The Book is also Just a Book

ana: yea prolly, though i suspect any serious person can go on mounting an argument that ``religous people`` wont fight for equal rights and social justice. maybe i wasnt clear enough in #71.

Raw_Dust,

``there are no secular symbols the desecration of which will create a hue and cry from secular Individuals.``

A flag comes to mind. Fact is, secular individuals have been responsible for the worst crimes against fellow man in the past few centuries.

Who was the nut that invented the nuke? Not a mullah, not a priest, nor a monk. I assure you.

Of course, when confronted with this brutal reality, the secular types simply go on and on about a religious man`s irrationality, and in turn *rationalizes* their own irrationality. Some of us just don`t want to play that game.

Re: Vertex

so that you dont have to scroll down:
this is post #71:

---

A secular Individual will work up over forces/actions that infringe/threaten the equal rights and Justices of fellow human beings. (NOTE: we are still talking about things and forces that have a perceiveable implications within Five Senses).

On the other hand, the other group motivated by a herd mentality that is rooted on a mythological symbol (promising a Second Life and orgies for example) or rooted on a patriotic/nationalistic symbol (that probably giving the herd a sense of false-belonging) is something else. This type of fixation IMO, exerts its control by capitalizing on the followers` insecurities.

---

yea, and nazis and stalinists were the biggest godless monsters out there but those were not i had in mind when i address Ferozek using the term ``secular individuals``. The term might be a nonentity for you but thats how i defined it and certainly isnot supposed to represent Demagogues who dropped ``nukes``, invaded countries or scientists who invented it knowing that the chief cause for the project was to cause mahem and destruction. The term i employed was strictly in contemporary sense.

Re: # 82
You are mixing oranges and apples. Not, that you can`t!

Ferozk is simply stating that there can be symbols for which the non-religious do fight but those battles are for the econo-political reasons. So in that case, a material benefit is at stake. Often times no one has to be explained the motivation, then.

In case of religious symbols the situation is not obvious and one has to do some research to appreciate the situation. Such is the case because the religious symbols are generally arbitrary and do not correspond to the physical conditions of the population/individual. An example in this case would be the beard of Muslims vs mustache of Hindus.

On the otherhand, the demand for equality in the IAS examinations or equable application of economic control for all sections of the population is self-evident.

In India, kids `say sorry` to a book if their foot touches the book even by an accident...and repent by touching it with forehead.

In the US books, including the bible, are not shown such respect. The way they treat the books is abuse, blasphemy, sin by eastern standards.....

Raw_Dust,

To parrot an argument that`s ALWAYS flashed in the face of the religious, it`s awfully convenient to label some as ``true`` secularists, and others as ``misguided`` ones. In any case, the issue of nukes, and the willingness to use them, is very much a contemporary issue. The US made it a point to mention that the use of the ``nuclear option`` was not ruled out...in both GWI and GWII! So that`s not the kind of ``secularism`` you`re talking about? Then how`bout Russia`s? Or China`s? Oh, you`re talking about a personalized secularism?

Then perhaps we can agree that secularism is a-okay so long as it`s kept out of politics...oh, there I go again parroting typical secularite arguments... :-)

---

Inquirer,

``So in that case, a material benefit is at stake. Often times no one has to be explained the motivation, then``

Sounds an awful lot like a rationalization to me. So, unh...it`s okay to kill so long as bling-bling is involved (for national or self interest)? And what are the origins of this ethic?

The fact is, the lack of sacred items to the secular types has not kept them from gross violence...that was part of my point. That is to say, it`s really nothing to brag about.

Something wrong with the world of Islam ``DAWN PAKISTAN``




By Ayaz Amir

SHOULD it need a story (real or alleged) of Quranic desecration to rouse the Muslim world to anger against the United States? Aren’t there plenty of other reasons why the politically-engaged, or the politically-conscious, in every Muslim country should raise the voice of protest, if not the banner of revolt, against the seeds of evil America is sowing across the Islamic crescent, especially in that biggest nursery of misery and evil since the end of the Vietnam war, Iraq?

Lest we forget, the strongest, most effective protests against the Iraq war have come not from the spiritless masses inhabiting the world of Islam but from thinking citizens in the Christian West. Across the golden crescent of Islam there has been nothing to match the huge anti-war marches taken out in western cities — London, New York, etc. Nothing to match France and Germany’s opposition to the war, nothing to match George Galloway’s defiant cry after being elected MP from east London: “Mr Blair, this is for Iraq.”

Iraq may have been a divisive issue in the British election but not in the world of Islam whose rulers — for the most part a striking bunch of puppets and self-seeking autocrats — are mesmerized by their own fears. Since in most cases their chief foreign backer is the US, and since they wouldn’t do anything to risk their hold on power, it is foolish expecting any decent reaction from them.

Mahathir of Malaysia was an exception, openly criticizing the US for its Iraq adventure. But he could afford to do so because of Malaysia’s economic miracle. Also because, and let’s not underestimate this, he was a tough man himself, not easily scared or browbeaten. In the second and third worlds, it is not easy replicating these conditions: economic success and tough leadership.

Certainly not easy replicating them in Pakistan which, despite its huge army (whatever is it for?) and nuclear capability (the world’s first ‘Islamic’ bomb), has made a virtue of ducking and scraping before the United States, often for no reason at all. We may be the fiercest rhetoricians of Islam in the entire world, but what’s so Islamic about ingrained subservience?

If standing up to great-power highhandedness is an Islamic virtue, as it surely is in any just interpretation of the faith, Fidel Castro, to take a random example, has greater right to a place in the Islamic pantheon than all the rulers of the Muslim world put together.

What accounts for the huge insecurity of our ruling classes? Why the predisposition to behave like American stooges? Why do most Pakistani politicians think that the road to Islamabad winds through Washington? Why does the out-of-power Benazir Bhutto still hanker to meet American officials even when the most she gets to call on are lesser fry in the State Department? Why does Pakistan’s soldier-president take such inordinate pride in his American connection?

Bowing to the dictates of realism is one thing. It’s even a mark of statesmanship. But after September 11 our military rulers, leaving the shores of realism far behind, went overboard in the frenzied scramble to line up with America, above and beyond the call of duty.

True, anything suggesting disrespect to the Holy Quran touches a raw nerve among Muslims, even those casual about their faith. But should nothing less move the Muslim world to anger? Guantanamo Bay — the entire system of incarceration and torture there — is reminiscent of torture on a Nazi scale. The Bagram base north of Kabul is also a CIA-controlled torture centre. Searching stories about both these throwbacks to the Gulag have appeared in the western press. How many in the Arab or Muslim press?

It was an American soldier who provided the humiliating pictures about torture at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. Even the Quranic desecration story, since ‘retracted’, was carried by Newsweek, a western source. If the evil visited on Iraq is American, the strongest critique of that misadventure is also American or western. The world of Islam’s contribution to this saga has come in the form of silence, timidity, acquiescence, or empty emotionalism.

In Pakistan the burden of denunciation has been carried by the mullahs of the MMA, a fact which would redound to their greater glory if not tainted by the suspicion that when put to the test they can be the greatest collection of shadow-boxers this side of Gibraltar. Who’ll believe them after they helped legitimize, courtesy the 17th amendment, Musharraf’s grip on power?

So before frothing at the mouth about western iniquity, it is only proper to examine our own condition. Humiliation can be imposed from outside but more often than not it is invited by weakness and lack of purpose. The US was bent upon evil in the case of Iraq but its path was encouraged by the knowledge that far from having to fear anything from the great world of Islam, it could count on critical support from vital sections of it. The springboard for the attack on Iraq was provided by bases strung along the Gulf. So there is only so much we can blame outsiders for our woes. What’s the central fact about the world economy today? That to a large extent it continues to be fuelled by Muslim oil, Arab and Iranian, and, in the fullness of time, Central Asian. Had there been an Islamic renaissance — an industrial revolution with its epicentre in the Middle East, Iran and Pakistan — all this wealth tapped from the bowels of the earth for almost a hundred years — the 20th century more a century of oil than of anything else — would have been converted into intellectual ferment and economic strength. Instead it has been frittered away in aimless consumption, sustaining the power of tinpot elites.

There is unease in the Muslim world at this state of affairs. But what form is this unease taking? Bin Ladenism, the most regressive and therefore the worst form of all. Instead of grasping the future, the adherents of this philosophy turn for comfort and sustenance to the verities of an imagined past.

The Americans say they are eradicating Bin Ladenism. They are doing nothing of the sort. Their misconceived adventure in Iraq is helping foster the very forces they seek to destroy. Saddam Hussein didn’t create Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the Americans have. Iraq was a secular country under Saddam. Now it is a land echoing to religious overtones.

The Americans at all interested in Middle East or Muslim democracy? You must be joking. If democracy, the real article, were ever to come to the crescent of Islam, the first thing thrown out would be American influence. A string of democratic republics from Morocco to Indonesia would be too much for the Americans to endure. They know it too, which is why they peddle democracy’s wares in the larger world of Islam only when it suits their purpose.

This doesn’t of course absolve the Muslim countries of their responsibility. Democracy in the Muslim world shouldn’t be an American gift or be interpreted through the prism of American interests. The urge for it should come from within.

At present Muslim oil is married to American power, cheap oil to keep the wheels of the global economy turning, and American support for the status quo, representing the two sides of this equation. Muslim oil should be allied to democracy across the Islamic world. Only then, and not through the medium of anything like Bin Ladenism, will it become realistic to talk of a second Islamic renaissance.

vertex :
Please, look at Germany`s Greens which is a good example of the kind of people i am talking about before trying to be sarcastic.

many thanks.

a thought provoking article nevertheless but the apathy of the writer towards the incident is a bit indigestible.... even thoughi agree with quite a few of the things that the writer has underlined but i still feel upset and anguished by the news of the desecration of the holy Quran and i hope the worng-doers are brought to justice..... but i strongly oppose the people who are chanting ``osama will be back`` without understanding that this could do more damage to the image of islam than most things and people who are saying that this could lead to another 9/11 must be ashamed of themselves because they are inferring that 9/11 was done by muslims.... even though the west may prove that all those involved in the attack had a muslim name and their passports read islam in the religion`s column but they certainly cannot be muslim coz a muslim would never kill an innocent for someone else`s deeds

Re: # 86
You are needlessly mixing secular/religious with the wars. Nobody, including Ferozk, I believe, is saying whether seculars are superior to the religious or vice versa. You do not have to tie everything with the ethics. For material prosperity the wars are fought.

Sometimes the clever leaders camouflage their reasons with those from religious field. This is often done because war itself is irrational. War is run by the powers that sit comfortably in their quarters while the hapless soldier and the public die.

The point is that people get worked up when the important symbols seem to be violated.
Ferozk used ``irrational`` for the religious symbols. He probably means arbitrary. I am sure at the parchoon shops in India and Pakistan the old books of all scriptures are torn up and used for making packets in villages. And I agree with Farzana that there is nothing in that to get excited over. The crucial thing is whether in following your religion you are charitable towards your family and the neighbors. Do you stand for justice even if, at times, it may be inconvenient?

Farzana Versey

You may be indifferent to the desecration of Quran; however, it is important to recognize its symbolic value for the majority of Muslims around the world. Most may not protest visibly but they may be hurt. It is important not to belittle them or their belief system in anyway.

It is O.K. for someone to protest within reason if they are hurt. However, nobody has to die for it.

I am sure that the Christians, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs would have protested strongly if their holy books; Bible, Torah, Veda or Guru Granth Sahib were to be flushed into toilets.

Giving religious books to prisoners is a routine. Bibles and Chapel services are routinely provided in all US jails. It is not uncommon to see born again Christians coming out of jails.

Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are routinely provided a prayer cap and a copy of the Quran. Whether or not they take guidance from Quran is not for us to determine. Many of the detainees are almost certainly innocent civilians rounded up indiscriminately during war or sold to CIA agents by rival warlords to collect a bounty of up to $3500.

Regards

Nauman Nisar

The right to run

Dawn Pakistan



By Irfan Husain

OF late, the police and religious extremists have been preoccupied with running women. Not women running away, but just engaging in harmless running.

Just last week, the awesome might of the Punjab police was unleashed on a group of women who were audacious enough to attempt to run from Lahore’s Qadhafi Stadium to the nearby Kalma Chowk. Many were roughed up, their clothes torn, and dragged off to jail.

While there has been some criticism of these bully-boy tactics by MMA clerics in the National Assembly, there is little doubt where the responsibility ultimately lies. A few weeks ago, women running a marathon race in Gujranwalla were attacked by bearded, lathi-bearing zealots led by an MMA member of parliament.

This current spurt of violence against women is in line with the agenda our clerics have been pursuing for years. Aping the stone-age outlook of the Taliban next door in Afghanistan, our mullahs claim religious sanction to justify their aggressive, often violent, behaviour against women.

In far too many Muslim countries, a woman’s lot is not an enviable one. Often basing their mistreatment of the opposite sex on archaic tribal codes and ancient social custom, rather than a learned and liberal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, men have controlled the destiny of women for centuries.

Until the Middle Ages, this was the norm in most of the world, rather than a Muslim exception. But gradually, attitudes have changed, and women’s rights are now firmly established in all democratic societies. Indeed, a country can hardly claim to be democratic while denying equal rights to half the population. Of course, progress has often been uneven, and even today, there are gender-related disparities. But few question the fundamental principle of equality between the sexes.

Even in Pakistan, the rights of women are guaranteed by the Constitution. But the reality is very different. Barely a day passes without lurid newspaper reports of rapes and other crimes against women. We are not unique in this, but in other countries, action is immediately taken against the criminals. Pakistan is unusual in that here, perpetrators are usually protected by society in the form of landlords, mullahs, members of parliament and other local worthies.

And not just are the criminals sheltered from reluctant law-enforcement agencies, the victims are often prevented by their own families and supposed well-wishers from filing a case and pursuing the matter. We read about the most awful crimes, and if there is some international pressure, the highest in the land order an enquiry. But almost inevitably, this is where the matter rests.

It is this official apathy which encourages men to continue taking advantage of the weakest segment of our society. Even when the president and the Supreme Court step in to right a grave and glaring wrong, there is very little action ever taken. And as long as there is no deterrence, women will remain at risk.

Unfortunately, these brutal realities have largely come to define Islam in the eyes of the West. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali woman member of the Dutch parliament, is under constant police guard because of the many death threats she has received from Muslim extremists. Her crime? She has vigorously questioned the position Muslim women find themselves in because of their faith, thereby raising hackles among her co-religionists in Holland and beyond.

As a child, Ms Ali was forced to undergo the hideous mutilation of female circumcision. While there is nothing remotely Islamic about this barbaric ritual, it continues to be practised in parts of Africa. Later, she fled to Holland to escape an arranged marriage, and there she began to ask uncomfortable questions about the rights of women in Islam.

As a member of parliament, she was asked to prepare a report on immigrants. According to The Guardian, which recently interviewed her, she found that “Islam ... is unable to endure criticism or change, and is essentially at odds with European values...” Incidentally, Time magazine has recently selected her as one of the 100 most influential people in the world.

The risk to her life increased after the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch film-maker, at the hands of an Islamic extremist. In fact, the film Submission, showing the plight of four Muslim women, was co-written by her, and was the direct cause of Von Gogh’s public killing.

Another Muslim woman who has taken a controversial position is Irshad Manji in her book “The Trouble with Islam Today”. A Canadian of Ugandan origin, Ms Manji argues that too many Muslims around the world have taken to following a dogmatic, illiteral interpretation of Islam, and calls for reform based on ‘ijtihad’, or re-interpretation of the holy texts.

A visit to her website (intriguingly named www.muslimrefusenik.com) gives the details of the ‘Project Ijtihad’ she has launched to generate a debate and discussion on the subject. Not surprisingly, she has received her share of death threats, and been dubbed a ‘Mossad agent’. Apparently, this is the standard, knee-jerk reaction of extremists not intellectually equipped to enter into a debate.

In Pakistan, activist and lawyer Asma Jehangir has had to face threats, abuse and physical violence over the years she has battled for equal rights for women and the minorities. Against the odds, she and a handful of brave men and women have fought the forces of oppression represented by an ignorant and hostile clergy and an indifferent state.

One would have expected General Musharraf to actively support their cause with his slogan of “enlightened moderation”. Unfortunately, these have proved to be empty words. Time after time, he has placed short-term expediency before the long-term interests of the country.

Despite his promise to reform the country’s madressahs, nothing has been done despite the passage of three years. In fact, at the recent Deeni Madaris Convention, speaker after speaker said no government attempt to change the curricula in these seminaries would be tolerated. Some lauded the role of the madressahs in ‘protecting the religious frontiers of Pakistan.’ This should allow us to sleep more peacefully!

But perhaps more distressing than the fiery but predictable speeches made by the clerics was the unqualified praise heaped on the role of the madressahs by Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, the president of the official Muslim League, who was present at the proceedings. He went on to deny that any of the madressahs were involved in terrorist activities.

With support like this, no wonder Musharraf’s ‘enlightened moderation’ has remained just a slogan.

Re: # 92
This shows the futility of governance in Pakistan. The first item of action should be to divest the Mullahs and the Masjids of all funds until they are certified for appropriate behavior in their domains.

``Thus, if Muslim fury is to be examined appropriately and truthfully, then the desecration of the Quran must be analysed together with the violent death of ``at least`` 100,000 Iraqi civilians, the greater majority of them at the hands of the ``coalition``, according to ``the first comprehensive investigation of civilian deaths in Iraq, published in the Lancet,`` and cited recently by respected Australian journalist John Pilger. ``

Who amongst the Non Muslim world even gives a crap about Muslim fury anymore. Muslim Fury is a constant, its just that different reasons are trotted out every few months by interested parties.

Did Muslim fury start with Iraq? Or did it start with the bombing of Afghanistan? What about 9/11?

stuka#94:

``Did Muslim fury start with Iraq? Or did it start with the bombing of Afghanistan? What about 9/11?``

Leftist Muslim fury against the US started with the conspiracry to remove Dr. Mussadaq from Iran. In the Arab world, it started when the US aligned itself with the Muslim brotherhood parties (fore-runner of Al Qaida?) and regressive regismes against Arab nationalism championed by Nasser. Religious muslims, along with the secular ones, turned against the US after its blind support of Israeli occupation and annexation of the Palestinian lands. It has been downhill from there.

Farzana Versey:

I wish you had not used Daniel Pipes and his quotes in you article.

The views of Daniel Pipes, nominated by Bush to the board of the US Institute of Peace, are well known regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Muslims and Quran in general.

His noble views are presented here : http://www.danielpipes.org/blog

Regards

Nauman Nisar