Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments

Re Stuka 89

Well said. But the issue is who is really wearing the pants in Islamabad? Are we seeing a hidden power struggle going on? On one hand is El-Mushy dissing the Taliban and conveniently trying to hook up with the deposed monarch and on the other hand are the ISI loons who are proving that they still have the muscle.

Reminds me of an article in Foreign Affairs late last year called ``Give war a chance`` I believe by Edwin Luttwak [?--I could be wrong--how I wish I saved that issue]. It was probably written in a very serious tone, but I took it in jest.

Re nasah #87.

You could well be right doc, but I sure hope that some sense prevails in the end, which appears more unlikely as time passes by.

Reply #: 47

sarwari

``

For the longevity of our belief system, we have to abandon the need to cote it with the idea of some grand design or empire, religion or kind, and instead associate our ideology with a nation. Like one is born into a religion, one is born into a nationality.

``

-- Is that not contrary to the ideals of Islam, which calls for global brotherhood and which does not recognize nations ?

Although, in practise even the bastion of Islam (Saudia Arabia) does not grant permanent residency to eligble (read educated, professional) muslims, who have lived and worked in the country for their entire life.

AD

RE: Reply #: 63 Urstruly

````Terrorism is the weapon of the weak``. Most of the time the terrorism is defined as such. But I dont think it is true. Terrorism is also the weapon of strong. Take for example, India which uses state apparatus such as police, armed forces, and other law enforcement (law breaking?) agencies to murder and rape people-just so as to suppress their dissent. In this instance people are merely asking for the right to vote.``

How does the Muslim world know what the meaning of ``right to vote`` is when 99% of it is ruled by thugs, goons and assorted buccaneers?

ref: YLH #96

Dear YLH,

I have asked you this before and I will say it again: I agree that Mr Jinnah was a secularist, and his vision of Pakistan was of a secular, egalitarian state. But then Jinnah was not Pakistan, much as Gandhi was not India. In India, Gandhi was revered but many of his ideas were respectfully laid aside after Independence. How is one to conclude that the same would not have happened in Pakistan even if Mr Jinnah had lived longer? After all it is hard to convince a people that Islam is the basis for their nation, but it cannot be a basis for their hard-won state,...Especially when Islam is such a political religion. (Islam is the word of God. How could the word of any wordly body, however democratic and representative,be better? Who needs secularism? Islam protects the rights of non-muslims better than they themselves can)

I think that the progression of Pakistan into an Islamic state was a natural one. Maybe Jinnah could have stemmed the tide for a while purely on the basis of his standing, but I doubt that even he could have completely reversed the flow. The most generous interpretation is that he was unaware of the power of the tiger he had unleashed.

AS for the ``fundamentalists`` who made common cause with Gandhi against Partition, I think you may find that their perception was that Muslims might have a greater chance of regaining their former glory and making India an Islamic state if they stayed on, rather than by splitting the country. They saw partition as a defeat of muslim power, rather than a victory. In any case, just because they aligned with Gandhi doesn`t make Gandhi`s cause their cause, or Gandhi their spiritual leader. Much as Pakistan`s friendship with the Taliban doesn`t make the them the spiritual ideal for your nation.

And it is very easy to point to an external enemy and make him the cause of all your problems. But Ylh do you seriously see Pakistan`s history only as a reaction to India? Do the people of Pakistan have no blame on their shoulders for the state that they have brought their country to? Are all their problems attributable only to the accidents of History, or India or America?

-narain

re hamidm and sac

you sir(s) have not completely managed to baffle me. I realize that it is the ``in`` thing to condemn islam and has been for some time but honestly tell me WHAT made you interpret that islam teaches people to fly planes into buildings?

Various cults have always distorted religion for their own purposes. Bible was used to defend slavery. Now the Quran is being misused to promote terrorism by the likes of osama bin laden for their own earthly powers.

You propose that we start condemning our faith rather than teaching people to stop succumbing to mullah manipulation. Educating the masses is the answer. The same education that is slowly killing polygamy, child marriages, non-acceptance of gays etc.

But I think that the two of you have already made up your minds. Like you said the summer is almost over ................... condemn your faith and you are done. Educating others would be a long tiring journey.

P.S: And i hate the term moderate muslim, there is no such thing. Either you are or you aren`t.

Re Urstruly # 63

I hate how india has held kashmir for the last fifty years but it is interesting that only 3% of the muslim kashmiri population lives below the poverty line. Which is a stark contrast to the 25% in the rest of india and God knows what the %in pakistan is.

Do you believe that the acts of kashmiris and palestinians are just? Do you really think that is jihad. They are being used as mere toys by the muslim world to keep israel and india on their toes. Where in the muslim history do you see a couple of armed muslims ,killing a couple of infidels in the middle of the night and being treated like heros? nowhere except maybe in pakistan.

It is time that they understand this and use their energy, time and resources to build schools and hospitals.

Vajpayee can write as many weeping letters as he wants.

ISLAMABAD, October 02 (PNS): The United States has assured Pakistan that it would not install any such government in Afghanistan that could harm Pakistan`s interest particularly the Kashmir cause.

Credible sources told PNS that the Bush Administration also assured Pak government that it would not impose any government in Kabul against the national interests of Pakistan.

``This assurance was given by US secretary of state Colin Powel in his telephonic conversation with President General Pervez Musharraf and foreign minister Abdul Sattar,`` sources revealed.

The president and foreign minister had made it clear to the US administration that Pakistan would not accept any government in Afghanistan with out taking it into confidence because it had direct effect on Pakistan`s integrity and defence.

``Pakistan even asked the US to review its policy about Taliban and try to resolve the issue with Taliban government by giving them recognition in international community,`` they added.

``The focus of the President has been the Kashmir cause and General Musharraf made it very clear at every stage with US officials that Pakistan would never accept any harm or damage to the issue at any cost,`` sources disclosed.

Pakistan is of the view that as it supported unconditionally the international campaign against terrorism, it expects that US would not allow any opportunity to India for taking any benefit of the situation by harming Kashmir cause.

``The US administration has assured the government that it will take Pakistan into confidence on both critical issues because a stable and strong Pakistan is in the interest of United States,`` sources said. End.

Reply #: 96

ylh

You Wrote:

``

Pakistan was created to escape `Hindu Domination` and `Cultural oblivion` within United India. Once Pakistan was made it would be stupid to then make it a non secular one...The cornerstones of Pakistan`s creation are not rooted in religion.... Your entire reading of history is based on simplistic premises, and it doesnot take into account the complexities of human interaction. You see History in good vs evil... in a theatrical perspective, ...

``

-- YLH, if what you claim about Jinnah`s intentions, is true, then I must say that Jinnah was ignorant about Islamic history in the sub continent.

Only a naive person would think that after having ruled over the Hindus for almost a 1000 years, Indian muslims would now grant them equal rights, in a nation founded in the name of Islam.

After all, Islam was no Buddhism. The analogy that you gave about US fighting the British and then creating a monarchy is wrong. A more apt anaology is preparing a Bakraa for Halaal and then requesting the people to become vegetarain.

Granted that many Islamic fundamentalists were against its creation. But that alone does not compell one to believe that Jinnah`s idea of creating a secular nation in the name of Islam was a practical one.

Jinnah may have been a gentleman, but his actions potray the same ignorance about reality as Marie-Antoinette when she asked peasants to eat cakes if they did not have bread.

AD

Joseph:

The ``War on Democracy`` is the creation of the media, not what the terorist planned. The US government wants to keep hidden from its public its foriegn policies, and hence to avoid the issue, it labels the attack as a ``war on democracy``.

If only the Americans knew what they not know now. They could bring about revolution within their own country on their foriegn policies, if they want the principles of democracy to be applied universally, and not just locally, or whenever it suits their purpose.

Re: dost-mittar

``Is the concept of jihad restricted to the protection of Muslims or does it call upon the muslims to fight against tyranny, regardless of the religious affliation of the tyrant and the victims?``

dost-mittar, you`re a nice guy but a little too naive. What do you think is the answer to your question? Have you seen any Jehadis rise to defend people of Tibet? Have you seen any Jehadis go to Africa to protect innocents from tribal wars? Heck, have you seen Pakistani jehadis go to China to protect their own Muslim brothers in Xinjiang province? If you know the answer to these questions, you know the answer to the one you ask.

tarad #106 ``How does the Muslim world know what the meaning of ``right to vote`` is when 99% of it is ruled by thugs, goons and assorted buccaneers?``

You like to rub it in, dont you. Actually, I think our present day man in Pakistan isnt too bad, Megawati of Indonesia is so far so good (even visited the US in the first few days after current crisis and pledged full support), the chap in Malaysia introduced hi-tech boom in that country when south asians were still trying to figure out how to get the bullock in the bullock cart moving, Jordan`s king seems like a sensible fellow (cute queen to boot). Adds up to a little more than the 1% you allow for the non-thugs, non-goons etc that you allow for muslim countries.

Of course, coming from the Land of the Saints, like Mother Lalitha and Saint Laloo Prasad Yadav (?) and ``We got the nuke, be very afraid you Pakis, and here Sweet Vajpayee Ji have a Laddoo from my own grubby hands`` Advani, I am sure your expectations from those seeking political power are much higher than us muslims.

Happy Jihad to everybody.

Urstruly #73

I didnot find any answers to my questions #23. One indispensible requirement of jihad seems obvious: that it has to be clearly spelled out which it is, else how is it to have effect on the targets? Unless it is clarified which it is, people may just dismiss it as terrorism and then whats the point of the carefully-cultivated religious fervor, the dead bodies and the donations?

1. Killing 40 people mostly civilians, mostly Muslims while bombing a building where elected representatives are to sit and deliberate, is this jihad or terrorism is still not clarified.

2. Second question : I can see you are unable to admit anything either way.

Have you guys heard of Festivus? George`s dad invented it as an alternative holiday.

Maybe UrsTruly is trying to invent Jihadus...

URSTRULY

There are some points which you have made -

(a) education in pakistan

(b) Democracy (& islam being compatible)

(c) you sort of agreed with the sophomore YLH about constitutionality

(d) and you also made a telling comment on the brits and the grace with which they give up power.

For a moment let us keep religion out of the argument (since we can agree that it, Islam, has been a tool which people have used to hammer the people) and restrict ourselves to the subcontinent.

You see those four points above (whcih you have made) indicate the problems with Pakistan, and would negate the TNT. You, sir, are on a very slippery slope indeed. You have from time to time made thse arguments, and over coffee must have mulled them over -those long cathartic periods....

Lets see - why you are on a slippery slope:

We are all literate people, educated to some extent. We need to learn from history, not read it. We have inbibed some aspects of european history but have forgotten the gracefull climb down from power - the reasons for this etc.

More imporantly, what we have not learnt is the fundemental aspect of democracy - the change in setup - the reigns of power move from one set of people to another. We have read all about it buthave ignored, or not educated ourselves about the fundemental aspect. We are mesmerised about the franchise part, but not the power transfer part. We quote, that the majority have to accomodate the loosers etc - its a cliche and well worn abd boring, but convieniently forget that the loosers have to loose gracefully and retain their dignity within constitutional bounds and not jump about like a bunch of leemings and demand seperate identity for the loosers. The moment you claim this - democracy is but a sham.

I know I will be hounded for saying this, Jinnah with all his cleverness and intelligence was a very poor democrat. Just imagine every looser in elections, saying that he would breakawy and form a seperate country. Democracy means that we might have to put up with dumb assholes sometimes. I would much rather have a dumb guy as a democratically elected leader any day than an intelligent dictator. I would any day have a dumb but graceful leader than an intelligent, but an ungraceful looser (in elections). That is what Jinnah missed out on. His intentions might have been great and true, but the example he set, set a train of events to the sorry pass we see Pakistan is in today. It is called constitutionality. You do not need a written constitution. But even before that there are ground rules for democracy

(a) winner big votes

(b) looser agrees to it and ramains within the system

(c) religion cannot be a part of it - since religion will always bring in irrationalty into the system (there will always be a majority by way of religion and a minority). The majority and minority have be based on ideas, rational notions, public domain concepts not irrationalty, private domain notions.

On all of these counts JInnah lost out big time. Indeed, your justification in the article, and later on in the interacts does indicate that your, URSTRULY, are moving towards a better understanding of the TNT, and are coming to the point where you , along with YLH, are negating TNT.

Secular constitutionality is going to be a dream in pakistan, unless that particular, characteristic of the leaders - loosing gracefully and accepting it (and not forming another govt and a seperate country) - is kept out of the equation. Again you would have to start from the very beginning.

Are you going to go back 60 years, 100 years, 143 years (when the Marathas had to force Bahadur Shah Zafar onto the Mughal throne only for that guy to give it up like a wimp), are you going to go back 243 years to the fields of plassey, are you going to gp back another 200 years.

We have had these discussions over coffee - rather beat round the bush on this.

No, democracy, constitutionality etc can only come about if there is rationalyty in the system.

It can come about if we are truly educated - literacy is not enough. We have to learn the right lessons from what we read, not lessons which we want to high light our point of view.

dost-mittar: As a Punjabi, I declare jehad against jihad or jeeeehad. Here is a ghazal or nazam under construction.

bad-e-nassem la`yee jhonka jehad ka

har soo khul gaya dabistan fasad ka

hasool-e-ilm-o-roozgar yahaN la maa`ni

markooz-e-wada-e-hoor, taisha farhad ka

badla kuch is ada se rang mere dildar ka

har dareecha wa huwa un`kee imdad ka

Islamabad tere dar pe deewana war aaya

kya khoob wada-e-wafa, khana barbad ka