The Book is also Just a Book

Re # 38

I think it is time for God to send another prophet with another book. He thought he had sent last prophet and perfected message in Quran and done with humankind forever (till Qayamat). Obviously, he (or is it she?) needs to reconsider. May be Qayamat is just around the corner!

If God decides to send a prophet, hope it is a woman this time. I do not think God has ever sent a woman as a prophet so far!

FV,

Your article didn`t make sense. Using non-entity `secular` Muslim ``scholars`` quotes and the quotes of Pipes (who the hell gives a f.c.u.k. what that idiot has to say? Especially on Islam!!) and a few examples of people swearing on the Qu`ran (who has said this is right in the first place?) etc. and Qadaffi (another heretic!) or the fact that Shias and Sunnis don`t get on sometimes....(a) none of these are desecration (b) they are examples of people being bad Muslims not desecrating the Qu`ran. (c) the Qu`ran is for MUSLIMS the Uncreated actual SPEECH of Allah; it is part of His Attributes. It is Eternal. It is not `just a book`. It is the heart of Islam. So of course anyone flushing it down the toilet is going to offend and hurt anyone with even an iota of imaan in their hearts.

If you don`t feel anything that says more about the state of your own imaan than anything else!

My interpretation from the article is that FV wants muslims to take decisions not on instinct but based on collective good. A noble aim but difficult to achieve. But the later part of the article gets into unneccesary ant-western bias that FV cannot get rid herself of. Religion plays a very important part in our lives and it is natural for co-believers to share a set of views even on non-religious matters, but for muslims to do collective good, they don`t have to be anti-anybody.

Re: # 49
Thanks. I did not mean to withdraw from the interaction for ever. I only wanted to avoid a shouting match across inter religious correspondents (as it has invariably happened at the Chowk) and thus provide an opportunity to people like ferozk to refine the discussion into a focussed interaction.

Re: # 46

``I propose that non-Muslims keep out of the fray for a while so that they can learn from the interactions of the moderate Muslims and the Mullah brigade``.

Gladly. But the actions of the muslim believers affect the non-muslims also. How can they remain mute. I think the time has now come for all the muslims to keep their faith locked up for a decade. This will benefit the mankind.


Regards....

I propose that non-Muslims keep out of the fray for a while so that they can learn from the interactions of the moderate Muslims and the Mullah brigade.

There is need for an independent moderate Muslim voice. It needs to be articulated by continued support of the legitimate Muslim needs but exposing the irrationality, injustice and inconsistency Whaabist jihadis. This voice has to be clear and definitive.

`` power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely``

This is the position amrica is in today, you can`t really blame them, they have gone from barbarism to decadence without creating a civilisation in between.

Re: # 51
If you are a non-Muslim, then opportunities like this provide you a chance to refine and recalibrate your thinking. So one should exercise the patience to observe the interaction. You could even help along by asking questions in a positive format to seek specific pieces of information.
PS. I am a non-Muslim.

inquirer,
what you suggest about non-muslims keeping out of the fray would work if we were living in a world where the actions of one did not affect or have consequences for others. THAT is not the case. inter-faith dialogues are just as vital as intra-faith ones.

and furthermore, this is an article written regarding desecration of the quran-e-majeed, but desecration is not just about what happens to muslims. the notion of desecration is one that is part of all of us who commit to a belief/ideology, and have had tenets of such enlighten our souls rather than deaden them, as farzana aptly refers to in the last paragraph (yes, some of us actually do read her articles from beginning to end. .).

#47,

I guess, transistors, air flights, internet, computers, microchips happened either in barbaric or decadent times.

Re: # 53
Thanks, ferozk. We need responses like yours. They shed light on the situation and also proclaim COMMON weaknesses and strengths of the faiths. Once these are internalized people begin to see constructive ways to approach various imagined/real insults by people of other faiths. They also have a chance to, thus, develop bridges of understanding.

re: FV

Every religion has an element of irrationality in it and every religion has an ideal, which is considered as a sacrosant to its basic belief systems and values. Religious symbology gains its aura not necessarily by the intent of its gospels but by the importance its adherents attach to it and the contextual meaning, which they confer upon it in order to rationalize the justification of its importance. Reactions to an act, which goes against the grain of the orthodoxic values originate not generally from abused religious sentiments, but from the politics of the religious believes, which creates a sense of injustice and thus, demands an act of retribution as an amends to original slight.

All the Abrahmic faiths, which includes Islam, claim communion with God and their central message is to ordain an act of behavior, which the faithful are supposed to obey and abide by in their daily routines. The idea is to create a code of conduct, which helps in the regulation of a society and to prevent the anarchy, which invaribly results as a result of an absence of viable and credible set of laws. The most well intentioned example of this rationalization was the Mosaic Law, and a study of the Mosaic Law shows that it was a code of ethical conduct. From this law, ideals of Christianity took shape and formulated themselves into the guise a re-formed Ten Commandments.

The only difference, and it was a telling discrepency, was that the Christian Ten Commandments differed from the Mosaic Commendments in their interpretations of the ``Law of God. The basic contention of Christanity was that Judaism had become too ritualistic and was not personal enough, but was a threatening philosophy and thus, Christanity saw it self as a reform movement within Judaism intending to correct its flaws. It is interesting that Jesus was cruxified by the political edict of the Jewish priests in Jerusalem for a political reason and not for being a religious prophet.

Therefore, like Christanity before it, Islam too claimed to offer a more personalized faith, without the benefit of the intermediaries known as the clergy and it was, in the beginning, concerned about the salvation of its followers` souls. Later on Islam, too, became corrupted by the rituals, which propagated and drowned out its message. The ritualization of a religion, whereby the symbols and the acts of worship take on an added significance is a political development and the politics, which dominates religion does so with the wish to gain political power through the idolotary of religious symbology infused with a political inclination.

A symbol, by itself, is an abstract idea but what makes the symbol a potent reflection of the belief system of a religion or a political ideology, is the message which is associated with it.

In other words, such symbols are the reflection of our sense of cherished views, which we consider as sacred and as being as sina qua non of our personal, political, social or cultural characteristics. An American might not understand the value of the Quran to a Muslim and to him, it is a just a book and likewise, a Muslim might not be aware of the reverence which an American attaches to his/her nation`s flag and his/her sense of anger, when the American flag is burned. To the Muslim, the American flag is simply an identification of United States, but s/he does not understand the emotive appeal of the flag to an American and what it stand for; liberity, freedom, and democracy.

Hence, who is right and who is wrong?

The answer is irrationality and it depends on our reaction, when we see an act which assults our own sense of what we think shapes our identity; to the Muslims, it is the Quran and to the American, it is the flag. On the other hand, an average French might laugh at both the reaction of the Muslim to the desecration of Quran and American`s reaction to the flag burning. However, s/he will be up in arms and deeply indignigant, if act was the allowence of religion into politics.

We are ourselves responsible for our irrationality and this irrationality is commeasurate, with the importance we attache to those symbols, which we consider as defining our basic beliefs; whether they are religious or patriotic or secular in their nature.

Ciao

Some context is in order here.

The people who died were killed (entirely, from what I read) by Afghan security forces, a proxy for an occupying army that is accused of desecrating something deemed sacred by the occupied. Don`t ask me about the dynamics of why people protest, but it`s clear that this would cause serious unrest, whereas the detention of a few anonymous prisoners would not (but in fact, they do...however such unrest is always deemed Islamist lead insurgency, and brutally crushed, so we never really hear about such protests).

Now, unless I`ve missed something in the news, how did these people kill ``themselves``?

---

Point taken about the screwed up priorities in the Muslim world (in general), though.

``If Islamic societies want to worry about desecration, they should start looking at how they treat their own people``

Actually, it`s governments in Islamic societies that typically fail the people. The saving grace here is percicely those people by far and wide (minus the odd honor killing here and there).

Re: # 57
Very contrary to your reputation proclaimed by Chowk!!

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

=== Interact Removed ===

The book is just a Book. Agreed. Then why did americans were found in the ``desecration`` of this book only and not the other millions of books in the world ?

If anybody abuses me parents, I will certainly not kill him. But punching him twice on his face might give me satisfaction. No matter, how bad I am with my parents while dealing with them, it will hurt me if any third person comes and comments bad about them. Alternatively, being a ``liberal``, I can write a beautiful article telling that:

1. Oh, if he abused it. No problem. My parents are two of 6 billion humans in the world.
2. No, abuse doesn`t have any effect on me. What is abuse? Just a vibration inside the air generated by throat muscles.
and yes, my logic works here.

Same is true for Quran. I have an emotional affiliation with Quran just as I have with my parents. I will certainly not like if somebody abuses it and abuses it for purpose. A couple of high energy kicks on the ass are required for such a person.

Being a liberal doesn`t mean being on the westeren side all the times. If west is found involved in an atrocity, highlighting it doesn`t make you ``less liberal``.

If americans are burning qurans and they know that it is something sacred for muslims, it means that they are trying to provoke them. Is it ethical to provoke a group by hitting its sensitive issues...

and yes, I again agree that muslims need to be more intelligent while dealing with such situations.

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

Re: # 63
Fair and wonderful memories! Lekin extra ``a`` ne to majaa kirkiraa kar diyaa hogaa!!

God works in mysterious ways.

Karma`s cycle always catches up with the (mis)deeds.

These same fanatics were having orgasams when they blew up Bamiyan Budhas (sacred to Budhists). Now, let their souls have spasms at the sight of their things get desecreated.

Retribution - nature style.

For centuries, the people of these areas have tormented, raided, massacared, pilaged, hummilliated, looted and destroyed other civilizations that lived in relative prosperity and calm.

Now it is their turn to be on the receiving end. This is the Karmic Cycle. Laws of Nature. As you shall sow, so shall you reap. The Karma has finally caught up.

When Nadir Shah was destroying Delhi....and the Public came to the emperor....he replied....may be, the Nadir Shah is sent by Allah to punish them for the sins.

could the mayhem played out in that neck of woods is part of the same game.

Re: # 66
Boy, as a Hindu I am learning alot!! Thanks, clear and honest thinkers. If only the Chowk group could get together to solve the real world problems!!!

Farzana, {``* Sunnis and Shias routinely violate each other’s existence and they follow the same Book.
Would this qualify as desecration?``}

So well stated.
Another timely masterpiece from a talented writer who is not afraid to state the obvious in her own inimitable style.
I agree with you and do so as a person who has a profound respect and love for the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and his noble mission and universal message.
Flushing an object down the toilet, whether true or a fantasy, is exactly that - a stupid attempt at clogging up basic services such as plumbing.
What is sacred is the message and not the paper on which the message is printed. Desecration is definitely in the total disobedience and disregard of the basic message of the Holy Koran - something that most Mullahs, including UBL and his cohorts and supporters are definitely guilty of. Killing, maiming, injuring, suicide, torture, raping, and burning are all acts of desecration of the Holy Koran. Shamefully, most of the perpetrators of these desecrations are people at the forefront of fundamentalist Islam. Thank you for enlightening us once again. Great article.
Salim Ahmed Chauhan

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

Re # 65

Well said.

Once our neighbours on the west stop glorifying bootshikans and instead feel ashamed of them and say and act so, I think lot of India/Pakistan Hindu/Muslim problems will
disappear/diminish.

RE: ferozk:
``Therefore, like Christanity before it, Islam too claimed to offer a more personalized faith, without the benefit of the intermediaries known as the clergy and it was, in the beginning, concerned about the salvation of its followers` souls. Later on Islam, too, became corrupted by the rituals, which propagated and drowned out its message.``

Feroz Sahib, i am not sure why did you write this. You dont want me to go to MSA/USC site and give you the exact translation of the verse

Wa AteeUllaha Wa Atee Ur Rasool.

something like - you have to follow prophet to follow Allah...

I think the way you put Islam/Koran`s focus is quite misleading.

RE: ferozk.
``whether they are religious or patriotic or secular in their nature. ``

this lumping of secular vs. religous symbols is at best pathetic.

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.

Dear Farzana:

The problem with this article is that it is too rational while people`s sentiments about their religious symbols are not. People who desecrated the quran knew that very well, presuming that those reports are correct. What other purpose is served by flushing down some paper and ink down the toilet? You might as well say that Indian Muslims should not have been hurt after the demolition of the Babri Masjid because it was merely an ``unused structure``, as was claimed by some. All symbolic destructions are meant to convey a message, whether the damage is done by the Americans, the hindu nationalists, Ghazni or even the Prophet destroying the symbols of his ancestors` worship.

Is it only the Book?
BY RAMZY BAROUD

24 May 2005


THE reported desecration of the Quran by US guards at the infamous Guantanamo prison, as originally reported by Newsweek on May 9, 2005, was not — as it should’ve been — an opportunity for a thorough examination of US army practices, and thus human rights abuses, toward Muslim inmates in the numerous detention camps erected throughout the world.


Considering that such practices are quite consistent with the overriding policy adopted by the Bush administration throughout the Middle East, one hardly crosses the border of reason when one expects key newspapers to contextualise the reported flushing of the Quran down the toilet episode with analogous practices in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But as experience has shown, that’s just too much to expect. Instead, the focus of the vast news coverage and commentary throughout the media was fixed on the less urgent matter of journalistic responsibility and the seemingly inherent problem of Muslim backwardness and sadism.

The Times of London made a clever choice when it selected a Muslim, Irshad Manji, to address the fierce response to the scandal.

In an article entitled, ``Why don’t we Muslims grow up?`` Manji, who seems demonstrably disengaged, found it most appropriate to prompt a discussion in semantics, questioning the wholesomeness and sanctity of the Quran itself. The Quran, according to the writer, ``contains ambiguities, inconsistencies, outright contradictions and the possibility of human editing.``

What does this have to do with anything? The article, also published by the celebrated New York Review of Books, insisted on pinning the blame on the popular and sometimes violent Muslim response to the report, rather than the culminating feelings of anti-imperialist oppression experienced by the poorest of Muslim nations, most notably Afghanistan.

On the other hand, Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for the Boston Globe, chose to push the limits of cultural insensitivity to downright insult in his piece entitled, ``Why Islam is disrespected.`` Opening his article with imaginary scenarios of Christians, Jews and Buddhists violently rioting in response to the desecration of their religious symbols, Jacoby aims to catch his unsuspecting audience off guard, weaving together a fantastic anecdote and then pronouncing that these stories ``never occurred.`` They were simply convoluted analogies aimed at enlightening his innocent and naïve readers, to draw a comparison between the barbarism of Muslims and the nonviolent and civilised everyone else.

``Christians, Jews and Buddhists don’t lash out in homicidal rage when their religion is insulted. They don’t call for holy war and riot in the street. It would be unthinkable for a mainstream priest, rabbi, or lama to demand that a blasphemer be slain,`` and so forth.

Other commentators who refrained from scrutinising and ``exposing`` Islam’s theological limitations or discrediting its cultural practices, rituals, beliefs and so on, confined their arguments to Newsweek’s judgment, or lack thereof, regarding the running the May 9th article.

Some sided with the White House interpretation, as uttered by Press secretary Scott McClellan, in his call on Newsweek and other media not to lose their ``credibility.`` Others questioned McClellan’s own credibility. The agreement however, regarding Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker’s clearly forced apology and subsequent retraction of the article was across-the-board.

It’s ironic that Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is in fact the one speaking the unexamined words of truth. He said that Army Gen. Carl Eichenberry, the senior US commander in Afghanistan, reported that the violence ``was not at all tied to the article in the magazine.``

So to what could it possibly be tied?

Did it dawn on anyone in the mainstream media that the Afghan people might possibly be angry over years of American occupation? Perhaps this failed to cross anyone’s mind.

Could it possibly be that hundreds of millions of Muslims might’ve had enough common sense to connect the dots and to establish that the desecration of the Quran is only the latest episode of a consistent US military policy that hasn’t only dishonoured religious symbols but the sanctity of human life, in fact hundreds of thousands of human lives?

Could the hypothesis be true that Muslims, despite their alleged backwardness, had access to TV news, print media and the Internet and might’ve accidentally run across hundreds of vile photos of physically humiliated and sexually abused Iraqi prisoners? Could it be possible that these ``savages`` learned of harrowing testimonies of former prisoners at Guantanamo detailing what numerous human rights groups unhesitatingly described as ``war crimes``?

But why confine the argument to over-generalised, rhetorical questions? In its response to the scandal, Human Rights Watch issued a statement on May 19 confirming that sadly, the Guantanamo episode is the norm. ``In detention centres around the world, the US has been humiliating Muslim prisoners by offending their religious beliefs,`` according to Reed Brody, a HRW special counsel.

The defilement of religious symbols, like the Quran however, is part of the unfailing US foreign and military policy that has utilised every creative, albeit inhuman option to further its colonial designs throughout the Muslim world for an array of economic and strategic gains.

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. Separating both issues is downright irresponsible.

But the interest in appropriateness and truthfulness in the media fades away before the seemingly much more compelling and urgent topic of the theological roots of Muslim violence, and the Muslim and Arab minds’ alleged innate deficiency and backwardness.

I am afraid that it will take more than a simple apology or a newspaper retraction to right this collective and perpetual wrong. Much more.

Raw Dust,
what is pathetic is your inability to understand that a person of faith is not one who necessarily ascribes to a `herd mentality`, and excuse me, but all persons of faith/ideology are not incapable of working against forces which threaten/infringe the equal rights and justice of fellow human beings. i really fail to see where you being the secular humanist that you are differ in your narrow way of thinking, from a religious person`s narrow way of thinking. as uncomfortable as i am with the word ``irrational``, this is in part the issue that feroz is addressing.

vertex,
Do you think the reaction of people would have been different if Iraq and Afghanistan had not been occupied? I am very sure there would have still been a violent reaction. I ask you this question because of the article you posted on #73.

ana:
1-
my contention still stands - there are no secular symbols the desecration of which will create a hue and cry from secular Individuals. I would back down from this assertion immediately if someone would show me one symbol (Signifier) that points to a Signified entity beyond the realm of Five Senses and if That symbol is reverred (publicly) by secular Individuals. This is the distinction i was bringing the Feroz Sahib`s attention to. I would be glad to see if i am wrong.

2-
There is alot of unnecessary defense in your post. Dont read too much into what i wrote. I never said that religous peeps are ``incapable of working against forces which threaten/infringe the equal rights``, Nor implied.

3-
And by the way, there are alotta religous folk out there who are secular humanists and dont bring in their religions and relgous arguments, by default, among buddies. There belief is apparently intimate and private and i wholly respect that.

many thanks.

echoboom #68.
My dear friend, we are basically agreeing. I took the Shia Sunni reference from Farzana`s essay to highlight where our emphasis in Islamic energy should be placed. We need to do positive things to and for each other and then to extend that truly ``Mohammedan`` behavior to non-Muslims, as well. Let`s not think of the soccer game nor of the Olymipics, let`s think of the creatures participating in them. I said ``Mohammedan`` because I consider myself one - a follower of that perfection of a man, who was compassionate, selfless, non-violent, loving, tolerant, and understanding. Flushing pages on which his message is printed is like burning another country`s flag - neither translates into victory or satisfaction. Echo, buddy, make the umbrella of Islam as wide as possible and accommodate as many as possible - then you will have true success.
Salim Ahmed Chauhan

raw dust,
when you differentiate between one group`s doing something, and another group`s doing something without acknowledging the other group`s contribution to the same issues, it can be viewed as implied regardless of your intention.

then again it is all semantics and pragmatics.

plus to #76 and 71:

Feroze Sahib will work up when the Supreme Court will be invaded by the goons (PML-N style) or a Retired General, for example, ventures inside the Parliament building in uniform or the worst of the worst that creature commits the act of treason and conquers his own country. Feroze Sahib will not give a flip if e.g., Indian BJP party stage a rally and burn Pakistani flag in Delhi.

Vivek,

I think the reaction has in fact been different. There was only a ``violent reaction`` in Afghanistan, and most of that was American-backed Afghan security troops gunning down the rowdy protesters (disturbingly similar to the Uzbek slaughter).

There were protests elsewhere (Pakistan, Indonesia), but no violence there. I know of no protests in the Arab world.

Now, perhaps a few crazies may be compelled to kill some obscure artist, or this and that, but the context of this particular violence, and those who presided over it, make this an issue much greater than the alleged ``Muslim`` (more like a handful of Afghans) reaction to some article. And even then, it probably wasn`t a reaction to the article at all. Nor is this the first anti-govt protest that was crushed in Afghanistan.

So why the focus on the 16 (6, 17,10?) dead in connection with the newsweek story (and is there a connection in the first place)?

I mean, to me it seems like people are misusing this story to produce righteous diatribes, and we see this not only from the usual suspects (Manji, Tom Friedman), but even some resident chowkies ... :-)

This issue in any interpretation has little to do with ``tolerance``, or expression.

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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?

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

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