Is It A War On Islam?

[ #29 by faisaluno on January 17, 2003 8:46am PT

``At their seminaries these clerics discuss most topics freely, ...``. ]

Was the question of apostasy discussed freely? Or, was it, freely, not on agenda?

ATONEMENT FOR FIFTH COLUMN

Throughout the history, fifth column has played a crucial role in any aggression, whether it was colonial or ideological. But history also tells us that their role is always limited to a certain stage, and when that stage comes they are told ``If you couldn`t be sincere with your own people, how could you be sincere with us`` . That stage has also come in this neocolonial aggression. So next time when hamidm and sameerjb lower their pants at a security check point at an American airport they should remember that. And also remember that time, which is just around the corner, when you will be told at your work ``your services are no longer required because you look exactly like those whom you tell us to hate`` .

And I see that our good Professor, to avoid this ``jaisa mooNh waisee chupaiR``, is now hanging his head in shame and beg for atonement. Well, if he wants atoned he must seek forgiveness from the Afghani orphan who digs garbage cans for food right there in Islamabad where Professor lives. It is the same child whose father was given a death sentence by Professor for the crime of loving his country and his faith; and as he was dying our Professor was cheerleading the chorus. That orphan might forgive him. And that Afghan widow might also forgive him whose face never a stranger saw but now sells her body right in Islamabad where professor lives. Our good Professor sentenced her husband to a fiery death for the crime that he only wanted to protect her honor. Yeah, she might forgive him. And Pakistani nation might also forgive him for backstabbing Dr. Qadeer Khan and for the hardship that whole nation suffered. But history neither forgives nor forgets. It never has.

``Meanwhile, the kings of Iran and Afghanistan and Ayub Khan of Pakistan did nothing to make modernity attractive for the masses. They did not promote mass schooling. They did not open hospitals catering for all. They did not decrease the gap between the rich and poor. In Iran and Pakistan the apparently `modernist` rulers increased their personal power. They also increased the armed forces.

_ _ _if poverty is somehow removed and justice is provided to the have-nots, there is a possibility of saving Pakistan from a civil war in the name of religion. If this does not happen, one does not know what will happen but thinking about the future makes one shudder``

primer on the rise of madrasas in pak. article apperead on sep 8, 2001. looks like author`s prediction might be slightly off.

The madrassas and the have-nots
The News

The writer is a Professor of Linguistics and South Asian Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad

There is virtual panic among doctors and senior executives in Karachi-those who happen to be Shias, that is. A spate of killings, and targeted killings at that, of senior Shia doctors and executives has created this state of anxiety. The government has banned the extremist Sunni and Shia organisations and passed a law to integrate the religious seminaries (madrassas) with the mainstream, basically Western oriented, education system. In short, at the highest level the functionaries of the state realize that there is a connection between madrassas and sectarianism or extreme religiosity and militancy in Pakistan.

What is less often realised is that poverty too comes into the equation. The Islamic lobby, whether in the madrassas, the Jihadi groups or religious parties, comprise for the most part of young men from the poorer sections of society. While nobody can claim that they choose the religious life only because of poverty, it does appear that some of the frustrations of poverty are expressed through an active resistance to the lifestyle associated with the urban rule-the westernised lifestyle. And the west, as we know, has been seen as a threat in Islamic societies since the medieval ages.

It must be remembered that the ulema give the appearance of being stagnant and backward looking but that is only one aspect of their intellectual life. They taught the old medieval texts in Arabic and Persian for continuity as they do to this day in Pakistan. But along with them they also taught their students how to refute modern ideas. It is true that they generally knew no English (or Greek earlier) and had only a vague knowledge of the core philosophies of the West. However, that which they knew they refuted. Nowadays, in their final years Pakistani madrassa students are taught texts in Urdu for the refutation of Western economic and political philosophies. These texts are in simple Urdu and the students understand them far better than their traditional Arabic texts which they memorize. Sunni madrassa students study texts which refute Shia thought. Shia students must be studying texts refuting Sunni doctrines (but these have not been seen by the author). Among the Sunnis the Deobandis have texts refuting certain doctrines of the Barelvis while the latter have texts refuting Deobandis. The Ahl-e-Hadith too have texts refuting the doctrines of the other sub-sects. Then there are texts refuting Western ideas like socialism, capitalism, democracy, individualism and so on. In some cases, as in the opposition to family planning, even the Islamic permission for coitus interreptus (al-Azl) is glossed over because in the modern world the idea comes from Western sources. In short, far from being completely frozen in time, the ulema are in continuous opposition to it. They keep abreast with the gist of innovations in philosophy, however limited their understanding of them, and refute them. They do not withdraw from the world but confront it and seek to change it.

In the twentieth century the ulema were in a state of siege. The West had conquered and the madrassas were seen as antiquated leftovers of a dying world. People either turned away entirely from them or only invoked their blessings on a religious ritual ignoring them for the rest of the time. Yet, the madrassas reacted more violently to the modernist Muslim philosophers who had studied in the West and interpreted Islam differently from them. In Islam and Modernity (1982), Fazlur Rahman, a prominent academic and Islamic modernist from Pakistan tells us how the modernists had not been able to create a base for themselves in Pakistan. The universities were not equipped to attract talented people. Those who chose to study Islamic studies were generally among the least competent of the student body. The madrassas too did not have competent people but they were not dependent on the state for employment and could therefore afford to be independent.

In the nineteen sixties, just when the world regarded the Islamists as a spent force or a legacy from the past, the Islamic revivalist movement was gathering force. Outwardly girls wore mini skirts in Tehran and tight teddy shirts in Lahore but on the campuses the lower middle class and rural students responded to the words of the Islamic ideologies. In Pakistan the Jamat-e-Islami and its founder Abul Ala Maudoodi inspired the students. In Iran Ayatullah Khomeini was considered dangerous enough to be exiled though his day had not come. In Kabul people like Gulbadin Hekmatyar were in revolt against the westernised style of the Kabul aristocracy on the campuses. This was also happening in the rest of the Islamic world but Afghanistan and Iran are most relevant for us in Pakistan. Meanwhile, the kings of Iran and Afghanistan and Ayub Khan of Pakistan did nothing to make modernity attractive for the masses. They did not promote mass schooling. They did not open hospitals catering for all. They did not decrease the gap between the rich and poor. In Iran and Pakistan the apparently `modernist` rulers increased their personal power. They also increased the armed forces. They disillusioned the masses till they clamoured for a change for the better.

In Iran intellectuals like Ali Shariati made the educated public feel that the change could come from a reinterpretation of Islam. When the hatred of the Shah increased the bazaar merchants and the lower middle class, who had always been religious, promoted Khomeini and thus the clergy took over in the country. In Afghanistan the educated middle class went for the socialist alternative in complete ignorance of the ordinary people`s feelings and failed. In Pakistan the voters chose Bhutto`s version of socialism but the have-nots were cheated once again. Are they turning to the Islamists after this? If one look at the pattern of voting, the answer is `No`. But the madrassas are flexing their muscles in the wings.

At the time of the partition there were 137 madrassas. In 1950 there were 210 of them while in 1971 they increased to 563. Nowadays there are at least 7000 of them. Out of the registered ones - and most are still unregistered - the Barelvis have 1400; the Deobandis 550 and the Ahl-e-Hadith 347. These are the Sunni madrassas. The figures of the Shia seminaries is not available with the present author. Most of them are small institutions attached to mosques but they are not cramped since the mosques have open areas. There are some institutions for girls but the present author was allowed to visit only the boy`s madrassas.

The clergy is more competent in Urdu than in any other language because the central examination of the madrassas is in Urdu. This brings it in line with the lower middle class intelligentsia of the cities. Moreover, sitting on the floor, wearing local clothes and speaking the local languages emphasises the similarities between the common people and the clergy.

Since the clergy has gained power in Iran and Afghanistan the madrassas are changing from conservatism to revivalism. They always had a blueprint for the society but now they are getting convinced it can be used in Pakistan. The secret of this change does not lie in the prescribed texts which hark back to the Middle Ages. The secret lies in the texts which refute the doctrines of the West mentioned earlier; the pamphlets about the crusades in Afghanistan and Kashmir available in the madrassas; and the interaction of madrassa students with Jihadi elements from Kashmir or elsewhere. The students are taken out to protest against a policy they dislike (eg UN sanctions on the Taliban; the ban on Jihadi elements to collect donations openly; changes in the Blasphemy Act etc). In short, the madrassas are in constant contact with the outside world and this world appears alien and hostile to them.

After all, this world is rich and comfortable and it never gave them a decent living earlier. Indeed, it laughed at them and despised them. Madrassas house poor children even now and the grudge they bear the rich - and a most justified grudge it is - gets translated into (Islamic) zeal. At least some of the hatred expressed by the bearded young men who break the windshields of partygoers on New Year`s eve is class-bound in origin. It looks like religious zeal to be sure but I suspect it comes, at least in part, from the frustrations and indignities of poverty. In short, the rage of the dispossessed gets translated in religious zeal. Madrassa revivalism, then, is a continuation of the revenge of the have-nots from the have. It derives some of its psychological energy from class hatred. In other words, if poverty is somehow removed and justice is provided to the have-nots, there is a possibility of saving Pakistan from a civil war in the name of religion. If this does not happen, one does not know what will happen but thinking about the future makes one shudder.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#26 by ferozk on January 17, 2003 7:03am PT
#30 by Minhaj on January 17, 2003 9:10am PT
#29 by faisaluno on January 17, 2003 8:46am PT
#25 by Saminasha on January 17, 2003 7:03am PT
#23 by veeresh on January 17, 2003 3:36am PT
#21 by dullabhatti on January 16, 2003 10:52pm PT


Fact is that we have the power to change. If the Mullahs can give direction to the people on the street in a manner witnessed today it is because the ones who have the luxury of doing a encomassing study of Islam and actually discovering the spirit of it have just abandoned it.

many have given solutions saying that Islam should be turned in to another version of Christainity.. Inane suggestions of sepration of chruch and state. or it being a presonalised version of Islam being best..


What are the chances of that happening?? ... Zilch..


Instead if we took the trouble of understanding Islam and being more authoratitive and if we start considering Islamic studies as another branch of vital studies and start entering it It would give the much needed modern outlook to the Islam as being practiced..


And surprise .. Surprise you will find that there is acutally a seperation of church and State (I hate this term) in Islam. In history you can find a wide varitey of interprations of Islam as suited to local socitey of the particular time. You will find that there were many muslim states which did not discrimate in administration and public life on basis of religion or even national origin.

There have been states that have discriminated supressed their socities to I dont deny that. But just as secualr states have the capibiltiy of opressing so do Islamic states.

So the question boils down not as to how adapt Isalm to the western mould but how to solve our problems while remaining within the ambit of Islam for it allows a great amount of leeway.

If any of you are fed up of the Uneducated Mullahs directing the Uneducated masses then they are free to study Islam and taking up positons which influence public behaviour and thought.

But if we sit on our butts and condemm the mullah (most of whom undoubtely have less expousure to the chalanges thrown up by the present worldly life) then nothing is going to happen except that he will throw scorn on you. While the doors are open withiin Islam to anyone who choses to take the mantle of mulla, Kazi, mufti....

Infact this is precisely what is happening in Iran.

A conservative with a agenda of the modernist... Sounds like a oxymoron does it??

It only goes to show how dated and inefficeint the terms we borrow from the west are in context of our situation..

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EA10Ak01.html

Iran: Key dissident cleric in worsening health
By Charles Recknagel/Azam Gorgin

PRAGUE - Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri, the man who almost became Iran`s supreme leader a little over a decade ago, is in worsening health as he remains under house arrest in the holy city of Qom.

The ayatollah`s son, Ahmad, told the US Persian-language service Radio Farda that doctors who visited him recently have diagnosed him as suffering from a sleeping disorder that so far has not responded to medication and directly results from his five years of confinement. ``The necessary medication has been prescribed for his sleeping disorder. The reason that he has not recuperated is his living environment and not his physical condition. He has been living in this house [under house arrest] behind closed doors for more than five years,`` Ahmad Montazeri said.

Ahmad Montazeri said that his father`s sleeping disorder has worsened noticeably in recent days. The cleric, who is 81, sleeps up to 16 hours a day and suffers from a number of other debilitating medical problems. ``What is worrisome is that he sleeps 16 hours a day, he has a heart problem, high blood pressure and is diabetic. He has been suffering from the sleeping disorder for the past three months, and the situation has worsened in the past 10 days,`` Ahmad Montazeri said.

The latest visit by doctors to Montazeri`s home comes after a first medical visit was turned back on January 5 by security guards. The guards, from Iran`s military elite, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), refused entry to the medical team despite the fact that a deputy health minister accompanied them at the suggestion of Iran`s moderate president, Mohammad Khatami, to give official approval for the visit.

Montazeri`s family says that the security guards told them they had received instructions from the hardline-dominated Special Court for the Clergy not to admit visitors. The special court, which has responsibility for all judicial matters involving clerics, on Wednesday called that report false and said the doctors were not admitted because they had not coordinated their visit beforehand with authorities.

The successful entry by the medical team comes after more than 70 reformist members of parliament wrote a letter demanding the Defense Ministry explain why the IRGC was barring doctors from the Montazeri home.

The news of Montazeri`s deteriorating health is the latest episode in a long-running conflict between the dissident cleric and hardliners supported by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. If the supreme leader does not release Montazeri following the recommendation of the medical team, the decision is sure to raise the question of whether he has chosen to condemn Montazeri to death by way of continued confinement.

The case has great political significance in Iran because Montazeri - thanks to his eminent religious and revolutionary credentials - is one of the few men within Iran`s clerical elite with the stature to publicly oppose and criticize Khamenei on a number of highly sensitive issues.

Montazeri was initially tapped to be the successor to Iran`s first supreme leader and founder of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who sometimes referred to Montazeri as ``the fruit of my life``. But Montazeri`s open criticism of some of the revolution`s harshest treatment of its opponents, as well as his criticism of the conduct of the 1980-1988 war with Iraq, antagonized other key members of Khomeini`s inner circle. When Khomeini fell gravely ill before his death in 1989, Montazeri`s rivals persuaded the revolutionary leader to renounce his protege and relieve him of official duties.

With Montazeri forced aside, Ali Khamenei, a man with lesser religious qualifications, was speedily promoted to the necessary rank of ayatollah and became Iran`s next supreme leader after Khomeini. The substitution of Khamenei for Montazeri continues to cause disputes within Iran`s clerical establishment, which sees clear ideological differences between the two men.

RFE/RL regional specialist William Samii said that one of the most important differences is over the extent to which the clergy should exercise absolute political as well as religious power in Iran through the office of the supreme leader. ``Montazeri was a creator of the current system and he continues to favor an Islamic theocracy. But many of the objections to the current state of affairs that he raised in a November 1997 lecture have since been repeated by activists. For example, he objected to the role of the Guardians Council in vetting candidates for elected office. He spoke out against the use of violence in the political process. And he criticized using the cleric`s mantle to hide personal pursuits, or corruption, in other words,`` Samii said.

Montazeri has frequently called for placing limits on the absolute authority wielded today by Supreme Leader Khamenei. He has said that while Khomeini had the necessary stature for the post, Khamenei does not.

``Montazeri has been a fierce critic of Khamenei, who has pretensions to the religious learning and status of his predecessor. Montazeri said in 1997 that Khamenei is not a religious source of emulation. And in 1994, he urged Khamenei to excuse himself from answering a religious question by saying that he is too busy. Montazeri said that the country`s religious guardian, if one is really qualified to be one, should only have a supervisory role,`` Samii said.

The dissident cleric has also said that he and other framers of the 1979 constitution never intended to accord the institution with absolute powers that could be abused by lesser men. The post of supreme leader was created by the 1979 revolution to ensure the Islamic nature of the new society by subjecting all key matters to review by the country`s preeminent religious figure.

Specifically, Montazeri has written that the supreme leader ``can never be beyond the law, and he cannot interfere in all affairs, particularly affairs that fall outside his area of expertise, such as complex economic issues or issues of foreign policy and international relations``.

He has also said that, ``the most important point to be highlighted is that Islam is for the separation of powers and does not recognize the concentration of power in the hand of a fallible human being``.

These opinions, which resulted in Montazeri`s being put under house arrest in 1997, go right to the heart of the debate in Iran today over to what extent the Islamic Republic should be an Islamic state run by appointed clerics and to what extent a republic ruled by popularly elected representatives. They have also made Montazeri a leading light for many reformist political figures, leading progressive clerics, and those young seminary students who feel Iran`s Shi`ite Muslim leaders should remain outside of politics or risk losing credibility with the faithful.

In one sign of Montazeri`s continuing political importance, a former member of parliament wrote an open letter in November calling for Khamenei to release Montazeri, a man he described as worthy - unlike Khamenei - of the rank of ayatollah. Former parliamentarian Qasem Sholeh-Sadi wrote, ``It has been several years that [Montazeri] has been under house arrest with no legitimate court verdict against him, and everyone is deprived of his guidance.``

Sadi added, ``You [Khamenei] lack legitimacy for religious leadership because you remain [despite Khamenei`s rapid promotion] a `Hojjat ol-eslam` [a religious rank], which is miles away from the rank of an ayatollah. One needs years of research, writing, and teaching to be considered one.``

Montazeri remains influential in Iran despite his house arrest and the fact that he is barred from teaching, that his financial resources are frozen, and that he can receive no guests except close relatives. The dissident cleric periodically issues public statements through his family and has conducted very rare interviews with the press by fax.

Minjaj #30: The mullahs are the natural outcome of military-mullah nexus created to ``defend the ideological boundries of Pakistan`` and creating a useful and trustworthy destabilizing tool against civilian leadership who thinks, rightfully, to control the destiny of people and country according to the definition of democracy. It is 90 percent myopic military establishment vision and 10 percent our sins.

Mullahs are there because diplomas from Akora Khattack and Banori Town madrassahs were accepted as bacheolar degrees while degrees from Lincoln inn and other European institutioins were denied equivalency of bacheolar degree.

Mullahs are also there because voting age limit was reduced to 18 years for no obvious reason except increase in religious parties vote.

Mullahs are there because mainstream political forces were ruthlessly and illegally supressed leaving the door open intentionally for mullahs to step in.

Mullahs are there not because of the apathy and indifference of `psedo-intelligentia`. Mullahs are absent from interior Sindh and Panjab because those places could be won by military supporters through elaborate techniques of rigging the elections. How come apathy and indifference of `pseudo-intelligentia` played no role in the interior Sindh and interior Panjab?

Mullahs are no match in Pakistani politics provided fair and level playing field. Yes, mullahs can be made to win in interior Sindh and Panjab too, if desired, by breaking down mainstream political parties further with 3 candidates from various factions of Muslim leagues and three candidates from various factions of PPP running for each seat against singlr unified MMA candidate plus covert or overt military backing.

Please distribute the blame across the board honestly.

kashaziz #22 Your post indicates a sectarian bent of mind. The Quran strictly forbids sectarianism. Mend your evil ways. Next time you start thinking in sectarian terms, punish yourself by becoming a ``murgha`` and standing in a corner until this mischievous thoughts leaves your foolish mind.
PS: I also notice from your posts that sectarianism is not the only evil thing you engage in. You also engage in muslim chauvinism and berate other religions. You are in violation of strict Quranic injunctions there as well, which strictly prohibits the concept of a chosen people (which applies to muslims as much as to anyone else). So use the ``murgha`` punishment for yourself when you feel like a muslim chauvinist.
PPS: I know you will be angry at me for telling you mend your evil ways. But one day when you have developed some sense in your head, you will thank me for this. Trust me.

I liked this very much:

The mullahs were a reaction to our apathy and indifference and only emerged to fill the leadership vaccum left by the psuedo intelligentsia of Pakistan. The mullahs, rightly or wrongly and that is open to debate, knew what they wanted, but we did not and thought that we did. Our sin is greater, because like it says, ``to whom much is given, much is expected``. We are a disappointment, because in our believes, we too were a different sort of fundalmentalists, but unlike the mullah, we did not have faith in the conviction of our believes.

Those, who are out on the streets shouting and cursing, are so because of their believes and we are not, because we do not know what to believe in.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

``At their seminaries these clerics discuss most topics freely, and take on formerly taboo subjects in their publications and books. For example, Mr. Ayazi warned in one of his books, titled ``The Limits of the Shariah Law in the Islamic Government,`` that the most dangerous form of despotism was a religious one. ``It expands its military and social power and tries to justify it under a religious pretext,`` he wrote``.

why is this happening in a country that has been free from american influence for the last 20 years?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/17/international/middleeast/17IRAN.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: Dr. Hoodbhoy

You, sir, blame the ``fundalmentalists``, but have considered the fact that your opinions, which you rightly hold to be true, can be considered as ``fundalmentalist`` to others?

Like Romair said, you cannot run with the foxes and hunt with the hounds.

Indeed! Let us hang our heads in shame, because it is us, the educated elite of Pakistan, who has failed Pakistan and destoryed it; not the mullahs. The mullahs were a reaction to our apathy and indifference and only emerged to fill the leadership vaccum left by the psuedo intelligentsia of Pakistan. The mullahs, rightly or wrongly and that is open to debate, knew what they wanted, but we did not and thought that we did. Our sin is greater, because like it says, ``to whom much is given, much is expected``. We are a disappointment, because in our believes, we too were a different sort of fundalmentalists, but unlike the mullah, we did not have faith in the conviction of our believes.

Those, who are out on the streets shouting and cursing, are so because of their believes and we are not, because we do not know what to believe in. Hence, we pretend to run with the hares and at the same time, pretend to be the hounds.

Ciao

Adnan: Good Post

Hari: Don`t you think that the Indians are going overboard on the self congratulation bid?? Yes, the NRIs are doing well, but that is hardly a reflection on India as a country.

Great piece.

Also, Sameer made some good comments.

What seems to be really imp. here in the US at this point is calm, thoughtful discourse. One one hand in Pakistan, you have one kind of madrassah/BJP indoctrination conflated with brutal impoverishment and political instability and over here we are told that if Bush does not attack Iraq we are subject to chaos; congrats to the Right/media for feeding us a strict diet of similar Manichean terror of poverty/powerlessness/violence/prejudice.

What passes for national discourse on mainstream taking head shows is thinly veiled jingoism, a Jerry Springer approach to political issues-when clearly there are some points to be made on all sides. Hope everyone noticed that every Congresswoman in our current govt has come out against a war on Iraq. Keep your ears open for the march on Washington this weekend.

Why do only fanatics demonstrate in our cities? Mr. Hoodbhoy . . . yours or mine, the answer is: because the moderates are all not hanging their heads in shame, but shaking a leg at the disco, bending a knee at the gym, revealing a shapely thigh at the club, baring midriffs at the swimming pool, pushing up their cleavages at wedding ceremonis, bending elbows at the bar and using their mouth to eat with at McDonalds and Pizza Hut.

When not standing outside the US Consulate begging for visas, that is!!

I hate to say this but Urstruly has a point. If America is such an evil imperialist with dreams of subjugating the world, those guys in Karachi may be correct in protesting against USA. The article throughout complained the hegemonic designs of America and all the bad stuff it did in the past and speculated based on some opinions in some American newspapers about its future colonial designs and then at the end complains why those people in FATA are protesting. That is confusing to say the least.

If one has to go by the opinions in the media we, who has the fortune to read Pakistani khabarnamay and tasbaray, exactly know what the future designs of Islamists are. If push comes to shove, an Iraq or two under kafir laws of USA or much better than the whole of humanity under the big foot of shara`ah and ummah.
I have no doubt about which side respected professor sahib will take.