Wednesday, January 28, 2009

What else is Yazidiyyat – What Else is Karbala-By Dr. Haider Mehdi

What else is Yazidiyyat – What Else is Karbala!
By Dr. Haider Mehdi

I have known the grief and anguish of the mourners of Karbala (the martyrdom of Imam Hussain) and have emotionally, religiously, spiritually, psychologically, sociologically and politically understood the outpouring of “marsiya- khani” (lamentation commemorating Imam Hussain’s martyrdom) that has continued until today for over 1400 years. I am a Muslim. I am a Shi’a. I have protested all my life against the human savagery in Karbala and my communal participation in “marsiya khani” is an unending transcendental and generational expression of political protest against Yazidiyyat – the ultimate brutality in human spirit for the sake of power, oppression and malevolent domination over others.

Yazidiyyat is a symbol of an obvious barbaric penchant towards human massacre and carnage to satisfy a compulsion to megalomania deeply rooted as a motive in the mentality of those who practice it. It is an intentional process to seek clearly defined objectives – the victims of this doctrine are helpless, innocent and powerless human beings. It is a barbaric creed.

I had never thought in my wildest imagination that I would see, at this stage of human civilization, the doctrine of “Yazidiyyat” so blatantly and so deliberately used against humanity and a “Karbala” witnessed on my TV screen right in front of my eyes in my own living room. But such has been, hopelessly, the reality of the 23-day “Gaza holocaust” and massacre of Palestinians including children, women and men, the young and old, the sick and the starving. And the world remained a spectator during this horrifying human carnage. What else is Yazidiyyat – what else is Karbala?

A knock at a door (Zeitoun, Gaza, January 4th) where the frightened members of an extended family were hiding from Israeli bombardment and ground assault as Attiyah, 46, (husband) and Zinad Samourri, 35, (wife) mother of eight children opened the door, the Israeli soldiers in cold blood shot Attiyah dead and then went on a rampage to massacre the other members of the family in this small hiding place.

“So far dozens of bodies, mostly women, children and elderly, have been recovered, almost all from the same extended family. The 48th corpse – horribly decomposed – was found on Monday but there are fears others lie under the rubble and soil churned up by Israeli armoured vehicles,” reported Tim Butcher of The Telegraph Group of London. Navi Pillay, the UN Commissioner for Human Rights has already called for war crimes investigations against Israel for the massacre that took place in Zeitoun on January 4th and 5th.

The question is: Isn’t this the “holocaust” of the 21st century? Isn’t it Yazidiyyat? Isn’t this the “Karbala” of our times? Should not the entire humanity be protesting, mourning and condemning this savagery, this inhumanity – this kind of approach to a political doctrine explicitly and intentionally espoused by the powerful nations in their conduct of international relations and their horrifying lack of respect for human life other than their own people?

The ultimate irony and human tragedy of the “Gaza holocaust” is that it was planned, executed and supported by an absolute complacency of the outgoing and incoming American administrations and the incumbent British government. The entire West remained silently in cahoots with the Israeli-American-British plan, what the Israeli Zionist Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni called “a re-formulation of objective reality” – another addition to the US-Western arsenal of inhumane political doctrines in global politics.

As a human being with enhanced consciousness and advanced awareness of human conditions and as a member of the segment of the contemporary world that wishes to place high value on human life, I had expected that the entire global civilization would turn upside down with anguish, condemn the “Gaza holocaust,” and demand an abrupt cessation to the repressive political creeds of our times. But it did not happen that way.

I had hoped that Barrack Hussain Obama, in his inaugural presidential speech, would have acknowledged Israeli brutality and categorically condemned it. I had hoped that Obama would say something along the lines of repudiation of the past American foreign policy approach to bring transformations to his country’s future direction in global politics. I had hoped that he would say: ‘The massacre of Palestinians has taken place in Gaza under our watch and America and the American people are ashamed of it. I pledge to the Palestinian victims and their families that America will do justice to them now, and my administration will not allow now and ever again such use of brutal military force and political doctrine against any people anywhere in the world. This is my pledge, the pledge of all Americans and I want to assure the entire global community that, as of this moment, America has changed – change has finally come.’ Now that would have been the declaration of a true statesman committed to the fundamental change that Obama has promised to the American voters and the people around the world.

But nothing of the sort was said or promised. Instead Obama did not condemn Israel’s barbarism in Gaza. He later spoke to Mahmoud Abbas and promised “to work with him as partners to establish a durable peace in the region.” But that is the classic repetition of American rhetoric of the past: no substance, no results, no change, no commitment to a policy of fairness to the Palestinian people – the usual political manipulation to continue the status-quo of Israel’s dominance in the Middle East and beyond.

I had hoped that Hilary Clinton would be horrified at Israel’s audacity of placing the new American administration, at the very outset, in a political conundrum and global crisis. I had hoped that Clinton would unleash her anger by recognizing the American part in the “Gaza holocaust.” I had envisioned that, in a reflective mindset pursuing “change” in the US foreign policy doctrine, Clinton would admit and lament that President Bush and Secretary Rice’s last-minute assault on the American image world-wide by collaborating with Israel in its “Gaza holocaust” has brought disaster and shame to the cherished values of freedom, justice, fairness and peace for all people everywhere. I had hoped that she would say that the Gaza massacre is inexcusable – and that the Obama administration apologizes on behalf of the American people. I imagined that she would have assured all people everywhere that this incoming administration had no complicity, role or part in this horrendous act of savagery against an innocent population – and she would commit herself in making sure, by supporting international law and human-rights conventions, that such an outrageous onslaught against any people anywhere will not happen again in the annuals of future human history.

But Clinton did not commit herself to any “change” in the US foreign-policy doctrine of status-quo. What she said was alarmingly resonant of the Bush administration’s foreign policy. Clinton said that this administration will not talk to Hamas. The problem is that Hamas is the legitimate democratically elected representative of the Palestinian people. How can a serious negotiator of peace for the Palestinians sideline Hamas? Indeed, Clinton’s statement is yet another indicator of future American foreign policy failure in the Israeli-Palestine conflict. And this failure will happen not because of misunderstanding the nature of this conflict; it is going to be the result of an intentional policy to further push forward Israeli dominance in the Middle East. Clinton envisages the so-called peace in the entire Middle East on American terms – fairness or justice is not an ingredient in this equation.

I had also hoped that Ban Ki-Moon, United Nations Secretary General, after his visit to the Gaza Strip, would have issued an ultimatum to the UN Security-Council that he would resign in protest of Israeli brutality in Gaza unless the Security-Council immediately sanctioned Israel.

But that did not happen either. Perhaps, the UN Secretary General was not moved consequentially by the human tragedy he saw. What he said was, “These are heartbreaking scenes I have seen and I am deeply grieved by what I have seen today…” But why not grab the bull by the horns and destroy its wickedness? In the meantime, as for decades, the UN political establishment keeps on working as an extended arm of American foreign policy and overall Western interests. No change there either. Sad, isn’t it?

I had hoped that all Arab regimes would have acted decisively and collectively to gain powerful and important political roles in global politics to mend the international system and make it more responsive to the larger interests of their countries and their people.

But they have virtually let the opportunity slip away yet again. It seems that oil money and American threats to destabilize their regimes are perceived more powerful than the desire and confidence to acquire commanding prowess in the global political system. Consequently, it seems that the Arab world will remain subservient to American-Western dictates for years to come. The Palestinian people will continue to suffer and Israeli military adventurism will expand in its scope as an ally of the US-West the Middle East, spreading its reach to Southeast Asia and the Central Asian Islamic States.

I had hoped that India would sever its diplomatic relations with Israel. It would do so as the largest democracy, denouncing the brutality and genocide of an innocent people in the 21st century. But it did nothing of the sort despite the fact that India is unwilling to forget the Mumbai violence for a fraction of a moment. Rightfully so. But how can it remain a passive non-actor in the global political system so as to not punish Israel for its heinous crimes against humanity? It is the ultimate contempt and neglect of the human condition and an act of absolute hypocrisy, isn’t it?

I had hoped that Pakistan’s incumbent leadership would immediately cut off military supplies to the US-Nato forces in Afghanistan that go through Pakistan’s territory unless the Bush administration forced Israel to stop its carnage in Gaza. Ask any Pakistani and you would get the same opinion. But, it seems, that the incumbent government in Pakistan does not care much for its public opinion, especially when it comes to dealing with the US. Indeed, it is alarmingly un-democratic for a regime that claims democratic credentials. Ironic, isn’t it?

I had hoped that billions of black flags would fly over billions of homes all over the Muslim world as an expression of solidarity with the Palestinians, sharing their grief and anguish over the Israeli-inflicted “holocaust” on them. But it did not happen. Hence, it confirms that the entire Muslim world is politically dead, expressionless, indifferent to the violation of their “beings” – and their political leadership and governments are “agents” of American imperialism. Unbelievably sad, isn’t it?

The only voice raised in this empty and pathetic political wilderness of the Muslim world came from the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad who, in a open letter to Obama, wrote the following on January 1st, 2009:

“1) Stop killing people. The United States is too fond of killing people in order to achieve its objectives… War is primitive, the cavemen’s way of dealing with a problem. Stop your arms build up and your planning for future wars.

2) Stop indiscriminate support of Israeli killers with your money and your weapons. The planes and the bombs killing the people of Gaza are from you.”

I wonder if my readers agree with Dr. Mahathir Mohamad? If you do, then express it – forcefully and assertively. If you don’t, imagine a Gaza-like “holocaust” in your backyard – most probably in Swat, somewhere in NWFP or Afghanistan. The wise thing is to act now – before it’s too late.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, the American President, said in 1933: “Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself – nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyses needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

What are you afraid of? What is your fear? Remember, they are trying to paralyze your advance…subjugate you to their will…implant fear in your hearts …and get away with it! Don’t let them do it to you!

Wake up and stand for yourself and your intrinsic faith in humanitarian principles – your right to justice, fairness and peace…! Mind it, that is what Karbala was all about…!


The “Gaza Holocaust” is a tragedy of a monumental scale because it has happened in our own lifetime – right in front of our eyes…! It is the Karbala of our times!!

Protest it…! Feel grief for it…! Mourn it…! Let “them” know you are not going to take it anymore…!



The writer is a professor, political analyst and a conflict-resolution expert.

Monday, January 19, 2009

An Illegitimate and Lawless Country

From: --"Kaiser Tufail"



Question: Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?

Answer:Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections? Answer:Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force and continues to occupy it in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions?

Answer:Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East routinely violates the international borders of another sovereign state with warplanes and artillery and naval gunfire?

Answer:Israel.

Q: What American ally in the Middle East has for years sent assassins into other countries to kill its political enemies (a practice sometimes called exporting terrorism)?

Answer:Israel.

Q: In which country in the Middle East have high-ranking military officers admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war were executed?

Answer: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East refuses to prosecute its soldiers who have acknowledged executing prisoners of war?

Answer: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East created 762,000 refugees and refuses to allow them to return to their homes, farms and businesses?

Answer: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East refuses to pay compensation to people whose land, bank accounts and businesses it confiscated?

Answer: Israel.

Q: In what country in the Middle East was a high-ranking United Nations diplomat assassinated?

Answer: Israel.

Q: In what country in the Middle East did the man who ordered the assassination of a high-ranking U.N. diplomat become prime minister?

Answer: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East blew up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt and attacked a U.S. ship, the USS Liberty, in international waters, killing 34 and wounding 171 American sailors?

Answer: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East employed a spy, Jonathan Pollard, to steal classified documents and then gave some of them to the Soviet Union? Answer: Israel.

Q: What country at first denied any official connection to Pollard, then voted to make him a citizen and has continuously demanded that the American president grant Pollard a full pardon?

Answer: Israel.

Q. What Middle East country allows American Jewish murderers to flee to its country to escape punishment in the United States and refuses to extradite them once in their custody?

Answer: Israel


Q. What Middle East country preaches against hate yet builds a shrine and a memorial for a murderer who killed 29 Palestinians while they prayed in their Mosque.

Answer: Israel

Q: What country on Planet Earth has the second most powerful lobby in the United States, according to a recent Fortune magazine survey of Washington insiders?

Answer: Israel.

Q. Which country in the Middle East deliberately targeted a U.N. Refugee Camp in Qana, Lebanon and killed 103 innocent men, women, and especially children?

Answer: Israel Q: Which country in the Middle East is in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council resolutions and has been protected from 29 more by U.S. vetoes? Answer: Israel.

Q. Which country in the Middle East receives more than one-third of all U.S. aid yet is the 16th richest country in the world?

Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East receives U.S. weapons for free and then sells the technology to the Republic of China even at the objections of the U.S.?

Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East routinely insults the American people by having its Prime Minister address the United States Congress and lecturing them like children on why they have no right to reduce foreign aid?

Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East had its Prime Minister announce to his staff not to worry about what the United States says because "We control America?"

Answer: Israel

. What country in the Middle East was cited by Amnesty International for demolishing more than 4000 innocent Palestinian homes as a means of ethnic cleansing.

Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East has just recently used a weapon of mass destruction, a one-ton smart bomb, dropping it in the center of a highly populated area killing 15 civilians including 9 children?

Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East routinely kills young Palestinian children for no reason other than throwing stones at armored vehicles, bulldozers, or tanks?

Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East signed the Oslo Accords promising to halt any new Jewish Settlement construction, but instead, has built more than 270 new settlements since the signing?

Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East has assassinated more than 100 political officials of its opponent in the last 2 years while killing hundreds of civilians in the process, including dozens of children?

Answer: Israel

Q.. Which country in the Middle East regularly violates the Geneva Convention by imposing collective punishment on entire towns, villages, and camps, for the acts of a few, and even goes as far as demolishing entire villages while people are still in their homes?

Answer: Israel


This has got to be forwarded.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

ZIONIST ATTACK ON GAZA GHETTO CONTINUES

ZIONIST ATTACK ON GAZA GHETTO CONTINUES A.H AMINNOT A SINGLE EUROPEAN OR US MAJOR LEADER CONDENMED ITTHE UN LED BY ITS MOST SPINELESS AND SHAMELESS SECRETARY GENERAL IS TOTALLY IMPOTENTA BILLION SHAMES ON ARAB KINGS,PRESIDENTS,GENERALS..............DISBAND YOUR ARMIES,NAVIES AND AIR FORCES BECAUSE YOU ARE SHAMELESSA BILLION CURSES ON TWO SHAMELESS ARAB LEADERS SADAAT AND ARAFAT FOR MAKING PEACE WITH THE ZIONISTSMY QUARREL IS NEITHER WITH THE CHRISTIANS NOR JEWS AND I AM NOT A PRACTISING MUSLIM , BUT WITH ZIONISTS WHO ARE WORSE THAN THE KAMINSKI AND DIRLEWANGER BRIGADES OF WARSAW 1944THE PALESTENIANS BEING KILLED ARE BOTH CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS.THE LESSONS THAT THE PIMPS ATTACKING GAZA GHETTO ARE DRIVING IN THE WORLD IS THAT HITLER WAS RIGHT ! HOLOCAST WAS THE IDEAL FINAL SOLUTION.AN ERRONEOUS LESSON BUT A PERCEPTION THAT SEEMS CLOSER TO THE TRUTH THAN IT REALLY IS.SHAME ON ARAB LEADERS KINGS AND PRESIDENTS.SHAME ON EUROPE AND USA.WHERE ARE YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS WHEN STATELESS PALESTENIANS ARE KILLED.SOME EUROPEANS MAY NOT KNOW THAT MANY PALESTENIANS ARE CHRISTIANS TOO.A PATHETIC STATE OF AFFAIRS.EVEN IF ARABS KILL ZIONIST SOLDIERS , HALF THE 1000 PALESTENIAN WOMEN AND CHILDREN THAT THE PIMP ZIONISTS ATTACKING GAZA GHETTO HAVE KILLED THE ZIONISTS WILL MAKE PEACE.THE FAULT OF THE PALESTENIANS IS NOT THAT THEY ARE NOT RIGHT BUT THAT THEU DONT HAVE WMDS.THERE IS A LESSON HERE WHICH ADOLF BUSH HAS TAUGHT THE WORLD IN 2003.IF YOU DONT HAVE WMDS YOU WILL BE ATTACKED AND SLAUGHTERED LIKE COCKROACHES IN ABU GHARIB !

Monday, January 12, 2009

Tacit Approval

Tacit Approval

Is the silence of the moderate Muslim majority against terrorism making it complicit in the murderous outrages of a few Islamists?
By Mahir Ali


On Christmas Eve last year, a feature in The New York Times dwelt on Muhammad Fawaz, “a very serious college junior with a stern gaze and a reluctant smile that barely cloaks suppressed anger.” The 20-year-old had longed for a scholarship to study abroad, but did not have the right connections. “So Mr Fawaz decided to rebel,” wrote Michael Slackman. “He adopted the serene, disciplined demeanour of an Islamic activist.”
“In his sophomore year he was accepted into the student group affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood ... Now he works to recruit other students to the cause ...”
“Across the Middle East, young people like Mr Fawaz, angry, alienated and deprived of opportunity, have accepted Islam as an agent of change and rebellion. It is their rock‘n’roll, their long hair and love beads. Through Islam, they defy the status quo and challenge governments seen as corrupt and incompetent.”
“These young people – 60 per cent of those in the region are under 25 – are propelling a worldwide Islamic revival, driven by a thirst for political change and social justice. That fervour has popularised a more conservative interpretation of the faith.”
That’s not an uncommon view among the liberal western intelligentsia, nor is it particularly inaccurate. The phenomenon is a relatively recent one, however. For much of the 20th century, radical Islamic movements were generally restricted to the fringes of Muslim societies. In some cases – as in Nasser’s Egypt – they were considered a sufficient threat as long ago as the 1950s to attract state repression, which invariably backfired.
Back in that period and well into the 1980s, the United States harboured the impression that it could use such groups as a counterweight against communism and left-wing nationalism. It disbursed funds and advice with abandon. This tendency reached its apotheosis in the so-called jihad against Soviet forces and their Afghan allies, the consequences of which have resonated far and wide ever since. The events of 9/11 stand out on account of where they occurred, but a great many more lives have been lost elsewhere – not least in Algeria during the 1990s – partly through the courtesy of veterans of the Afghan crusade.
Algeria is an interesting case in point, because it spiralled out of control after the armed forces refused to recognise an irrefutable electoral victory by the Islamic Salvation Front. The decision led to years of civil war, during which both sides resorted to unspeakable atrocities. Since the 1990s, the West has been allergic to the prospect of Islamist administrations – although even during that decade it was happy to facilitate the passage of jihadis to Bosnia and Kosovo.
The contradiction between this allergy and its supposed preference for democracy perhaps took its starkest form in the Palestinian territories after Hamas – an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood that in its formative stages was propped up by Israel as a means of weakening the relatively secular Fatah – secured an electoral victory. The US and most of its allies refused to engage with the Hamas leadership in the absence of its explicit recognition of Israel, thereby reinforcing the impression that notwithstanding all the clamour about democracy, popular verdicts count for nothing unless they produce results that meet Washington’s approval.
Double standards of this variety have long fed into the lack of respect that US foreign policy inspires through much of the Muslim world – a tendency that was sharply exacerbated by the war in Iraq. In Afghanistan, meanwhile, the US confronts the irony of being cast in the role it had once chosen for the USSR: propping up a government of restricted appeal in Kabul while combating the combined forces of conservative nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism, the latter supplemented by foreign recruits.
The historically lopsided American approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its role in bolstering unpopular and invariably undemocratic regimes throughout the Middle East are often cited as crucial explanations for the antagonism it attracts, not least from Islamists of the violent variety. This analysis is by no means mistaken, but it is incomplete. It cannot suffice as an explanation for a phenomenon that has been witnessed in recent years across and beyond the Muslim world: a drift towards increasingly rigid interpretations of Islam that most of the faithful would previously have considered anathema.
It is often pointed out that the vast majority of Muslims across the world are moderates, while attention is generally focused on the relatively small groups that advocate violent jihad and sometimes are determined to practice what they preach. A common riposte is: Why, in that case, is the moderate majority so reticent about confronting and denouncing the extremists? The implication here is that Muslim moderation is a contradiction in terms, and that the near silence of the majority makes it complicit in the murderous outrages of the few.
It’s not quite as simple as that, of course. In the same way as followers of other monotheistic religions, Muslims are an amorphous bunch, and there is little danger of this cultural and even theological diversity being obliterated in a relentless march towards Wahhabism or Salafism. There is no good reason to suspect that most adherents of the faith oppose peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims, or harbour absurd visions of some kind of caliphate extending across vast swathes of the planet.
At the same time, however, it would be unrealistic to deny that there has in recent decades been a drift towards fundamentalism across the Muslim world as well as elsewhere, wherever Muslims are settled in large numbers. The alarming increase in conspicuous piety does not in itself point towards a matching rise in support for terrorism. Many perfectly pious Muslims are more than comfortable with the tenet that there should be no compulsion in religion and will have no truck with confessional violence, be it inter-faith or intra-faith.
Yet there is cause to fear a steady increase in the numbers of those whose attitude bears comparison with that of the more virulent evangelical Christians. The latter are chiefly an American phenomenon, and although they may not personally be prone to violence, they have little objection if it is committed on their behalf. Their selective and literal interpretation of the scriptures has even led them to blindly support Israel on the grounds that the latter’s obduracy is likely to turn it into the battlefield for Armageddon. (On the utter lunatic fringe of this special interest group are those who believe Barack Obama is the Antichrist and that his ascendancy is a sign that the end is nigh).
The Muslim equivalent of this tendency includes at least tacit support for acts of violence perpetrated in the name of Islam, and can extend to support networks and other forms of sustenance for the terrorists. Those thus inclined are often affiliated, formally or otherwise, with the likes of Jamaat-ud-Dawa in Pakistan, Jemaah Islamiah in Indonesia and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Such networks are fond of emphasising their role as welfare organisations – and more often than not, this is not a spurious claim. In many countries such bodies are more effective than state agencies. It’s disingenuous to pretend, however, that this is their only, or even their primary, function.
The drift towards extremism in the Muslim world is invariably attributed to repressive regimes and economic disarray: the same sort of factors that once upon a time powered left-wing movements. This can, however, only be a partial explanation for the phenomenon. After all, recent history offers no examples of purportedly Islamic regimes – be it the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia, the mullahs in Iran or the Taliban in Afghanistan – that have been anything other than repressive. Nor has Islam’s theoretical preference for an equitable distribution of wealth ever been coherently manifested in a national setting.
Another explanation points towards a siege mentality based on the impression that the rest of the world is determined to disempower, if not decimate, Muslims. Back in the 1980s and ’90s, this fear was based on the fact that Muslims were the beleaguered party in most of the world’s hotspots, be it Palestine, Bosnia, Kashmir or Chechnya. A common counter-argument in this respect is the at least equally pertinent claim that when a conflict, no matter how ugly, involves Muslims killing other Muslims, the ummah is strangely unaffected. To cite the most obvious instance, how many protests have there been throughout the Muslim world against the genocide in Darfur?
Among Muslims in the West, the siege mentality is compounded by alienation within the societies in which they have grown up. The first generation of Muslim immigrants in Britain, for instance, faced with relative equanimity the hostile environment in which they found themselves. They did not abandon their cultures, but it was widely assumed that subsequent generations would be increasingly better assimilated. It happened in some cases, but in others the drift has been towards an Islamic identity. Taken to an extreme, the latter tendency can lead to violent consequences. You can blame it on racism. You can blame it on Iraq and Afghanistan.
But these can, at best, be regarded as contributory factors rather than a satisfactory explanation. It’s as if a switch has been pulled in the Muslim psyche. It’s hard to say whether something has been switched on or something else has been switched off. This urge to indiscriminately take the lives of others is, naturally enough, considered unacceptable outside the fold of Islam (although the means deployed to countermand it all too often produce the opposite effect). What’s alarming is that some Muslims don’t consider it unacceptable. And those who do, often lack the ability or the courage to make themselves heard.
Sometimes it seems as if a veil has descended between Muslim minds and common sense. This does not affect only those who have never been afforded the opportunity to consider a worldview that might contradict what they are taught in their madrassas. It also extends to those who have been exposed to an enlightened education. The inclination to see a particular interpretation of religion as the only solution is what makes religion a problem.
Whatever your faith, there is something seriously amiss if your confessional identity supersedes your status as a member of the human race. This is a concern for all faiths: so many of the world’s conflicts would lose their raison d’etre if only Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists and all the rest, without exception, could attach primacy to each other’s common humanity.
It sounds like a pipe dream, but it may well turn out to be only long-term guarantee of coexistence. Other religions, have passed through the kind of phase that Islam seems to be going through. In the case of Christianity, it took a thorough reformation to transcend the nonsense associated with the Inquisition and so on. Islam appears to be headed in the opposite direction, but that could change. About the only kind of jihad that could be justified under the present circumstances would be a struggle within Islam aimed at banishing the baser concepts that prop up obscurantism.
A few months ago, a report in the British press related how it had taken a fatwa from the Muslim Law (Shariah) Council UK to enable a blind Muslim student, Mahomed-Abraar Khatri, to enter a Leicester mosque with his guide dog. The Guide Dogs Association called it “a massive step forward for other blind and partially-sighted Muslims.” It almost made one wish a similar fatwa could offer deliverance to those Muslims who doggedly refuse to see the light.

The Saudi-isation of Pakistan

The Saudi-isation of Pakistan

A stern, unyielding version of Islam is replacing the kinder, gentler Islam of the Sufis in Pakistan.

By Pervez Hoodbhoy




The common belief in Pakistan is that Islamic radicalism is a problem only in FATA, and that madrassas are the only institutions serving as jihad factories. This is a serious misconception. Extremism is breeding at a ferocious rate in public and private schools within Pakistan’s towns and cities. Left unchallenged, this education will produce a generation incapable of co-existing with anyone except strictly their own kind. The mindset it creates may eventually lead to Pakistan’s demise as a nation state.
For 20 years or more, a few of us have been desperately sending out SOS messages, warning of terrible times to come. In fact, I am surprised at how rapidly these dire predictions have come true.
A full-scale war is being fought in FATA, Swat and other “wild” areas of Pakistan, resulting in thousands of deaths. It is only a matter of time before this fighting shifts to Peshawar and Islamabad (which has already been a witness to the Lal Masjid episode) and engulfs Lahore and Karachi as well. The suicide bomber and the masked abductor have crippled Pakistan’s urban life and shattered its national economy.
Soldiers, policemen, factory and hospital workers, mourners at funerals and ordinary people praying in mosques have all been reduced to globs of flesh and fragments of bones. But, perhaps paradoxically, in spite of the fact that the dead bodies and shattered lives are almost all Muslim ones, few Pakistanis speak out against these atrocities. Nor do they approve of the army operation against the cruel perpetrators of these acts because they believe that they are Islamic warriors fighting for Islam and against American occupation. Political leaders like Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan have no words of solace for those who have suffered at the hands of Islamic extremists. Their tears are reserved exclusively for the victims of Predator drones, even if they are those who committed grave crimes against their own people. Terrorism, by definition, is an act only the Americans can commit.
What explains Pakistan’s collective masochism? To understand this, one needs to study the drastic social and cultural transformations that have rendered this country so completely different from what it was in earlier times.
For three decades, deep tectonic forces have been silently tearing Pakistan away from the Indian subcontinent and driving it towards the Arabian peninsula. This continental drift is not physical but cultural, driven by a belief that Pakistan must exchange its South Asian identity for an Arab-Muslim one. Grain by grain, the desert sands of Saudi Arabia are replacing the rich soil that had nurtured a magnificent Muslim culture in India for a thousand years. This culture produced Mughul architecture, the Taj Mahal, the poetry of Asadullah Khan Ghalib, and much more. Now a stern, unyielding version of Islam (Wahhabism) is replacing the kinder, gentler Islam of the Sufis and saints who had walked on this land for hundreds of years.
This change is by design. Twenty-five years ago, the Pakistani state used Islam as an instrument of state policy. Prayers in government departments were deemed compulsory, floggings were carried out publicly, punishments were meted out to those who did not fast in Ramadan, selection for academic posts in universities required that the candidate demonstrate a knowledge of Islamic teachings and jihad was declared essential for every Muslim. Today, government intervention is no longer needed because of a spontaneous groundswell of Islamic zeal. The notion of an Islamic state – still in an amorphous and diffused form – is more popular now than ever before as people look desperately for miracles to rescue a failing state.
Villages have changed drastically; this transformation has been driven, in part, by Pakistani workers returning from Arab countries. Many village mosques are now giant madrassas that propagate hard-line Salafi and Deobandi beliefs through oversized loudspeakers. They are bitterly opposed to Barelvis, Shias and other sects, who they do not regard as Muslims. The Punjabis, who were far more liberal towards women than the Pukhtuns, are now beginning to take a line resembling that of the Taliban. Hanafi law has begun to prevail over tradition and civil law, as is evident from the recent decisions of the Lahore High Court.
In Pakistan’s lower-middle and middle classes lurks a grim and humourless Saudi-inspired revivalist movement that frowns on any and every expression of joy and pleasure. Lacking any positive connection to culture and knowledge, it seeks to eliminate “corruption” by regulating cultural life and seizing control of the education system.
“Classical music is on its last legs in Pakistan; the sarangi and vichitraveena are completely dead,” laments Mohammad Shehzad, a music aficionado. Indeed, teaching music in public universities is violently opposed by students of the Islami Jamaat-e-Talaba at Punjab University. So the university has been forced to hold its music classes elsewhere. Religious fundamentalists consider music haram or un-Islamic. Kathak dancing, once popular with the Muslim elite of India, has few teachers left. Pakistan produces no feature films of any consequence. Nevertheless, the Pakistani elite, disconnected from the rest of the population, live their lives in comfort through their vicarious proximity to the West. Alcoholism is a chronic problem of the super rich of Lahore – a curious irony for this deeply religious country.
Islamisation of the state and the polity was supposed to have been in the interest of the ruling class – a classic strategy for preserving it from the wrath of the working class. But the amazing success of the state is turning out to be its own undoing. Today, it is under attack from religious militants, and rival Islamic groups battle each other with heavy weapons. Ironically, the same army – whose men were recruited under the banner of jihad, and which saw itself as the fighting arm of Islam – today stands accused of betrayal and is almost daily targeted by Islamist suicide bombers.
Pakistan’s self-inflicted suffering comes from an education system that, like Saudi Arabia’s system, provides an ideological foundation for violence and future jihadists. It demands that Islam be understood as a complete code of life, and creates in the mind of a school-going child a sense of siege and embattlement by stressing that Islam is under threat everywhere.
On the previous page, the reader can view the government-approved curriculum. This is the basic road map for transmitting values and knowledge to the young. By an act of parliament passed in 1976, all government and private schools (except for O-level schools) are required to follow this curriculum. It was prepared by the curriculum wing of the federal ministry of education, government of Pakistan. It sounds like a blueprint for a religious fascist state.
Alongside are scanned pictures from an illustrated primer for the Urdu alphabet. The masthead states that it has been prepared by Iqra Publishers, Rawalpindi, along “Islamic lines.” Although not an officially approved textbook, it is being used currently by some regular schools, as well as madrassas associated with the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), an Islamic political party that had allied itself with General Musharraf. These picture scans have been taken from a child’s book, hence the scribbles.
The world of the Pakistani schoolchild remained largely unchanged, even after September 11, 2001, the event that led to Pakistan’s timely desertion of the Taliban and the slackening of the Kashmir jihad. Indeed, for all his hypocritical talk of “enlightened moderation,” General Musharraf’s educational curriculum was far from enlightening. It was a slightly toned down version of the curriculum that existed under Nawaz Sharif which, in turn, was identical to that under Benazir Bhutto who had inherited it from General Zia-ul-Haq. Fearful of taking on the powerful religious forces, every incumbent government has refused to take a position on the curriculum and thus quietly allowed young minds to be moulded by fanatics. What may happen a generation later has always been a secondary issue for a government challenged on so many fronts.
The promotion of militarism in Pakistan’s so-called “secular” public schools, colleges and universities had a profound effect upon young minds. Militant jihad became part of the culture on college and university campuses. Armed groups flourished, they invited students for jihad in Kashmir and Afghanistan, set up offices throughout the country, collected funds at Friday prayers and declared a war which knew no borders. Pre-9/11, my university was ablaze with posters inviting students to participate in the Kashmir jihad. Post-2001, this ceased to be done openly.
Still, the primary vehicle for Saudi-ising Pakistan’s education has been the madrassa. In earlier times, these had turned out the occasional Islamic scholar, using a curriculum that essentially dates back to the 11th century, with only minor subsequent revisions. But their principal function had been to produce imams and muezzins for mosques, and those who eked out an existence as ‘maulvi sahibs’ teaching children to read the Quran.
The Afghan jihad changed everything. During the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, madrassas provided the US-Saudi-Pakistani alliance the cannon fodder they needed to fight a holy war. The Americans and Saudis, helped by a more-than-willing General Zia, funded new madrassas across the length and breadth of Pakistan. A detailed picture of the current situation is not available. But according to the national education census, which the ministry of education released in 2006, Punjab has 5,459 madrassas followed by the NWFP with 2,843; Sindh has 1,935; the Federally Administrated Northern Areas (FANA), 1,193; Balochistan, 769; Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), 586; the Federally Administrated Tribal Areas (FATA), 135; and the Islamabad capital territory, 77. The ministry estimates that 1.5 million students are acquiring religious education in the 13,000 madrassas.
These figures appear to be way off the mark. Commonly quoted figures range between 18,000 and 22,000 madrassas. The number of students could be correspondingly larger. The free boarding and lodging plus provision of books to the students, is a key part of their appeal. Additionally, parents across the country desire that their children be “disciplined” and given a thorough Islamic education. The madrassas serve this purpose, too, exceedingly well.
Madrassas have deeply impacted the urban environment. Until a few years ago, Islamabad was a quiet, orderly, modern city different from the rest of Pakistan. Also, it had largely been the abode of Pakistan’s elite and foreign diplomats. But the rapid transformation of its demography brought with it hundreds of mosques with multi-barrelled audio-cannons mounted on minarets, as well as scores of madrassas illegally constructed in what used to be public parks and green areas. Now, tens of thousands of their students, sporting little prayer caps, dutifully chant the Quran all day. In the evenings they swarm the city, making women minus the hijab increasingly nervous.
Total segregation of the sexes is a central goal of the Islamists, the consequences of which have been catastrophic. For example, on April 9, 2006, 21 women and eight children were crushed to death and scores injured in a stampede inside a three-storey madrassa in Karachi, where a large number of women were attending a weekly congregation. Male rescuers, who arrived in ambulances, were prevented from moving the injured women to hospitals.
One cannot dismiss this incident as being just one of a kind. In fact, soon after the October 2005 earthquake, as I walked through the destroyed city of Balakot, a student of the Frontier Medical College described to me how he and his male colleagues were stopped by religious elders from digging out injured girl students from under the rubble of their school building. This action was similar to that of Saudi Arabia’s ubiquitous religious ‘mutaween’ (police) who, in March 2002, had stopped school girls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing their abayas – a long robe worn in Saudi Arabia. In a rare departure from the norm, Saudi newspapers had blamed and criticised the mutaween for letting 15 girls burn to death.
The Saudi-isation of a once-vibrant Pakistani culture continues at a relentless pace. The drive to segregate is now also being found among educated women. Vigorous proselytisers carrying this message, such as Mrs Farhat Hashmi, have been catapulted to the heights of fame and fortune. Their success is evident. Two decades back, the fully veiled student was a rarity on Pakistani university and college campuses. The abaya was an unknown word in Urdu. Today, some shops across the country specialise in abayas. At colleges and universities across Pakistan, the female student is seeking the anonymity of the burqa. And in some parts of the country she seems to outnumber her sisters who still “dare” to show their faces.
I have observed the veil profoundly affect habits and attitudes. Many of my veiled female students have largely become silent note-takers, are increasingly timid and seem less inclined to ask questions or take part in discussions. They lack the confidence of a young university student.
While social conservatism does not necessarily lead to violent extremism, it does shorten the distance. The socially conservative are more easily convinced that Muslims are being demonised by the rest of the world. The real problem, they say, is the plight of the Palestinians, the decadent and discriminatory West, the Jews, the Christians, the Hindus, the Kashmir issue, the Bush doctrine – the list runs on. They vehemently deny that those committing terrorist acts are Muslims, and if presented with incontrovertible evidence, say it is a mere reaction to oppression.
The immediate future does not appear hopeful: increasing numbers of mullahs are creating cults around themselves and seizing control of the minds of worshippers. In the tribal areas, a string of new Islamist leaders have suddenly emerged: Baitullah Mehsud, Maulana Fazlullah and Mangal Bagh. Poverty, deprivation, lack of justice and extreme differences of wealth provide the perfect environment for these demagogues to recruit people to their cause. Their gruesome acts of terror are still being perceived by large numbers of Pakistanis merely as a war against imperialist America. This could not be further from the truth.
In the long term, we will have to see how the larger political battle works out between those Pakistanis who want an Islamic theocratic state and those who want a modern Islamic republic. It may yet be possible to roll back those Islamist laws and institutions that have corroded Pakistani society for over 30 years and to defeat its hate-driven holy warriors. There is no chance of instant success; perhaps things may have to get worse before they get better. But, in the long term, I am convinced that the forces of irrationality will cancel themselves out because they act at random whereas reason pulls only in one direction. History leads us to believe that reason will triumph over unreason, and the evolution of the humans into a higher and better species will continue. Using ways that we cannot currently anticipate, they will somehow overcome their primal impulses of territoriality, tribalism, religiosity and nationalism. But, for now, this must be just a matter of faith.
The author teaches physics at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad.