Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments

Stuka,

I agree with your assessment. As for your question, is such a clash going to happen? I dont know. Should it happen? Yes. When? Now when the time is right. This is how it has to happen, and I know I am going to incur Urstruly`s wrath for this.

I know this is naive but this is how I want the situation to proceed:

1) Pakistan should insist not only agree on the staging of US troops.

2) The Mullah Jehadi groups will then rise up against the Government.

3) US troops and Pakistani troops should then coordinate efforts to root them out.

There hasnt been an open clash between the Secularists/Moderates and the extremist fundoos because Pakistan`s leaders have exhibited `Chamberlainism` perhaps even to some extent Jinnah , and definitely all leaders following him.

But Stuka moderate and educated Indians like you have to side with us on this one, and this how.. by not trying to sabotage every effort by the pakistani govt. and the us govt. to coordinate.

Also, it would be helpful if mature Indians like you actually addressed a few posts to people like Jay who have taken to outright lying about myself for example. This would win a lot of us over.

I mean seriously, is it fair? First he declared that I call my father `abu` when I have never used that term (the person who used this term on this board was Bhartiya Musalman), then he declared that it shows an `arabicization` trend amongst Pakistanis, and when I countered that by explaining to him that Abu is a shortened version of `Abba` which no doubt is derived from `abi` which is the same root as the kuniyat in Arabic `Abu` ... He came up with a new accusation that I was saying that `Abu` and `Bin` were of Urdu Origin.

It seems to me that Indians love making strawman fallacies and breaking them with no real progress on issue at hand.

When is this attitude going to change?

Unkal Jay, when are your lies going to end?

Look inside you, is it really fair that you attribute statements to me that I havent made?

Can you even sleep at nights? Are all Indians liars? Is that the image you want to project.

Tell us now, who was it that child molested you? or raped you? Why such hatred that you are willing to go to extent of blatant lying and twisting of words...

Did I say that Abu was not derived from the Arabic root `Abi`? Or do you have qualms with the fact that the urdu word `abu` is shortened version of

the word `Abba` which is in turn derived from the Arabic root `Abi`?

Did you not read, or did you fake it on purpose...

FerozeK:

this is turning into a really thought provoking debate and has, been except for the usual nationalistic rants, a civilized discussion a very serious topic.

With all due respect Sir, it is allright to dispassionately discuss Jihad, but the facts on the ground prove otherwise

Reply #: 159

Urstruly

``

The secular polities have used man-made scriptures, instead of Holy Scriptures, to justify the mayhem. So where is the moral high ground?

``

-- Secular polities deal with tangible realities... as I said in #33, that you overlooked. Non secular ideals deal with philosophical and abstract concepts that no one can quite agree on. No one is right or wrong. So why go at each other ?

You said:

``

It is time that West must address those issues. A dialogue between the PEOPLE of two worlds must be initiated. Only then justice will prevail. I hate to say this but if those issues are not addressed people in the Muslim world will find a soft corner for ``terrorists`` even though they may hate their doing.

``

-- In this case, I agree with you. We need to have a talk amongst followers of different tradations and come to some sort of agreement of mutual benefit. When the media is controlled by one of the parties, its quite easy to let the ``news`` fight your battles... you don`t need guns.

Today, if CNN or BBC were controlled by muslims or hindus we would have gotten a better side of the picture. Today, if New York Times etc were not Jewish owned, the middle east might have been a different place.

I say this as a Hindu and an Indian because I have seen both sides of the picture. Our dominance of cable stations in the sub continent ensures that our beliefs and ideas are spread by ``Kyoki Saas be Kabhi Bhau thi... `` and her likes. Our weakness in the western media has resulted in only a fleeting/passing mention of the sucide bomb attack in Srinagar.

So yes, I fully agree with URSTRULY that its time we had a debate about the boundaries and rules of conduct amongst the followers of different idealogies. Perhaps the POPE should, as a first step recall the document which calls for ``harvesting the souls of Asia in the 3rd millenium``. Perhaps its time for Islam to redefine a KAFIR as an atheist and its time for Hinduism to get rid of its caste system.

AD

Urstruly and fellow Chowkies,

Oh boy, all of a sudden I find my self in the middle of a subject I despise most: Foreign polices :). But I see we have able and willing minds on this forum to discuss with constructive criticism and civility.

As I have mentioned in my post to id (reply #155), let us be specific about each American foreign policy Arab world is not happy about. And we take it from there. (meantime, it will give enough time to get through crash course on Foreign policy 101 :)

Another somersault from stuntman Musarraf:

Pakistan invites ex-king to form government

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Oct. 3 (UPI) -- President Pervez Musharraf asked former Afghan King Mohammed Zahir Shah to send an emissary to Islamabad as soon as possible to discuss a post-Taliban government, Italy`s minister of state for foreign affairs said Wednesday.

United Press International reported Sunday that Pakistan planned to press the ex-king to relocate from Rome and invite various Afghan factions for talks in Pakistani tribal areas.

Margherita Boniver told reporters in Islamabad after meeting Musharraf for 40 minutes that the Pakistani leader believed the former king had a role to play in forming a unified government in Afghanistan should the Taliban regime fall.

``The Pakistanis are now realizing that the old king can be a direct person with whom to engage in a peace process,`` Boniver said. ``President Musharraf has asked me to convey to the king the fact that Pakistan wants an emissary -- a person close to the king -- to come to Islamabad as quickly as possible.``(beware Zahir shah).

Former Pakistani President Farooq Khan Leghari told UPI Editor at Large Arnaud de Borchagrave, on Sunday that he has urged Musharraf to invite the ex-king to Pakistan and provide him with a base in Waziristan, a northwestern tribal region.

Close to the Afghan border and the home of several Pashtun tribes who live on both sides of the border, Waziristan is a suitable place for calling a loi jirga or traditional assembly of Afghan leaders and tribal elders, Leghari said.

Pashtun is the dominant ethnic group in Afghanistan and also is the second largest ethnic group in Pakistan. The king is a Pashtun and Leghari`s mother is a Pashtun. He is also related to Afghanistan`s Gilani family which is strongly linked to the Afghan royal family.

Reports in the Pakistani media suggest that Shah may appoint Pir Syed Ahmed Gilani, the leader of a royalist party called the National Islamic Front(oh boy!) of Afghanistan, the prime minister of an interim government to replace the Taliban regime.

The former Pakistani president told United Press International that Musharraf

``enthusiastically endorsed his idea`` and said he was going to discuss it with the United States and other allies trying to replace the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The United States is already negotiating with the former king who on Tuesday formed an alliance with the opposition Northern Alliance which is fighting to topple the Taliban.

The United States also has agreed to support the Northern Alliance.

Leghari, who had another meeting with Musharraf on Monday evening, may fly to Rome to meet the former Afghan king, a Pakistani newspaper, The News, reported.

Pakistan is trying to establish direct contacts with Shah to prevent the Northern Alliance from dominating the future Afghan government. The Alliance has close relations with Pakistan`s rival India and Russia.

However, it is not yet clear how would the former king react to such overtures from Pakistan. He did not have good relations with Pakistan while in power from 1933 to 1973 and his new allies in the Northern Alliance do not hesitate in expressing their dislike for Pakistan.

Hamid Karzai, a Pakistan-based chief of a major Pashtun tribe in the Taliban-dominated Kandahar region, told The News that he did not know whether Leghari would visit the king.

However, he said he was flying to Rome on Thursday for a meeting with Shah. Karzai and other Pashtun supporters of the former king want him to land directly in Afghanistan instead of taking up residence in a neighboring country. They argue that fiercely independent Afghans may not approve if he takes up residence in another country, even if temporarily.

Meanwhile, a Pakistani Pashtun leader Mehmud Khan Achakzai, who also has some influence in Kandahar as his tribe lives on both sides of the border, said Waziristan would be a suitable place for convening the tribal assembly.

``Nadir Khan, the father of Zahir Shah, also entered Afghanistan from the same route in 1930,`` he said.

Nadir Khan was a commander of the late Afghan king Amanullah Khan`s army in early 1920s. But he never felt comfortable with the haste, his king wanted Afghanistan to get modernized. And, preferred to live a life of exile in Paris.

Amannullah Khan also had close links with Russian communists and admired Turkish leader Mustafa Kamal Pasha. His links with Turkey and Russia annoyed the British who played a key role in stirring up a religious revolt against him.

He was replaced by an ethnic Tajik fundamentalist ruler, Bacha Saqqao. But Afghanistan`s Pashtun tribe rejected the non-Pashtun rulers and finally the British helped Nadir Khan, who was a cousin of Amannullah Khan, in entering Afghanistan through Waziristan.

He soon became the king in 1930 but was murdered in 1939 and was replaced by his son, Zahir Shah. Shah was deposed in 1973 and has been living near Rome since then.{Washington Times).

What a tangled mess!

urstruly #159 with spokemen like you for Islam, who needs enemies!! anyone reading the Quran would understand that Islam and politics are two separate things: Islam (the Quranic kind, not the make-believe kind cooked up over hundreds of years by would-be political leaders) has to do with belief in a God to Whom ALONE belongs the authority to pass Judgement (as He will on Judgement Day) on who did the right thing and who did not. Islam does not get involved in affairs of the state - if it did, it would have anointed the Prophet with worldly powers which the Quran does not; there would have been references to the method of succession after the Prophet`s death, and there are none. The only states referred to in the Quran are only incidentally, these being (a) Queen Sheba`s state, of which the Quran talks approvingly because she ``consulted her advisers`` in her decisions - and Sheba was a heathen, and a female to boot; (b) the Pharaonic states, of which the Quran talks disapprovingly because of the cruel punishments the Pharaohs inflicted on their people. There is no mention of a Muslim State.

So, when defending what you call Islam, please chose some other word for it - Call it ``Maudoodism``, call it ``Talibanism``. Dont call what you are saying Islam, because it is not.

Are private armies constitutional in Pakistan?

nasah #166
If they can find some biradiri-related reason to stop massacring each other or to stop helping each other massacre others(while calling it jihad), well, more power to them.

At least we willnot be subjected to these smarmy cowardly half-truths about religion or principle or politics.

Shammi,

I can assure you that those who favor a constitutional struggle in Kashmir against India will be overwhelmed, if peoplelike Abdullah (who has for Rsaxena`s information a total of 3% of voter support in Kashmir, a sad commentary on India`s sham attempts to justify its wrong ful annexation of 1958 which is against all UN resolutions as well as the `temporary` document of accession that Inida holds) dont stop bsing out of their arse against Pakistan. What Powell said diplomatically is of little consequence, the jealous protests of the Indian foreign office, and the Indian community`s slander of Pakistan, has thoroughly discredited India`s position.

In any event those who think Pakistan had anything to do with the latest attacks in Srinagar are on Hash..... or maybe something even more potent. Atleast one former American Military person has declared that he doesnt put it past the Indian authorities to have perpetrated the attack themselves to somehow coerce US into hostilities with Pakistan. That too is far fetched ... but more believeable than Pakistan being behind an attack... when clearly they have to be totally stupid to do so!

ref: Ferozek

The real paradox is that everybody blames the US for its foreign policies, but these are dictated by its own national interests not the interests of the world. So is it wrong for the US to act according to its interests, even if it hurts other people? I don`t think that most of us are in any position to judge, because we behave in much the same manner.

For eg: We blame the US for supporting the undemocratic and ``oppressive`` governments in the middle-east. Yet we all do business with them. And whenever it has been in their interest, nations big and small, have supported such ``oppressive`` regimes. Pakistan`s support for the repressive taliban regime is well known. India supported the invasion of the USSR into Afghanistan. Similarly the US is blamed for aiding and abetting the Israelis in their opression of the Palestinians by giving them weapons and aid. Yet I am sure many Islamic countries also give financial aid to Sudan`s government, which is involved in repressing the minorities in the South.

So ultimately it boils down to saying that the resentment against the US is because it does what all of us do, simply more effectively.

Now where do we go from here? It is unlikely that the US can voluntarily be asked to become less powerful, or not to act in its own interests. It is desirable to make the weaker nations stronger, but that too is unlikely to happen in the short term.

My own feeling is that a lot of this resentment comes about because even though the world is becoming a global village, we are becoming a village with only one local thanedar (policeman). We expect too much from him. We expect him to be impartial and above his own interests, even though to expect this is ridiculous. And we get angry when he is not.

The only solution, I think, is to develop global political institutions where the weaker nations can make their voices heard. Oh yes, there is the UN but it is ineffective and powerless. It is more a rubberstamp for the powerful than a parliament for the world. Unless we are able to develop such institutions, there will always be people who will feel powerless and oppressed, and who will tend towards violence.

-narain

ad: I am not a very good writer so I dont think I can explain very well, what I am trying to say.. hope you will try to make some sense of it without any prejudice or bias.

The question is how do you define `Muslim Cultural Oblivion or Political oblivion`? I am simply giving you my perspective so please dont jump down my throat. There is a huge difference .... between what we perceive as Muslim cultural oblivion and what really can only be described as the orthodox Islamic tradition.

Modernist Muslim (Pakistan Movement) Premise is simple `Survival of Islamic traditionalism is the decadence of Muslim Culture`

Now let us tackle the question of cultural oblivion first, because the political oblivion is rather entangled. Undoubtedly outside Egypt India has the greatest unbroken tradition of `fiqh` taught in its traditional Islamic centers of Deoband and Dehli. No doubt you can point to `Mohalla` after `Mohalla` of Muslims living in peace and harmony attending to their business, maintaining their life time as under the Mughals. All is well and good.

But to me this is `Oblivion`. Here I want to make

the characteristic `difference` between what Pakistan is meant to do and what it is perceived to do. If the objective of Pakistan was to preserve a medieval form of Islam and Islamic culture, then Pakistan was not only unnecessary but has failed considerably.

The objectives of those who made Pakistan were not to save Islam, Dehli`s Mohallas, Islamic culture of Khateebs etc... the people of the Pakistan Movement were Modernists educated in the west who had cultivated a cultural identity of being a Muslim. To them `unbroken traditions of Hadis and Fiqh`, `traditional Islamic culture`, the `Lakhnavi tehzeeb`, the `adub, adaab culture`, the `mullahism`, all were `decadence` of Muslim culture.

The truth is that despite some genuine achievements on the part of Indian Muslims who have excelled in science business politics there is no denying that etc, the majority of Indians Muslims remains `traditional` and orthodox. They go to their local mosques, and generally spend their life in a more `traditional` Islamic manner than do their counterparts in Pakistan. This argument was put many times, by our own Bhartiya Musalman.

In Pakistan, the Muslim Majority has been subjected with the tasks other than religion which involve nation building, education, science, Economics, commerce, business, etc... This has shifted the `leadership` of the Muslims within Pakistan from the religious leaders to those who are political leaders. Therefore a great majority of the Pakistani population, the 2 % fundamentalists nonwithstanding, has become irreligious and more pragmatic. That is why in Pakistan religious leaders dont get elected for example. In Pakistan the Khateeb of Badshahi Mosque doesnot represent the `popular` Muslim opinion. In India, the Khateeb of Moti Masjid, and the Jamia Masjid Dehli have prime Importance in Muslim affairs.

This is precisely why the fundamentalists opposed the creation of Pakistan. They knew that with the creation of Pakistan , a Muslim Majority state, the center of power will shift from the traditional religious to the political.

When we talk of Muslim Cultural oblivion, we talk of the propagation and continuation of traditional Islamic institutions. You can point to children studying Islamic Law in Dehli and say .... `Islamic culture is saved`... No doubt the Mughal Culture is alive in well in the Mohallas of Dehli... but we want to put an END to the Mughal Culture, Lakhnavi Tehzeeb, we want a Modern Muslim culture, a renaissance of Muslim culture which is not possible in India... because the minority Muslims there would always be on guard, and thus stick fervently to their faith.

If you read Allama Iqbal`s address of 1930 where you find the beginnings of Pakistan, you will see

he outlines the Modernization of Muslim culture, and views the continuation of the old Muslim culture as the real `Cultural oblivion`.

As for your question about political oblivion...

well sir we know the traditional centers of power in India have never been in the hands of the Muslims ...

Let me give you another example. Pakistan has had more Sindhi Prime Ministers, More Pushtun Presidents, and even more Bengali Prime Ministers than Punjabi Presidents... Does it mean that Punjabis in Pakistan have not held back other ethnicities intentionally or unintentionally?

Similarly, figureheads dont matter. Muslims are in political oblivion for sure and that is not because India is discriminatory... India`s constitution I will give you is one of the best documents I have ever read... It is because `cultural oblivion` which entails the continuation of religious institutions and Islamic institutions

and shifts leadership from political centers to religious ones has caused a dearth of active national politics amongst Indian Muslims. Remember the National Politicians amongst Muslims like Jinnah and Dr Barkat, and Ch Khaliquzzaman etc all ex Congressites had left for Pakistan anyway.

Its a cyclical process. The way out? Indian Muslims should make a concerted effort to become

Indians of the `Muslim Faith` instead of Indian Muslims. That is really hard to do given the doctrine of Islam. So the only time, in the opinion of Iqbal for example Muslims will be committed to a national cause without any contradiction with their faith is when they are in a majority.... then they can become secular even, like Turkey. Why do you think Ataturk was so adamant in population exchange with greeks?

This is a fact.

AD

An example to illustrate my point:

`Imam` Hamza Yusuf opened the `Zaytuna` institute in the heart of Silicon Valley to teach Imam Hanbali and Imam Shaafi`s Fiqh. Will you quote this as an example of thriving Muslim culture?

Maybe some will. But I dont.... I see this as `Muslim cultural, political and social oblivion`...

If Hamza Yusuf had opened an institute to teach Computer Science, Economics and Business to Muslims, that to me would have been `thriving Muslim culture.`

Further explanation:

If there is a Paradox ... this is it :

`X` is a Muslim by birth. `X` associates with the Muslim community and identifies strongly with Muslim Identity. `X` is opposed to religious Dogma. `X` wants Muslims to Modernize. `X` wants Muslims to leave `traditional` and `orthodox` medieval Islam.`X` wants Muslims to learn Economics, Sciences, Modern trades, computers, Engineering etc. `X` wants to see Muslims as Rational civilized people.

X is Ataturk in Turkey. X is Allama Iqbal in India, X is Jinnah after 1937, X is Musharaff in Pakistan, X is Khatami in Iran, X is Farzana Versey in India, etc etc etc

Urstruly,

Some comments and questions:

- There is no lunatic ``fringe`` in Islam. ALL Islamists are lunatics in my view, and they are certainly not a fringe. Only a lunatic would want to take away the basic political and human rights away from 1 billion muslims. The lunatics in my view include (among others), the Taleban in Afghanistan, the JUI and Jamaat Islami and the numerous Lashkars and Sipahs in Pakistan, the FIS and the Muslim Brotherhoods in Africa, the Government of Sudan, the Ayatullahs in Iran and the Royal Family and religous establishment in Saudi Arabia.

- Islam is compatible with democracy? All Islamists believe that sovereignty belongs to Allah and not to the people of the state. All laws of the state have to conform to Allah`s wishes as interpreted by the Islamists. Is this democracy?

Islamists also consider monarchies, martial laws and other despotic forms of government acceptable and even preferable to democracy if these implement Shariah, which the democracy couldn`t or wouldn`t. The unstinted support of Islamists to Zia and of Turabi to the Sudanese govt. and of Bin Baaz to Saudi govt. is a proof of this.

- There are a number of aspects of Islam (according to Islamists) that are incompatible with modern times. These are not only abhorrent to the ``civilized world`` as Bush so arrogantly puts it, but also scare the hell out of ordinary muslims.

For example, inability to choose and propagate one`s religion, or no religion at all; and having chosen Islam, getting beaten up for not following ALL the rituals and diktats like praying five times a day, growing a beard, wearing a hijab etc. Burying women up to there knees and stoning them to death for fornication, chopping off the hands and feet of shoplifters and pick pockets etc. etc.

- You mentioned that Jehad becomes neccessary when the Islamic ``Ideology`` is threatened. What is Islamic Ideology?

- Your assertion that Pakistanis are opposed to Gen. Musharraf is wrong. All the Islamists parties put together have never managed 1 million votes and the demonstrators in the streets are the madrassa students and Afghan refugees. Do you have anyother way of gauging the opposition?

Re sarwari # 127

I completely agree with you when you say that Indian atrocities in Kashmir are unjust and barbaric. And I also agree that peace without justice is surrender. But I also think that it is immoral of Pakistan to encourage and help misguided people to fight a losing battle in the name of religion for her own interests.

What would these people do if they do get their freedom? with no education and generations of war we would have another taliban at our hands.

And it is also amazing to see how Pakistan has always managed to turn situations in Afghanistan to it’s own advantage, during the afghan soviet war WE helped them rather we helped the US and got lots and lots and lots of money, arms and benefits. Then we started supporting the taliban knowing fully well how corrupt they were and how they were treating a common afghan especially women so OUR borders would be secure. Now again we are using them by helping the US to attack them so WE can get aid and get rid of sanctions and we call ourselves Muslims, saviors of the oppressed. we are no better than vampires. we live on the blood of others. It is amazing that a common afghan doesn’t hate us like a common palestinian hates America for supporting Israel.

I think we need to do some serious soul searching before pointing fingers at others.

anarayn #165 Agreed, the ``Alahooooom`` part is funny. Everything with jay is so focussed on hatred to muslims and to pakistan that even if he relays something funny he heard, it becomes just another piece of dirt in his hands.

Incidentally, there is one about the mullah explaining to his son the procedures to be followed on the son`s wedding night which are very funny too but cannot, sadly, be repeated on chowk.