also became ours when the terrorists decided to cause mayhem not only in the tribal areas but also across the length and breadth of Pakistan. They are doing so with the objective of pressurising the government to abandon support for the Bush administration in its war on terror and letting them use Pakistani territory for military operations in Afghanistan. The terrorists also seek to incrementally take over the whole or part of the state of Pakistan and run it according to their ideology. One has sporadic glimpses of this strategy in areas where the Pakistan government has lost its writ in favour of the Taliban.
This is also our war in another sense. The Taliban ideology at present being practiced in parts of Pakistan is nothing but evil incarnate. Even its milder version, practiced when they were in power in Kabul during 1996-2001, was no less evil because it struck at the roots of the progressive and moderate worldview of Islam that we cherish.
If tomorrow the Taliban succeed in militarily chasing foreign forces out of Afghanistan and establish their own government there, they would pose a threat to Pakistan’s polity. Those who reject it as an alarmist view and believe that the Taliban government in Afghanistan would be as benign towards Pakistan as the one that flourished there during the late 1990s are sadly mistaken. Flushed with victory in Afghanistan, this time the Taliban may not rest until they overpower nuclear Pakistan.
Had Musharraf not committed the ‘original sin’ of joining the Bush’s war on terror, could we have been spared the agony of owning it? Our answer is in the negative because even if Pakistan had refused to join it, the terrorists would have forced it on us.
This is so because they would have mounted operations against foreign forces across the Durand Line, which we would not have been able to stop. That in turn would have invited American attacks on the Pakistani territory, as is the case at the moment.
If it is our war as shown above, why has the Pakistani government failed to sell it to the people? There are four main reasons.
First, as is well known, it has failed because of the American dimension of the issue. The US is highly unpopular in the Muslim world for a host of reasons, which includes not only its occupation of two Muslim lands but also the blind support that it extends to Israel against the Palestinians. Besides, the way the Bush Administration has conducted the so-called war on terror has given rise to a common perception in the Muslim world that the US is waging a crusade against Islam instead of fighting terrorism.
Resultantly, Muslims generally hate the US, which in turn has made them lose sight of the fact that American and the Muslim interests could coincide as is the case at present, though the two differ, inter alia, on the methodology to deal with it.
Second, the government has failed to market this war because of the gullibility of our people. The latter are generally so driven by religion they can be easily duped by any clever operator. Taking advantage of this weakness, the Pakistani clerics who have their own axe to grind have taken a line that encourages sympathy rather than revulsion against Taliban.
For example, they believe that the Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan during 1996-2001 was the closest ever to the Khulfa-e-Rashidin. Similarly, though they denounce suicide bombings as un-Islamic, they consistently refuse to support the government against the Taliban unless it disassociates itself from the US and/or enforces sharia in the country.
Third, there is constant propaganda that the government is guilty of genocide against its own people. This argument has lot of appeal for the common man though it is utterly fallacious because if the terrorists are bent upon forcing their views upon the people through suicide bombings and other acts of violence, should the government treat them with kid glove methods simply because they are our own people?
Fortunately, Asfandyar Wali Khan, who until recently was one of the principal protagonists of this viewpoint (which he often combined with the lethal plea that military operations in FATA and Swat were a conspiracy against Pukhtuns), has abandoned it with the ascent to power of his ANP. However, notwithstanding this development, the argument continues to have wide appeal, which stops people from owning this war.
Fourth, the government lacks credibility. For example, many believe that suicide bombings and other acts of violence are the handiwork of secret agencies, and that the Taliban living in caves are incapable of mounting sophisticated operations like the Marriott bombing. A variant of this line is the plea by Islamist parties that these atrocious acts are perpetrated by foreign agencies like RAW and Mossad, and that no Muslim can ever imagine to kill another Muslim. Though both arguments are nothing but rubbish, many people believe them. The Taliban are the net beneficiaries of this situation.
It is clear that the mere ownership of the war by the government is not enough to fight it effectively. It is imperative that the people own it too. This can only come about if the government conducts a systematic analysis of the factors that make the people shun the war, and then makes concerted efforts to shape public opinion to its viewpoint. It seems to have done neither. Unless it is prepared to undertake this gargantuan task, it may not win this war.
The writer is a former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University. He can be reached at hussain_ijaz@hotmail.com (Daily Times)
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
