Terrorising Pakistan

A conspiracy of silence.

Already this year there have been five deadly attacks in Pakistani cities resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocent Pakistanis. The most recent act of savagery occurred on 9 July in Mohmand in the North West of Pakistan, close to the border with Afghanistan, when over 100 ordinary citizens lost their lives and some 200 were injured (see Tailpiece for a full list of attacks since 2007). This crude suicide attack is clearly the work of “Pakistani Taliban”. Other attacks, requiring considerable planning and a degree of sophistication, point to an altogether more sinister and better organised presence in Pakistan.

The head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, gave a briefing to the Parliamentary Committee on National Security last week, which told a tale of foreign intrigue and sinister collaboration between an ostensible “friend” and a sworn enemy of Pakistan. The complicity of foreign states in the sort of terrorist activity that we have previously witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan has been an open secret for a long time. It is good to see someone in authority acknowledging it at last. But we need to go further and shout the reality underlying terrorism in Pakistan from the rooftops – speak up boldly at international forums and provide the incriminating evidence, though it will inevitably incur the wrath of the USA.

In Pakistan itself a strange silence hangs over the country. Save for a few brave souls in Pakistan’s journalistic community, and some outspoken politicians such as Imran Khan, people who occupy influential positions in Pakistani society have either sealed their lips or they deflect all suspicion on to Pakistani Taliban, shielding the stars of this macabre drama of murder and intrigue. Many of Pakistan’s top politicians and functionaries are neck deep in corruption and various fraudulent acts, which makes them susceptible to blackmail. Others are bought off with a combination of monetary bribes and threats of violence. Generally, there is little honest attempt at analysing Pakistan’s complex, rapidly changing situation and relating it to preceding events.

Separating reality from illusion

Let us take the three most recent attacks to see if there is a pattern we can observe. 

1.  The massacre of Ahmadis in Lahore

On 28 May a group of people attacked two mosques belonging to the Ahmadi community at a time when they were overflowing on the occasion of Friday prayers. Some 90 members of the congregation died and as many as a hundred were injured. Immediately, Pakistan’s westernised “intellectuals”, with pockets and hand bags bulging to bursting point with wads of American dollars, declared that the attack amounted to inhuman persecution of the Ahmadi community, blah blah blah. That the Ahmadis are indeed a persecuted minority in Pakistan is a well known fact but linking a terrorist attack to such persecution showed that a conscious attempt was afoot to deceive Pakistanis about the origin of the terror unleashed on them. As you can see from the Tailpiece, this attack was simply one of a series intended to terrorise and destabilise Pakistani society. My own response to this atrocity was given in my blog post Self destruction of Pakistan, and in comments elsewhere:

“……… please remember that the tragic loss of life on Black Friday was not the result of sectarian violence. It was an attack by sub-human creatures who had previously murdered Pakistanis of all religious denominations.

The situation in Pakistan is so warped at the moment that it is difficult to understand what is going on. The horror story that is being acted out on the vast Pakistani stage can be witnessed by all but the hands directing this nightmarish scene are hidden from view. Hence the preponderance of what some people have termed "conspiracy theories", a most unfortunate term that discourages people from uncovering the ugly truth.

At several blogs run by Pakistan's self-styled "liberals" this tragedy has been used as a ploy to divert attention away from other issues of great national importance. I have felt sickened by the hypocritical public chest beating of these liberals, some of whom clearly have ulterior motives. What conclusion can you draw when people start suggesting that Pakistanis should focus only on their internal sectarian problems - on this occasion, at least, it is NOT a case of sectarian violence - and stay away from protesting against Israel's murder of Turkish citizens taking relief supplies to Gaza!”

2. The massacre at the shrine of Ali Hajveri, “Data Ganj Bakhsh”, Lahore

This occurred on Thursday night, 1 July, when the shrine was full of devotees of the saint. A single suicide bomber killed himself and some 45 others, and some 200 people were injured. There have been reports of suspicious foreigners taking photographs of the Data Darbar shrine some days before the suicide attack.

 

 Once again, the westernised chattering classes of Pakistan have had a field day, talking loudly about religious intolerance and sectarian strife. Very cleverly, two new phrases  ‘religious intolerance’ and ‘sectarian violence’ have replaced ‘religious persecution’ this time. As before, the real culprit behind the wicked deed is cleverly covered up.

There seems little doubt that there is a conspiracy to refuse to analyse and investigate each deadly act of violence and to draw appropriate conclusions. This, in my opinion, shows the extent to which the USA agencies have managed to deflect suspicion away from their own anti-Pakistan activities towards the dormant cancer of sectarian hatred that blights Pakistani society.

3. The massacre of Pakistanis awaiting rehabilitation in Mohmand Agency (North-West Pakistan)

Close to the Pak-Afghan border, this is an area where “Pakistani Taliban” - an organisation which owes its birth to American patronage - had earlier been defeated by the Pakistan army and they had escaped further north. The army had declared the area to be safe from Taliban and the government was asked to arrange for the return of people who had been displaced by the fighting. The government responded by telling the people to return but it made no effort to establish a viable civic administration to offer security to people going back to their ruined towns.

On 9 July the unfortunate souls awaiting re-settlement were mercilessly cut down by two suicide bombers, in a car and on a motorbike. Over a hundred people died and some 200 sustained horrible injuries. This attack was launched by Pakistani Taliban as a revenge for their earlier defeat.

The hands of the murderers

There are three distinct pairs of hands:

1. The Pakistani Taliban, who carry out atrocities in places like Mohmand. They are an obvious target, and they are being pursued relentlessly by the Pakistan army.

2. Pakistan’s avowed enemy India, which has been given a free hand by our treacherous friend in Afghanistan, the mighty USA. The Indian influence in Afghanistan is massive – Indians are said to work closely with Afghanistan’s “Northern Alliance” and with the Israeli experts in urban terrorism. To understand it fully requires a separate article – suffice it to say that India, which forcibly occupies Kashmir by stationing a huge army there numbering 700,000, is delighted to help the USA destabilise Pakistan. The Indians in Afghanistan finance, train and provide sophisticated weapons to mercenaries and Taliban, who are then sent over the Pak-Afghan border to attack pre-determined targets. The USA, which is supposed to maintain high tech surveillance of the long Pak-Afghan border, is a willing accomplice in these dastardly terrorist operations.

3. The vast presence of the USA operatives, contractors and mercenaries in Pakistan (CIA agents and those belonging to Dynacorp and Blackwater/Xe Services). It is these who are suspected of planning and executing attacks in the large cities such as Lahore and Rawalpindi.

 

A historical perspective

What we have to ask is: who will benefit from the spread of terror and insecurity in Pakistan? Pakistan's descent into hell has been preceded by similar experiences in two places: Iraq and Afghanistan. What is the common factor between them? You don't need rocket science to work that out - all you need is simple common sense and some basic honesty.

The USA government is adept at launching “false flag” operations. An utterly obscene example of this “art” was the staged farce of 9/11, which was promptly linked to backward Afghanistan though no evidence has ever been produced, then or since. To deceive the world about the 9/11 outrage, the USA government destroyed all evidence of that heinous crime against humanity. They then spun a weird tale which defied the facts and gave rise to a whole industry devoted to unearthing the truth about 9/11.

The Americans swung their formidable propaganda machine into action, responding to all criticism by rubbishing it as “conspiracy theories”. In 2002, when the USA appeared to have Afghanistan in the palm of its hand, George Bush’s White House aide spoke the chilling words which revealed the real intentions of the neoconservatives surrounding Bush:

“We’re an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors …. and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Since then the USA’s “false flag” operations have multiplied. Iraq is a good example, where the targeted killings of Shias were used to inflame passions against the Sunnis, and vice versa. The internecine violence weakened the Resistance against the occupiers and the USA government claimed a pyrrhic victory.  The architect of that strategy, General David Petraeus, is now trying out his evil schemes in Pakistan. He is clever enough to recognise that, unlike Iraq, Pakistan has a free press and he has to muzzle journalists by bribing them heavily.

Remember that Americans are roaming all over Pakistan, among them Urdu and Pashto speaking “contractors” and CIA agents. A compliant Pakistani government, installed by the Americans under a false façade of “democracy”, issues visas freely to Americans in accordance with the demands it receives from the USA government.

Though Pakistan is not a desperately poor country, the lack of governance and general mismanagement of the country’s resources, have produced a perilous situation where families routinely suffer starvation and dishonour. It is not uncommon to hear of whole families committing  suicide. There is thus a vast pool of people from which the sinister foreign presence in the country can recruit willing suicide bombers.

The ugly reality

Let us learn to think critically: what you see may only be an illusion, hiding an ugly reality underneath.

 That ugly reality behind the attempts to terrorise the civilian population of Pakistan is the increasing USA pressure on Pakistan to send its troops into North Waziristan and attack the Afghan Resistance to USA occupation from the Pakistani side of the Pak-Afghan border. Since an action in North Waziristan will trigger a civil war in Pakistan, a second aim is to destabilise Pakistan and to weaken its army, which will enable the USA to take possession of Pakistan’s  nuclear arsenal, and India to gobble up Kashmir (where India's occupation army has gunned down 17 youths recently).

  

The Americans have been in Afghanistan nearly 9 years and, by all accounts, they are staring defeat in the face. To put things in perspective the number of Americans who have died in this totally unnecessary conflict stands at a little over 1000 while the Nato forces have probably suffered under a thousand casualties. To the Americans these are very high figures and they are putting pressure on Pakistan to get its army to do the fighting for them. Pakistani lives, it seems, are dirt cheap when it comes to achieving the evil designs of USA politicians, who do not acknowledge that Pakistan army’s loss so far is several times that of USA’s. 

Pakistan’s servile obedience to the USA’s war aims has resulted in the loss of thousands of our soldiers and our citizens, and it has brought us close to financial ruin. Having lost so much already as a “friend” of the USA, what more is there for us to lose? Let us, for once, sample the blessings that will ensue from breaking that bond of enforced friendship.

Tailpiece

The following is a list of major attacks since July 2007 [source: The Nation, 9 July, 2010]:


2007


July 19: Three suicide attacks in the northwest of the country kill 54 people, including more than 20 soldiers and police officers.


October 18: Bomb attacks targeting two-time former premier Benazir Bhutto kill at least 139 people in Karachi, just hours after she returned to Pakistan for the first time in eight years. She survives unhurt, but is killed along with around 20 people in another gun and suicide attack on December 27.


December 21: At least 56 are killed in an attack on a mosque in the northwest of the country.


2008


August 21: Twin suicide attacks kill at least 64 people outside Pakistan's main arms factory in Wah, near Islamabad.


September 20: At least 60 people are killed when a suicide attacker rams a massive truck bomb into the gates of the five-star Marriott hotel in Islamabad.


2009

October 28: A massive car bomb destroys a Peshawar market crowded with women and children, killing 125 people.


December 7-8: Four attacks, including two almost simultaneous blasts on a market in the eastern city of Lahore, leave at least 66 dead.


2010


January 1: A suicide bomber blows up a car packed with explosives in the middle of a crowd gathered for a volleyball game in a northwest village, killing at least 101 people.

March 12: Twin suicide attacks seconds apart target the Pakistani military in Lahore, killing 5.


May 28: Gunmen wearing suicide vests storm two mosques belonging to a  minority sect in Lahore, bringing carnage to Friday prayers and killing at least 82 people.


July 1: At least 43 people are killed when suicide bombers strike at the tomb of an Islamic saint in Lahore.

July 9: Two suicide bombers blow themselves up in a crowd of people in a busy market in Mohmand district, killing over 100 people and wounding some 200.

Feminists join mullahs in making Islam irrelevant

Imamahs leading mixed congregations of the faithful.

On 10th June a report appeared in a British newspaper, The Independent, under the heading “First woman to lead Friday prayers in the UK”. The opening line of the report began, “A Canadian author will become the first Muslim-born woman to lead a mixed-gender British congregation through Friday prayers tomorrow”. Very helpfully, the newspaper published a picture of a mixed congregation with the imamah, Raheel Raza, sitting at the front.


Slightly tongue-in-cheek, I sent off a comment which was published at the newspaper’s website:


“Given that people who lead prayers in mosques are often self-regarding, unpleasant individuals, we should be talking about reforming the way prayers are conducted. Talking about appointment of imamahs is really a non-issue, at best a ridiculous imitation of the practices recently introduced in some religions.


The basic point that we need to grasp is that Islam is NOT a religion. It is a Deen, a Way of Life, a System, that we have to observe in our daily lives. When we remember Allah, our attention needs to be directed to Him alone, cutting out all distractions. Islamic prayers are not like Christian prayers where women sit demurely by the side of men. In Islamic prayers you rise and bow and prostrate, and you may become so absorbed in the remembrance of Allah that you become forgetful of proper decorum. If we have a mixed congregation it would become impossible to let go of our inhibitions and lose ourselves in the Zikr. It will be very difficult indeed to forget the presence of a member of the opposite sex near you as she/he rises from a prostate position and your eyes - inadvertently, of course - come to rest on the undulating form as it straightens up”.


Four days later The Guardian, another British newspaper, carried an article by Shaista Gohir (Gohar?) titled, “Women must be leaders in faith”. The full article is given below.

Women must be leaders in faith

A woman led Muslim prayers in Oxford last week. Her actions and those of others like her, across faiths, deserve our support

Shaista Gohir                                           


guardian.co.uk, Monday 14 June 2010 13.30


So far, it seems only Muslim women from abroad dare lead men in Friday prayers in the UK. A Canadian, Raheel Raza, became the second Muslim woman to do so at the Muslim Educational Centre in Oxford last week. An African-American convert, Amina Wadud, was the first Muslim woman to lead mixed prayers at the same centre in 2008. It's not surprising that British Muslim women are not brave enough to follow their footsteps – both have been demonised after leading men in prayers in their own countries.


Why is the idea of female imams so controversial amongst many Muslims? When Amina Wadud shocked the world in 2005 by leading mixed-gender Friday prayers in New York, I must admit even I felt uncomfortable. I had been brought up to believe only men could be imams, something I never questioned until recently.


An honest study of Islamic texts reveals that women are not forbidden to lead men in prayer – the Qur'an does not even address this issue. In fact the conditions required are Islamic knowledge, skill and piety – none of which are gender related. However, (mostly male) scholars maintain there is consensus on the impermissibility of women leading men in prayer despite lack of evidence to back up their position. In many quarters, this issue is not even open to debate, despite the fact that centuries ago it was discussed without controversy and a diversity of opinions was respected. According to female scholar Halima Krausen, a number of male scholars, such as Abu Thawr al-Kalbi, Abu Isma'il al-Muzani, al-Isfahani, at-Tabari and Ibn Taymiyya, had nothing against women leading mixed prayers. One woman, Umm Waraqa, is known to have led men in prayers in her household during the time of Prophet Muhammad.


Male clergy often cite questionable hadiths or take them out of context to criticise women such as Wadud. One argument often marshalled is that women's bodily movements arousing desires in men. Are men really so weak that they can't keep their eyes off a fully covered woman's posterior during prayer? I believe men have invented arguments about their sexual excitement – it is only their ego that prevents them from praying behind a woman.


Despite these powerful arguments supporting the permissibility of women leading mixed congregation prayers, I doubt the practice will become widespread in the near future as religious institutions are controlled by men. And most Muslim women are more concerned about fighting for equality on basic grounds such as education and economic empowerment. I don't think leading prayers is a battle that many are yet ready to fight, even if they believe in it. But Wadud and Raza are paving the way for more female imams to come forward to lead other women in prayer. Last year Hawaria Fattah became the first female imam in Europe after being recruited to a mosque in Belgium. This is a pioneering appointment even though she only works with Muslim women.


Restricting women's role in religious structures and practices is not exclusive to Islam. Historically all the world's major religions have done this. The first female rabbi was Regina Jonas, who was only ordained privately in 1935 in Berlin. The next ordination came in the US, in 1972, when Sally Priesand was made a rabbi in the Reform tradition. Since then, all branches of Judaism, except Orthodoxy, have found a way to ordain women.


Female priests may have been ordained in various branches of Christianity. However, its largest denomination, Roman Catholicism, has consistently refused to allow women into the priesthood. Those ordained unofficially are often excommunicated. This status quo continues to be challenged – last week a group marched to St Peter's Square demanding a debate on this issue. Opening the doors to the priesthood would mean women could ascend to the papacy – and perhaps the possibility of a future female pope is too much for the Catholic church.


Women are suffering the consequences of oppressive misinterpretations of religious texts in all faiths. It's time more of us questioned their legitimacy. No topic should be out of bounds for discussion, including the question of female religious leaders. The act of attempting to break down the last barriers to female participation sends an unequivocal message about equality.

============================
On reading this article I responded with the same comments as those I had made earlier in connection with the article in The Independent. I also gave a link to my blog. The author’s response, published at the website on 15 June, was:

“You have nicely illustrated my point about men making excuses about how easily they are supposedly aroused and distracted. If you are that deep in prayer, nothing should distract you. And if you have sinful thoughts, then why should women pay the price for being excluded? Shouldn't men be the ones excluded into another room who have such thoughts.


You conveniently forget to mention verse 24:30 in the Quran which commands men to lower their gaze. The Qur'an does not even remotely suggest that men are sexually more excitable than women. In fact I have discovered the following hadith which is conveniently ignored: “God has created the sexual desire in ten parts and he gave nine parts to women and one to men.” The same narration goes on to say, of shyness, women have been given nine parts of that too. So if women can control all nine parts of their desire when men are bending in front of them, sometimes wearing the tightest of jeans, it’s about time men took responsibility for their own urges too, and not hold women responsible.


So if you are having bad thoughts, please take responsibility.


I know there are many criticisms on here about all religions being patriachal 
which is true..........but they would be less so if more women were involved, especially in leadership roles. So even if you are against any form of religion, surely women's increased involvement is a good thing.”

Clearly we were not on the same wavelength. Ms Gohir, I could see, had read widely and she could take on most mullahs in a discussion on Islam as religion. Only, to me, Islam was not a religion and the feminists were making the same mistake that mullahs had made earlier. I carefully composed a reply:


Dear Ms Shaista Gohir,


Words are an imperfect means of conveying deeply held convictions. The way we use words, and interpret them, tend to reflect our own experience and it is easy to misunderstand another person’s point of view.


You talk about “sinful thoughts” – I am not sure what you mean. Do you have any control over the random thoughts that might occur to you? There are times when we think consciously and there are other times when thoughts just descend out of nowhere. Is a person responsible for the latter kind of thoughts?


The points I was trying to get across were:


1. There is no concept of priesthood in Islam that Muhammad Mustafa gave to mankind 1500 years ago. Having a priesthood is a distortion of Islam – a practice picked up from the Jews and the Christians.


2. In the early years of Islam mosques were not just places of worship – they were also what we might today call ‘community centres’, where the problems of the community would be addressed. The Caliph himself, or other leaders of the community, would be present to offer prayers to Allah and then to seek His Guidance in solving the problems of the community.


3. The kind of “worship” that is offered in the mosques today is, in my opinion, of very little value. I doubt if you have attended many prayer sessions or listened to the sermons that the Muslim priests deliver. Most are impractical and have been devalued through repetition. You will rarely hear anyone addressing the ills of so-called Muslim societies, which are anything but Islamic: widespread corruption, lies and deceit; and exploitation/ oppression of the general population by the privileged classes on a massive scale.


4. Remembrance of Allah is unlike anything else we might do. To receive and feel His Power within our ‘selves’ we need to reduce all kinds of distractions as much as possible and that means minimising the activity of our thinking mind. Thus, for example, the music that is played in many places of worship is considered inappropriate when it comes to remembering Allah. A direct link between the Creater and a created being is not dependent on such props [“He is closer to us than our jugular veins”]. It is in this sense that I consider men and women praying alongside each other to be a negation of true worship – simply because they will be too aware of each other’s presence and their minds will remain active - this has nothing to do with "sinful thoughts". I am sorry for the rather flippant comment I made in my previous post. However, I wasn’t just referring to men – my comments applied equally to women:


“It will be very difficult indeed to forget the presence of a member of the opposite sex near you as she/he rises from a prostate position and your eyes - inadvertently, of course - come to rest on the undulating form as it straightens up”.


I think you would appreciate my point of view better if you were to read the very first and the very last posts in the blog to which I provided a link. Would it be OK to use your article, and some of the comments thereon, in a future blog post? I don't suppose there will be any objections from the Guardian, which will be duly acknowledged?

Ms Shaista Gohir responded as follows:


"Thank you for such a detailed response. I will check out the links you have provided. And yes you should use my article to create debate whatever your take is on this. I think this issue should not be out of bounds and debated without it becoming too polarised which it did become back in 2005, when Amina Wadud first hit the headlines.


If men disagree and don't want to pray behind a woman for whatever reason then they shouldnt have to. However, they should not imply it is because of divine will and just be honest that it is simply male opinion on this issue. Likewise a woman should not have to accept the status quo and be able to challenge practices that she feels are man made without being demonised.


In terms of priesthood, I agree, in Islam we are not supposed to have intermediaterie between us and God and we give too much blind obedience to scholars / imams without checking out religious texts for ourselves."


I felt Shaista Gohir hadn’t quite appreciated the reason why I felt it served no purpose for men and women to offer prayers standing next to each other. It seems to me that the feminists have entered into a race with the mullahs to convert Islam into a meaningless religion similar to what Christianity has become. The feminists are trying to widen the mass of rituals we have today instead of cleaning up the mess and sending the mullahs packing from the mosques. I would be very happy if Shaista Gohir would deliver a Friday khutba about the plight of women in “Muslim” countries or about something else she feels strongly about. However, she should not then try to herd men and women into a room and get an imamah up front to “lead” them in prayer.

ISLAM: the Reality beyond time and space

La ikraaha fid-Deen [Al-Qur’an, 2:256].

There is no compulsion in matters of Religion

In my article on Islam and, especially, the discussion that followed - Islam: back to basics - I touched on the differences in the interpretation of Quraanic aayaat which can arise among scholars of great repute and intellectual attainments. I think this aspect of the world of Islam requires a bit of amplification.

First, consider this excerpt from my aforementioned article:

“Unlike Allah’s Messenger Muhammad, who was a practical man of the world just as much as he was a Knower of the Reality which transcends the material world, these so-called ulema know neither this world nor the wider Reality.”

Muhammad Rasul-Allah, Rehmatul-lil-aalameen, was not an intellectual, he did not go to any university, nor did he write a book. Yet he had all the wisdom in the world and he was able to act as a ruler, a judge, a military commander and a spiritual leader. He had understanding of this material world, and also of the world of non-matter, because of the Knowledge and Guidance he received directly from The One, The Everlasting, The First and The Last. That knowledge did not depend on the cleverness of the mind nor was it affected by the limitation of human powers.

When we move beyond the Messengers to lesser mortals the difficulty we face is that most of them rely mostly on the power of their intellect, the cleverness of the mind – which cannot directly grasp the truths that exist in the world of non-matter. Thus, where there is no guidance from a Higher Source one’s interpretation of the Qur’an cannot be faultless. That, I think, is why differences of opinion occur between equally sincere seekers after the truth.  

The mind is a material thing and it will die with the death of the body. What will survive death is the real “I” - in Quraanic terminology, “the Nafs” - which transcends matter. Thus, unless a person has been touched at that deeper level from a Higher Source his knowledge cannot be said to be complete. Each person is unique, people differ widely with regard to their physical, intellectual and spiritual capacities. A spiritual giant will have a different understanding of the Mutashaabihaat aayaat of the Qur’an compared to someone whose spiritual potential is limited. That is why so many religious scholars possessing great intelligence fail to offer convincing explanations of various Quraanic passages. It may be that Allah is speaking to each person according to his/her capacity and showing a way leading to Him which is right for that person. That may be  why the Quraan declares: La ikraaha fid-deen – there is no compulsion in matters of Deen.

Let me illustrate the point by reference to Iqbal, the poet-sage par excellence, to whom verses descended like “the patter of rain on a tin roof”. Someone who could compose sublime poetry as in Baal-e-Jibreel - people rate Iqbal’s Persian poetry higher, a language I do not know – cannot be an ordinary mortal. There are numerous accounts of Iqbal’s out-of-this-world experiences, which occurred spontaneously and were not self-induced as so many mystical experiences are. In his book “Shahab Nama” Qudratullah Shahab, too, has written about his own spontaneous experiences and he goes on at some length about the inherent risks of Sufi practices, a lot of which depend on props of one kind or another.

In his biography of his father,“Zindah Rood”, Javid Iqbal says that it was Iqbal’s intention to write a book on Islamic Sharia, as he understood it. Sadly, because of the demands on his time, Iqbal was unable to commence this project before it was time for him to move on to the world of non-matter. Had Iqbal been able to write that book, there might have been fewer differences among Muslims subsequently. I say this because a large proportion of educated Muslims of Pakistan acknowledge Iqbal’s position as straddling both worlds, those of matter and of non-matter. Perhaps I am wrong. Many mullahs had indeed declared Iqbal to be kaafir and it is conceivable that in the event of him writing the book that he planned, those attacks might have increased manifold. For me, at any rate, such a book would have been invaluable.

I cannot, of course, judge the spiritual status of Iqbal and Shahab, or of those who are higher still. All I can assert is that, based on my experience, there are people who are endowed with great spiritual gifts. Those who are truly close to the Power of Allah find it easy to live a normal life, outwardly little different from that of an ordinary person. The supreme example of a man conscious of Allah's Power within him, and in everything that exists, was Muhammad Rasul-Allah (R-u-l-A). His appearance conformed to the prevailing fashion, he wore clothes which were normal for the Arab society of his day, and he did not feel a need to cultivate a distinctive look. 

My own approach to understanding the Qur’an is to remain as humble as possible. Possessing neither intellectual nor spiritual gifts, as I read various translations and interpretations of the Qur’an I try also to listen to my inner voice. If that voice tells me that a particular explanation rings hollow then I reserve judgment on that explanation. I try to avoid getting into arguments. I do think that the “inner voice” exists within each human being, only it remains inaudible for most because our wrong actions in this world have the effect of smothering it.

Ahmadi Muslims

Following the massacre on Black Friday, 28 May, I have talked to our Ahmadi brothers and sisters and I have also consulted their literature. Previously, I had known little of the depth of their conviction for their beliefs. I can see now that it is linked to the undoubted mystical experiences of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. I do not possess the spiritual stature to comment on whether Mirza Sahib correctly interpreted those experiences.

In so far as the Lahori section of the Ahmadiyya movement is concerned they do not see Mirza Sahib as a Messenger in the sense that Rasul-Allah (R-u-l-A) was. The other bone of contention, accepting Mirza Sahib as the Mahdi, is a peripheral issue: Sunnis and Shias have been quarrelling about that for centuries. The only requirement for a person to embrace Islam is: La ilaaha il-lallah, Muhammadur Rasul-ul-lah. If the Quraanic words “La ikraaha fid-Deen” mean anything, we need to restore the legal position of the Ahmadi community to what it was before Z A Bhutto sacrificed it at the altar of political expediency in the nineteen seventies. 

The self-destruction of Pakistan....

.... by religious fanatics and USA lackeys.

Religious fanatics

The catalyst for this post is the massacre of Qadianis (Rabwah Ahmadi group) in their mosques in Lahore on 28 May, 2010. About 90 people, including children, died. The responsibility for the killings has been claimed by “Pakistan Taliban”, a monstrous organisation that sprang up suddenly some five years ago. Its origins are steeped in mystery – it is widely suspected of having been a creation of CIA with active support from India. The TTP monster (“Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan”, to give it its full title) has now grown out of control – while it still concentrates mostly on self-destruction within Pakistan, it has begun to threaten American interests as well.

The day, 28^th May, itself is highly significant. This day is celebrated in Pakistan as the Day of Takbeer, in commemoration of Pakistan becoming a nuclear power in 1998 by successfully setting off nuclear explosions. Those who masterminded the massacre last Friday may have been thumbing their noses at Pakistan, ostensibly a nuclear power but, in reality, little more than a client state of the USA ever since the infamous dictator Musharraf signed away Pakistan's sovereignty in return for American backing to keep him in power. Following the end of Musharraf's long reign, the motley gang of convicts, criminals and fraudsters that succeeded him as the government of Pakistan has done little to improve matters.

Thus, while it is right that we should condemn the massacre of our fellow Pakistanis we should not lose sight of the wider picture. Before targeting Ahmadees, the TTP had been complicit in the mass murder of Shias and in the killings of personnel belonging to Pakistan’s security forces, not to mention indiscriminate bombings of hundreds of fellow Pakistanis of all religious denominations. The ever widening ripples of terror through Pakistani society indicate how the ignorant, ill educated religious fanatics in Pakistan are being used cynically – indeed, in an inhuman, thoroughly diabolical manner – to spread terror and to destabilise Pakistan.

In parallel with the atrocities committed by the religious fanatics, a vastly bigger horror is going on largely unchallenged, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Pakistani citizens.

USA lackeys

The horror referred to in the preceding paragraph comprises the massacres and abductions of Pakistani citizens carried out by ‘educated’ Pakistanis who have seemingly taken an oath of allegiance to the USA. There are three aspects to this obscene collaboration of our westernised Pakistanis with their paymasters in the USA:

1   1. Pakistan’s government and its military are both equally guilty in allowing the USA to launch attacks from the air on Pakistan’s citizens. The ostensible reason for these “drone attacks” (see the fourth paragraph of my my last blog post) is to destroy ‘Taliban’ but the widespread mayhem results in killing mostly the innocent citizens (the death toll splits as 97% innocent citizens, 3% suspected ‘Taliban’). This wanton waste of human life is given the obscene name “collateral damage”!

2   2. By giving birth to the Frankenstein of “Pakistan Taliban” the USA managed to create conditions of civil war in Pakistan, which forced Pakistan’s military to invade the north western areas. This was part of the USA’s ‘do more’ strategy for Pakistan, designed to force this hapless country to sacrifice itself for USA’s war aims in Afghanistan. As a result of military action in populated areas of Pakistan, large numbers of innocent Pakistani citizens have died at the hands of its own military while the damage to property, and the destruction of infrastructure, is incalculable. Flourishing cities, towns and villages have been reduced to places of utter desolation where ghosts might roam. To understand the full horror of what has happened, please click this link:

http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=240313

Quite apart from civilian deaths, the deaths of Pakistani soldiers are many times the number of deaths reported by the USA and British occupying forces in Afghanistan.

        

3. Pakistan’s government meekly issues visas in accordance with the demands it receives from the USA, with little effort being made to check on the people for whom visas are issued. The result is that the country is teeming with USA “contractors” and CIA agents, who come into the country as “advisers” and "diplomats". Over the last several years thousands of Pakistanis have simply disappeared, believed to have been abducted by the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence), many of whom have been handed over to the USA. More recently, though, the ISI’s body snatchers are probably keeping people imprisoned in secret locations in Pakistan, where the Americans are given free access. I have previously written about this shameful episode in the history of Pakistan, which you can read here. 

In summary, this is the reality of Pakistan today: anarchy, civil war, religious intolerance in a public environment where true Islamic principles are non-existent, an unholy civil-military alliance beholden to the USA, and an uncertain future for its citizens.

All is not darkness, though. Two rays of light remain: Pakistan’s Judiciary, which refuses to bow to the Executive or the Military; and a group of courageous and patriotic journalists who are prepared to criticise the forces which have conspired, knowingly or through foolish acts, to destroy Pakistan. Those who can read Urdu might like to click on the link below to read about the enormous pressure that Pakistan’s press is subjected to at the moment.

Black sheep


Earlier blog posts relevant to this topic
The Muharram massacres
The day of the vampires
Single issue warriors

The British General Election, 6 May 2010

Why I welcome a hung Parliament


Election time in the UK can be a bit of a surreal experience for Pakistanis with entitlement to vote in British elections. A part of the problem is the difficulty of identifying with the politics of a country where they are constantly being suspected of being “extremists” or, worse, “terrorists”.  For Pakistanis, a feeling of unease in this unfriendly environment is inevitable, and the desire to see their grossly twisted image changed is correspondingly very strong. A first step in that direction would be a change in the unfair policies of successive British administrations.

The injustice of British policies towards Muslims in general, and towards Pakistanis in particular, can be grasped by considering the steps that successive British governments have taken in relation to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The invasion of Iraq in 2003, in which the British government played a key role, was preceded by a long campaign of disinformation and deliberate deception by Labour Party’s Tony Blair, he of the “Bush’s poodle” fame. Eventually, the  Conservative Party was persuaded to back his controversial decision to line up some 45,000 British troops behind the USA’s 250,000-strong invasion force. It was left to the  Liberal Democrats, the third largest political grouping in the UK, to oppose Blair’s ingratiating support of the USA’s power crazed neoconservatives in the Republican government, hell bent on controlling the oil and gas of the Middle East, and the political governments of that region. It is a sad fact that there exist politicians in the West who consider the destruction of Iraq, and the mass murder of Iraqis, a price worth paying for the control they now exercise over Iraq.

Subsequently, the British government decided to contribute troops to Afghanistan to assist the Americans in their occupation of that country. The lame excuse on this occasion was that the security of British citizens was at risk if such military action were not taken. No attempt has been made to offer credible evidence to the British public in support of this dubious theory, which has resulted in the hell of Iraq being re-created in Afghanistan. Many people believe that the government’s actions have actually resulted in antagonising the Muslim world and increasing the risk of attack on British citizens. The suspected underlying reasons for invading Afghanistan - the control of natural resources of Central Asia - have almost become irrelevant as new realities and new facts are created as a result of Afghan resistance to foreign occupation. The military action in Afghanistan is backed by the Conservatives and also, unfortunately, by the Liberal Democrats. However, the latter’s policy is to reach a political settlement with moderate elements in the Afghan Resistance against foreign occupation, which would enable British troops to be brought back home. The two major political parties, Labour and the Conservatives, favour continued presence of British troops in Afghanistan until “victory” is achieved.

Bogged down in Afghanistan, and unable to see a way out, the policy makers in the USA administration came up with a brilliant idea: extend the war into Pakistan and get the Pakistan Army to perform much of their dirty work on the ground while missiles are rained down on Pakistanis sympathetic to Afghan Resistance. The missiles are fired from unmanned aerial vehicles, the so-called UAVs or “drones”, remotely operated by Americans living in safety hundreds or, possibly, thousands of miles away, playing a deadly computer game with living human beings. The USA has been able to implement its inhuman policies in Pakistan because, with useful support from the British government, it has been able to set up a false façade of “legitimate government” in Pakistan, headed by corrupt and immoral military and civilian rulers such as Musharraf and Zardari.

On the face of it Pakistan is being gradually reduced to the same fate as has been visited upon Iraq and Afghanistan. There is, however, a crucial difference: Pakistan is a nuclear state and the conspiring western powers need to tread with caution. In addition, Pakistan’s independent Judiciary and the Media constitute a big hurdle in the way of the conspiring western powers. Nonetheless, the immensely powerful USA/British propaganda machine, backed up with malicious Indian propaganda, has succeeded in blackening the image of Pakistan. This has reduced people of Pakistan origin living in the UK to issuing pathetic apologies for the real and imagined sins of commission and omission that the American-British propaganda has charged the Pakistani nation with.

As one originating from Pakistan, I detest the policies of the Conservative and Labour parties towards Muslim countries and towards Pakistan. Since 2001 more than 3 million Muslims are estimated to have been killed by the policies and inhuman actions of western politicians. The Holocaust, Hitler’s purge of the Jews in the nineteen forties, is said to have claimed 6 million lives. As Muslim deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan  relentlessly climb towards that  figure, there appears to be deathly silence as this crime against humanity is played out on the world stage as a piece of macabre theatre.

As a helpless witness of this gory episode in human history I, as a so-called British Pakistani, cast my vote in this month’s  British General Election in favour of Liberal Democrats. This, in my opinion, is one political party which is still recognisably human, its features not yet distorted by the insane desire for power. Thankfully, the election has resulted in a balanced Parliament – which the political pundits call “hung Parliament” – where no single political party enjoys an absolute majority.  As the party with the largest number of seats in the House of Commons, the Conservative Party will need the support of Liberal Democrats if it is to form the next government. It is an official policy of Liberal Democrats to improve the current unfair electoral system, which can result in a party with little more than one-third of the electoral vote ending up with a large majority in the House of Commons. Currently, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are deep in negotiations to work out a deal under which the latter will support a government headed by the Conservative leader, David Cameron, as Prime Minister. It is too early to say how the negotiations will pan out. However, I would be very surprised if the Liberal Democrats agreed to water down too much their demand for a system of proportional representation in Parliament, under which the composition of members in the House of Commons would be a fair reflection of the share of votes claimed by the various parties in a general election.

TAILPIECE
The current ‘first-past-the-post’ electoral system heavily favours the two largest political parties, Labour and the Conservatives. The party forming the government may only have the support of a little over a third of the electorate but it can end up with a disproportionately large number of members in the House of Commons. This enables an essentially minority government to ride roughshod over the opinions of large sections of the population.

Let me illustrate this by means of some statistics relating to this month’s general election. The House of Commons in the British Parliament has 650 seats. The number of seats won by each of the three largest political parties, and the share of the electoral vote, were as follows:

Conservatives : 307 seats (47% of the 650 seats); 36% of votes cast.

Labour :  258 seats (40% of the 650 seats); 29% of votes cast.

Liberal Democrats: 57 seats (9% of the 650 seats); 23% of votes cast.

Because of their financial muscle and slick organisations, the two largest political parties have won a much higher percentage of parliamentary seats compared to their share of the electoral vote. The Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, won only 9% of seats in Parliament while their share of the total vote was 23%. Little wonder that the Liberal Democrats favour a system of Proportional Representation in Parliament, which would give them substantially more members in Parliament than they do under the current “winner takes all” system. Not surprisingly, Labour and the Conservatives are not keen on the idea of a change in electoral voting to a PR system.

Pakistan’s “liberals” and the mullahs: two sides of the same coin

Excerpts from my final reply to Man 1.

This is the fourth and last instalment of my internet exchanges with Pakistan’s westernised secularists. For all their vaunted “liberalism” they turned out to be just as prejudiced and narrow minded as the mullahs they despised. More surprisingly, the “Islam” they professed to follow appeared to be a carbon copy of the religion that the mullahs shout from the mehrab. Man 1, in particular, seemed to have an unhealthy obsession with sexual topics – just the sort of thing that Pakistan’s “liberals” associate with the mullahs!

“From time to time I come across a piece of writing which has the effect of making me feel physically sick. Your string of posts yesterday had that effect on me – it is with some effort that I am responding to your comments.

[Blogger's note, 4 May : following objections, I have removed the second paragraph. Perhaps I had allowed my judgment to be swayed by the excessive crudity of Man 1's comments]

The Qur'an is easy to understand but the “understanding” is not guaranteed. If you wish to acquire understanding you will have to discard your practice of quoting selectively from the Qur’an to support your pre-conceived ideas. You will have to act in accordance with those verses which tell you to think hard over the aayaat of the whole Qur’an. In other words, see things with the eyes of a grown up, not those of a child.

It is a pity you refuse to learn from the knowledge and wisdom of others. The fact is the Qur’an does sub-divide its verses between the Mohkemaat and the Mutashaabehaat verses. Please do read my article on Islam to understand the difference between the two and the reason why the meaning of the Mutashaabehaat may not be clear to you. As for the Mohkemaat, the biggest stumbling block to our understanding is the simple fact that the Qur’an was revealed in Arabic which was in use 1500 years ago. A language – any language, its proverbs, the meaning of words – changes enormously over such a long period. Try reading an English text written 500 years ago or an Urdu text just 300 years old – you will have a hard time making sense of what you are reading. Therefore, not all translations of the Qur’an are equally reliable. You need to read several different versions and arrive at your own conclusions.

The story I have told you above also serves to bring out the difference between a matter of fact statement and a pornographic description. If, for example, the little boy looking into the room were to be replaced by your favourite author Harold Robbins, you would be guaranteed to read a titillating account which would make you drool at the mouth. Is teaching of biology “pornographic” because it specifically mentions the private parts of men and women? Do you now understand the essential difference between the Quraanic descriptions and the vulgar stories attributed to the greatest man who ever walked on earth?

Many repellent stories – “ahadees” – were dreamed up by the muftis of the time to provide a justification for the vile deeds of the reigning khalifah and members of the aristocracy. Child abuse was made acceptable by “discovering” ahadees some 250 years after Allah’s Messenger had passed on, which gave his wife’s age at nikah as 6! Al-Quran says a marriage is a contract between a Muslim man and a Muslim woman, which they enter into freely. Only a mullah’s mind can think of treating a child of 6 as a grown up young lady who understands the nature of the contract she is entering into.

According to the Qur’an there is nothing wrong with living in peaceful co-existence with one’s fellow human beings. If you dig up stories which contradict the Qur’an then I shall have to reject them out of hand. In any case, do point out to me where you can see an Islamic society anywhere in the world. Take Pakistan, dominated as it is by the twin evils of mullahism and westernised fascism. It is a land where corruption, lies, deceit, injustice and oppression are widespread, and where we get the leaders we deserve – Zardari, Musharraf, Nawaz Sharif! Tell me what is Islamic about this society? You need to create one before you stand on high moral ground and let off hot air into the atmosphere. The sad fact is that what we have in Pakistan today is the Age of Jahiliyyah masquerading as Islam.

Another bombshell you drop is: 'If Shaan-e-Nazool is not important [as per you] then please follow all those Verses which are quoted as Violent Verses of Quran and start hacking the heads infidels'.

This is pure mullahism! There are verses in the Qur’an which tell you how you need to defend yourself in wartime from treacherous enemies. There are separate Quraanic passages which tell you to be kind and fair to all human beings irrespective of who they are provided they are living in peaceful co-existence with you. It is an insult to Allah’s Book to imply that you are ordered to “hack off heads of infidels”. The “shaan-e-nazool” thing is nowhere mentioned in the Qur’an – it is simply the product of our mullahs’ fertile imagination.

I have shown you how close to the spirit of Islam Quaid-e-Azam was but you continue in your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the truth. I shall not go over ground I have already covered.

Are you really unaware of the contradictions in your postings? You will sink deeper and deeper into the bog as you discard Allah’s Guidance in favour of the wild pronouncements of self-important mullahs. “To you your Deen, and to me mine” - let this be the end of our discussion. I am not interested in prolonging this meandering “discussion” leading nowhere.”

TAILPIECE

Some aspects of my response above may have left you a bit puzzled. This approach, I felt, was necessary to deal with the wild statements of Man 1. Here is a sample of some of his less extreme rants:

“Yes I have understood the Quran because it is very easy to understand and I am very proud of it. Allah says and He is saying it repeatedly that Quran is easy to understand.

وَلَقَدْ يَسَّرْنَا الْقُرْآنَ لِلذِّكْرِ فَهَلْ مِن مُّدَّكِرٍ

And We have indeed made the Qur’an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition? [ AL-QAMAR (THE MOON) Chapter 54 - Verse 17]”

“Those Muslims [particularly Pakistanis] who talk of Quran and Islam and living in the West under 'Infidel Kaafir Secular System which is made by man not Allah' should leave West and should live in 'Jinnah’s Paradise' or stop defending Pakistan and Secular Jinnah’s Ideology through Quran”.

  

“On Hadith a noted Political Maulvi of the Sub-Continent Ubaidullah Sindhi couldn’t teach Bukhari because of certain ‘explicit Hadiths’ [as per him but he was and is not Hujjat - Proof] then why didn’t he feel any shame while teaching Quranic Verse like these, which are quite explicit and Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi should have discarded these verses from Quran due to Maulana Illogical and absurd shame.

وَمَرْيَمَ ابْنَتَ عِمْرَانَ الَّتِي أَحْصَنَتْ فَرْجَهَا فَنَفَخْنَا فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِنَا وَصَدَّقَتْ بِكَلِمَاتِ رَبِّهَا وَكُتُبِهِ وَكَانَتْ مِنَ الْقَانِتِينَ

Wamaryama ibnata AAimrana allatee ahsanat farjaha fanafakhna feehi min roohina wasaddaqat bikalimati rabbiha wakutubihi wakanat mina alqaniteena

Arabic Word in the verse: Farjaha or Farj means Vagina [should I say it in Chaste Urdu]

Translation:

And Mary, daughter of ‘Imran, whose body was chaste, therefor We breathed therein something of Our Spirit. And she put faith in the words of her Lord and His scriptures, and was of the obedient. [AT-TAHRIM (BANNING, PROHIBITION) Chapter 66 - Verse 12]”

“قَالَتْ أَنَّى يَكُونُ لِي غُلَامٌ وَلَمْ يَمْسَسْنِي بَشَرٌ وَلَمْ أَكُ بَغِيًّا

Qalat anna yakoonu lee ghulamun walam yamsasnee basharun walam aku baghiyyan

English Translation:

She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste? [MARYAM (MARY) Chapter 19 - Verse 20]

How would you define the touching by a man? What kind of a touch makes woman pregnant? Please define or would you prefer silence because of the shame like Ubaidullah Sindhi!”

“وَأَنَّهُ خَلَقَ الزَّوْجَيْنِ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَى
مِن نُّطْفَةٍ إِذَا تُمْنَى

Waannahu khalaqa alzzawjayni alththakara waalontha Min nutfatin itha tumna

And that He createth the two spouses, the male and the female, From a drop (of seed) when it is poured forth; [AN-NAJM (THE STAR) Chapter 53 - Verse 45 and 46]

Now where has gone the shame of Obaidullah Sindhi? What is being discussed here if not the Intercourse between Man and Woman and word Sperm i.e. Nutfa in Arabic is in the Quranic Verse and men emit Sperm through Penis [Should I use chaste Urdu]”