| Terrorism and Political Dialogue | |||
|
|
By: Kishan Bhatia October 24, 2006 Views expressed here are author’s own and not of this website. Full disclaimer is at the bottom. 
Feedback
1. America, President Musharraf and Critics: Robert L. Polack in a WSJ article, Sept. 29 disclosed a case for “The Musharraf Exception.” President Bush spoke to members of the Reserve Officers Association praising President Musharraf and justifying associations with Pakistan for its contribution to WOT by disclosing, “The suspected terrorists provided CIA information to help us break up a cell of Southeast Asian terrorist operatives groomed for attacks inside the US; it disrupted an Al Qaeda operation to develop anthrax for terrorist attacks it helped stop a planned strike on a Marine camp in Djibouti, prevent a planned attack on the Consulate in Karachi and foil a plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into Heathrow Airport and London’s Canary Wharf.” All this shows that the dictator knows how to play global powers and as a “bounty hunter nation” Pakistan and the retired ISI agents have made billions from some of those facing wrath of global Islamic wave of terrorism. For Pakistan the globally spread fears or Islam phobia has paid big dividends. In several articles, for example, in SAAG, Asia Times, etc., Pakistan was criticized for its part in promoting terrorism on global scale and highlighting the need for America to disassociate from supporting Pakistan. Judging from President Bush’s disclosures and British PM Tony Blair’s dissociation from a Ministry of Defense investigative report linking Pakistan’s ISI to terrorist activities, it is not about to happen any time soon, at least not as long as al Qaeda and Taliban leaderships remain free in the border regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It all boils down to understanding the goal for the USA government. The goal isn't to be right. It is to eliminate terrorist attacks on America. Morally America would like to see Iraq and Afghanistan not to suffer wrath of sectarian and tribal warfare and all other nations’ to be free of terrorist attacks. For America the guiding principle is not a moral thing about who is right and who is wrong. It is the security of America, which is the prime job of regularly elected American politicians as well as the administrators. The loss of life in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan is acceptable collateral damage for America! And for each of three governments to collects billions in aid from and for some as bounty payment for handing over suspected terrorists to America. Those of us who are critical of America for destabilizing Islamic nations from Ankara to Islamabad and letting non-Islamic nations on borders of the Muslim nations and of Europe suffering collateral damage at the hands of Islamist should remember that it is the individual nation's, not America's responsibility to take defensive measures against Islamists and their state sponsors to protect their freedoms, property, political institutions and above all, its citizens. 2. Two Perceptions of God: How we think (or don't think) about God has much to do with how we judge what is good and what is wicked, and with how we think about the appropriate methods for advancing the truth in a world in which there are profound disagreements about the truth of things. There are two versions of God; an imagined God and a God of human mind. The imagined God is pure will, a remote majesty with which our only possible relationship is one of unthinking submission. The God of human mind appeals to reason, compassion and love - or to mind, heart and dialogue. The definition of Allah, the Muslim God is closer to that of imagined God and the non-Islamic faiths are closer to the God of human mind. Understanding the different definitions of God used by different religions allows for mental predisposition of religious and other leaders interested in the interfaith dialogue. Simply put, while Christians and other non-Islamic religions see the logic of God’s actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah. There is only one God, yet we have two definitions of God, one for Muslims and other for non-Muslims. Anyone who believes that Muslims will agree to or redefine Allah doesn’t understand current state of Muslim psyche, which for most part displays anger, hate and intolerances for non-Islamic faiths. Fundamental problem is the Muslim civilization and society that considers it to be superior to all other cultures and societies. There also are politically motivated fundamentalist clerics, radical imams, power-hungry autocrats and Western educated Muslim elites who are obsessed with inferiority of their political powers. Religion and perceptions of God are means for political power games. In addition to spreading a particular faith, unlike for Muslim nations the benefits of political power allows for economic power driven Western nations to exploit commerce for a sustained economic growth. 3. Islam, Christianity and Extremism: Extremism is a state of mind based on personal feelings. Extremist feel that opinions other than his own are not only wrong but wicked, and that they deserve to be eliminated. Religious extremism is justified in the name of religion and used to spread the faith. The Koran supports and politically motivated Muslims, fundamentalist clerics and radical imams justify violence against non-Muslims. Unlike Koran propagating religion and violence, the reformed Christianity in past three hundred years or so after the renaissance period has propagated religion through reason and non-violent, creative solutions offered in the scriptures and also by providing healthcare, modern education, etc to deprived segments of those following other faiths. For last fourteen hundred years Muslims and before that from third to seventeenth century Christians unleashed religious extremism to subjugate and humiliate most of the followers of other faiths. Two doctrines for subjugations and humiliations are at play. The doctrine of two swords - the state and church - is practiced by developed Christian nations. The doctrine of one sword - political Islam is an integral part of Islam - is the operating principle for Muslims. Ideally, Islam should be a faith for individuals to follow for personal salvation and political Islam to be an ideology for government. Unless they view religion (Islam) and the state (political Islam) as two separate independent spheres of operations, Muslims will continue not to see the connection between reason and faith or a need to constructively engage in an interfaith dialogue that the Pope recently suggested. Islam was born in an environment where sword was and still remains the supreme law. Muslim nation’s borders are bloody as they attempt to subjugate and humiliate neighboring states and internally they engage in endless sectarian and tribal wars. The fundamental problem is not Islamic fundamentalism, it is the Muslim civilization and society with people convinced of the superiority of their culture and those obsessed with inferiority of their political powers. Muslims have internalized anger, hate and intolerance - the elements of negative energy – as a result of consistent failures in last century or so to subjugate people of non-Islamic faith and those of other Muslim sects. In fact they have suffered humiliation of being colonized during the same period. Unlike Mohammed, Jesus was not a military conqueror. Unlike Islam, Christianity was not born to power. Power was and continues to be an instrument for spread of two faiths. Christians use “two swords,” Muslims “one sword.” Tradition – or the Sunnah – bound Muslims are forbidden to seek rational explanations for proposition in the realm of beliefs. They accept without question – blind faith - the reveled truths presented in Koran by Mohammed, the last prophet. Extremism or Jihad is imbedded in Islam. Deviation from Koranic teachings for Muslims is forbidden and those who stray are subjected to prosecution according to shariah, the Muslim personal law. For Muslims, reverence for the Prophet is a non-negotiable and Muslims have a passionate devotion and commitment to protecting the honor of Muhammad. For non-Islamic people respect has to be earned, not demanded; that is not so for Muslims! Using terrorism against America, Europe and India they have demanded resolution of international political disputes and by exhibiting violent threats on the streets they have forced others to retract some offending actions such as the Danish Cartoons, a book by Salman Rushdie, or staging of an opera in Germany, etc. Unwilling to face wrath of Muslim anger and possibly loss of public and private property non-Islamic politicians, writers, and thinker’s offer insincere apologies in an attempt to inhibit Muslim passions inflamed by radical imams, fundamentalist clerics and religious extremists who pour hate and intolerance on mostly ignorant, illiterate or semi-literate masses to create a spectacle for the TV viewers. Muslim textbooks command good Muslims to “hate” those of non-Islamic faith, and slowly but surely a global united front of non-Islamic politicians, writers and thinkers to simultaneously condemn Muslim violence is beginning to take shape. A verbal war of civilizations is unfolding! 4. Interfaith Dialogue and Muslim Um’mah: The controversies associated with the reason and faith dialogue include accusation that the Pope offered a historically inaccurate, irresponsible and inflammatory quote. In stead of logically countering Pope’s erudite arguments, Muslim elites digress and argue that Muslim masses are poorly educated which is responsible for the frustration, sense of rejection and the fragility of mind that exists in the Muslim Um’mah – the sphere of active Muslims believers. There is a siege mentality among the Muslim masses as a result of living in deep poverty and that Muslim populations worldwide are used as pawns by their dictatorial regimes. Majority of Muslims are not competitive and sufficiently industrious in the global village to generate wealth for personal well-being. Anger and extreme religious beliefs have led Muslims to harbor feelings of hate and intolerance against non-Muslims. Muslims have yet to understand that for desired improvements in conditions for Muslim masses and acquiring superior military power angry won't do it. The 9/11 type attacks on America won't do it. The train bombings of 3/11 (Madrid), 7/7 (London), and 7/11 (Mumbai) to kill innocent civilians won't do it. Scholarship and modern education with emphasis on math, sciences and philosophy are the way for Muslims to move on from a siege mentality and achieve desired results for improving conditions of Muslim masses. More than the interfaith dialogue, Muslims needs tools for self-improvements and they should practice rationality as a tool to dissociate from violence associated with the political Islam, to make rapid economic gains and to build confidence in their intellectual capabilities. The self-improvement tools including building libraries full of modern knowledge in Muslim lands is prerequisite to scholarship and most Muslim nations lack adequate number of good libraries. There are about 600 universities in 57 Muslim majority nations with a combined population in close to one billion. The educational infrastructure in Muslim nations is inadequate compared to that in non-Islamic nations. Each of developed nations and soon to be developed nations of BRIC – Brazil, Russia, India and China - has thousands of universities annually producing hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers, and millions of college graduates. For example, America has a population of 300 million with 1.1 million scientists and many of its nearly 6,000 universities and schools of higher education are ranked among top 500 schools. Not even one Muslim school is ranked among top 500 of global universities. During last 600 years – up to 30 generations - Muslims have not contributed to advances in the global technological know-how that includes remarkable achievements in medical sciences, digital and nuclear technologies, space travel, and advanced wireless tele-communications, etc. Lacking adequate knowledge of math, sciences and philosophy Muslims are ill-equipped to economically up-lift the Muslim masses and their leaders lack what it takes to constructively engage in the interfaith dialogue by offering rational explanations for propositions in the realm of beliefs. Lacking a tradition of superior scholarship, over emphasis on the blind faith and suffering from “not invented here syndrome,” most Muslims fail to understand rational explanations offered by non-Muslims for propositions in the realm of beliefs. For Muslims with the imagined God the unthinking submission is sufficient condition for people to be religious and hence appeals to the God of human mind have no relevance. The concept of association between reason and faith became alien to Muslim tradition – the Sunnah - after Arabs suffered successive military losses over several centuries - from tenth to fifteen century - at the hands of Christian Crusaders, in war known as Reconquistas; they were dominated and humiliated in Arab lands from Constantinople or Istanbul (Turkey) to Kabul (Afghanistan) by descendents of barbaric Mongol, Genghis Khan from the steppes of Central Asia and Turkics from Northern and Central Eurasia. For a civil dialogue between Islam and non-Islamic faiths, renunciation of violence and terrors is desirable. For Muslim elites, fundamentalist clerics and radical imams the Pope’s call for interfaith dialogue is an attempt to make Muslims renounce jihadi extremism. Given two fundamentally divergent perceptions of God, the renunciation of violence and terror may follow if the Muslim Um’mah accepts the idea that Muslims and non-Muslims must undertake detailed discussions under non-threatening atmosphere, in a spirit of trust to understand various rational explanations of propositions in the realm of beliefs. Such an undertaking requires Muslims to deviate from their non-negotiable beliefs and so it is a hard sell to Muslims. 5. Islam fascism: The concept of Muslim Um’mah implies that there is such a unified entity of 1.2 billion Muslims and that they feel outrage in the same way at the same time. The proponents of Muslim Um’mah try to evoke a pre-modern utopia of monolithic harmony. The Islamic Um’mah is not monolithic. Judging from never ending sectarian and tribal rivalries and wars the Um’mah remains highly fissiparous and regional, mixed with a myriad of localized customs, superstitions and hagiologies. Central Asian Muslims follow Sufi traditions, those of Persian heritage are predominately Shias and Arabs are predominately Sunnis. South Asian Muslims are of Sufi, Shia and Sunni sects. Under current political conditions from Ankara to Islamabad, Shia and Sunnis are most violent and determined to spread their political influence through autocratic means and fascist methods. The Islam fascism is fascism with an Islamic face, writes the New York Times columnist William Safire. For Italian politician Benito Mussolini, fascism stood for militarism, social elitism and fierce nationalism, combined with contempt for democracy and anger at the rise of Communism. For Nazi Hitler, it represented a fury against "decadence" represented by the despised weak and intellectual, demanding the replacement of "feminine lamentation" with "virile hatred" of Marxists and Jews. In current usage, fascism is remembered less as an ideology than as a dictatorship (individual or a group) employing violent repression at home and military aggression abroad; it has become a word defining hate-based practices employed by a totalitarian regime or movement bundling words as "dictatorial," "bigoted," "jack-booted," "racist," "sexist," "power-famished." Simply demanding that Islam be accepted on a basis of blind faith to be a religion of peace and justice doesn’t make it so for non-Muslims, especially when terrorism and violence by Muslims has become a global phenomenon. In Muslim dominated lands from Morocco to Pakistan, fascism is a governmental system led by a dictator (or a dictatorial group such as fundamentalist clerics and radical imams) having complete power of forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. Simply put, the Arabic socialistic political Islam propagated by Muslim radicals and fundamentalists is a form of fascism. Fascism is the radical Muslim’s demand that followers of non-Islamic faith must obey to dictates of Muslim clerics of questionable scholarship. Fascism is Muslim’s demanding owning of women, controlling virginity and subscribing to killing infidels if they refuse a dhimmah – the treaty – to pay up to 20% tax to Muslims for refusing conversion to Islam. The fascism of fundamentalist radical Muslims is exposed if they maintain that unless Islam is accepted as a religion of peace and justice we will kill anyone who says otherwise! What to make of Muslims, who shout at the Pope, apologize or die? Those who consider the “root causes” of vicious, cruel and criminal behavior to be poverty, malnutrition, poor medical care and lack of education, forget that terrorists like Osama bin Laden, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and those responsible for the 9/11, 7/7, etc., came from the ranks of relatively affluent, with Western education and personal revulsions against Western social and cultural norms. The gentle inhabitants of squalid communities of the Muslim dominated Third world will more often share what little they have with a stranger. Some of those same people are particularly vulnerable to the relatively wealthy, armed and vicious who take advantage of the weak, defenseless and uneducated. With the use of money and terror, the helpless are used to further the causes sponsored by politically motivated operatives. A fear of loosing power over masses is a strong motivation for autocratic ruling elites, since they neither want to engage in separation of state or the political Islam from Islam nor do they subscribe for Muslim masses to Western style modern education with emphasis on reason through the applications of sciences, math and philosophy to sharpen individual logical thinking. I close this discussion with following quotes from an article by William Buckley, Jr.: Azzam is the principal modern theorist of militant Islam and he assumes that every Muslim is a jihadist according to Mary Habeck, the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins, and her book, Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror, (Yale University Press). "The question of offensive jihad is ... complex and controversial," writes Habeck. "The most widely respected Islamic authorities ... all assume that Muslims have a duty to spread the dominion of Islam, through military offensives, until it rules the world. By the "dominion of Islam" these authorities did not mean that everyone in the world must convert to Islam, since they also affirmed that "there is no compulsion in religion," rather that every part of the Earth must come under Islamic governance and especially the rule of the shariah. "Azzam's definition of offensive jihad follows this traditional understanding of jihad, noting that it is a duty for the leader of the Muslims "to assemble and send out an army unit into the land of war once or twice every year."" The jihadist is obliged to perform with all available capabilities "until there remain only Muslims or people who submit to Islam." The author reminds us that Azzam's explanation of offensive jihad is "a recounting of the interpretations of the most respected traditional Islamic authorities. To deny this fact would be to deny one of the main reasons that jihadis have gotten a hearing in so much of the Islamic world today." In my opinion, the above in a nutshell is fascism with an Islamic face, which is globally at play! Kishan Bhatia
Send your views to author Do you wish to reach our readers?
submit
your guest column |
Previous articles by: |