Terrorism. This word (and all others associated with it) has so captured the lives of many ordinary folk post 9/11. Routinely people are told to be vary of terrorists, vigilant of terrorist activities and if they fail to do so, they maybe victims of terrorism.
But what is terrorism?. C Douglas Lummis describes it as such:
Terrorism is not the name of a crime. It is the name of a tactic, simply put "a mode of combat". The acts that constitute terrorism are in the same category as other modes of combat such as frontal assault, flank attack, siege, saturation bombing and so on. Some of them are legal, some of them arent, but we do not call them by different names depending on who does them. A non state entity using terrorism as a tactic is in no way different from the state doing the same.
So then what makes a Terrorist? A terrorist is one who uses the tactic of terrorism. He is a terrorist because he uses terrorism, not because something intrinsic in him, just as a criminal is a criminal because he commits a crime and not because he is a born criminal. So just like criminals are determined by the crimes they commit, terrorists should also have the same leeway.
Sadly the things as they stand today are different. President Bush has routinely stated that the Terrorist is evil. The word "evil" is not a legal term. No one can convict you for being evil. Evil is a religious concept. An evil person is not someone who has taken a wrong path, say as a criminal would have, but he/she is intrinsically bad. A person who has come into this world, for the express purpose of doing bad. You put "d" in front of evil and you get the enemy of God. Nothing can get as bad as that.
In John Walker Lyndhs case for example, the question raised during his trial in the (US) newspapers was not about what crimes, if any he had committed..rather it was about whether he was a terrorist or an ordinary American boy. Same is the case with the missing persons in Pakistan. "Terrorists" are not allowed legal facilities such as a lawyer, fair trial and so on because they are "terrorists" thus allowing Pervaiz Musharraf to pick up and sell many "terrorists". Henceforth becoming the blued eyed boy of the west. Mullah Zaaef, the talibans ambassador, for example, had no diplomatic rights, because he was a terrorist. Thus despite him asking for diplomatic immunity..he was sold to the Americans by the bastion against terrorists ie. Pervaiz Musharraf.
Same is the case with the "terrorists" in Guantanamo Bay. They are not to be tried under civil laws, because they are "terrorists".
This whole scenario thus brings forth a very frightening point. If people are terrorists; they can be placed in a separate category. The important
distinction being that this determination is made BEFORE a legal point of view regarding guilt, comes forth.
But while contemporary law doesn't judge what a person is, in the past there have been instances where courts did claim to make this judgment. One example is the witch trials. If the person was a witch, then anything else they did was secondary. The logic dictating the present terrorists is also the same. Thus we have the large amount of "suspected" terrorists dying everyday and the total glee with which it is accepted.
Adapted from Terror and the Terrorists ( The dissenting Knowledge pamphlet series) by C Douglas Lummis
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Satan, Mullah-types and Burgers
Satan's Story according to Islam goes something like this. The dude was a chilled out cool guy and quite close to god. Then one day God made man. Satan was like all pissed off and said to God..."what evvvvaaaaaa". Then God told em all to prostrate to Adam...and satan was like " Talk to the hand!". And from then on started the long war between Mankind, satan and his legions.
Satan plotted and plotted and then found the perfect stratagem. He decided to test Man and then placed him into 2 categories:
1.The resolution of fearlessness and bravery; or:
2.The resolution of turning away and abstention and contempt.
For if Satan sees that his mainstay upon the soul is contempt and abstention, he then begins to hinder him and weaken his endeavour as well as his intent from that which he was commanded with. Thus he makes it burdensome for him, and so he demeans it upon him in order that he should abandon it – such that stage by stage he abandons it; or falls short in it; and so neglects it.
However if he sees that the mainstay over the sole is: the strength of fearlessness and being strong-hearted; he then seeks to cause his underestimation of that which he was commanded with. Thus he causes him to fall into the illusion that he has not sufficed in it; therefore needing exertion with that along with that which is additional.
Henceforth,the extremists are formed. Men and Women who fail to see the demarcated middle path and fall of the edge sadly.
ie in colloquial terms "Burgers" and "Mullah-types" are born
(adapted from Salafi publications)
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Secularism and democracy: A means to an ideal?
Ever since the rebirth of Muslim political thought from the beginning of the last century, no issue has been so much on the forefront than defining an "Islamic" system of governance. At that time, most Muslim countries were gaining independence and the need of the time was a proper set of rules, whereby muslims could govern themselves.
With in such parameters, an ideal came forth: an Islamic State consisting of all Muslim countries and governed in accordance with Shariah law. Ok, fair enough. But this led to severe schisms with in the muslim society, where brutal dictators suppressed any such movement from coming at the forefront. Hence, those adhering to these principles, were imprisoned, tortured and eventually killed off. But, just as violence never kills of anything, the movement thus didnt die.
And today its biggest adherent is the man we know as Osama bin laden.
Thus, finding a true "islamic" form of governance is at the very core of all Muslim ailments at the moment. During this time, the other types prevalent in the world; Secularism and Democracy, were shot down by a lot of people as being evil and an inherent "western" concept. On the other hand, Western powers, who selectively "imposed" these hampered the understanding of these principles amongst Muslim masses. That is why today, people have a hard time differentiating between Secular and Liberal. "Liberals" like Pervaiz Musharraf, are called secular instead.
So lets now see what exactly secularism is:
In political terms, secularism is a movement towards the separation of religion and government (often termed the separation of church and state). This can refer to reducing ties between a government and a state religion, replacing laws based on scripture (such as the Torah and Sharia law) with civil laws, and eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion. This is said to add to democracy by protecting the rights of religious minorities. (wikipedia)
Simply put: one removes religion from the affairs of the state, ie the irrelevance...not complete absence of religion in state governance. What, this means is that although religion will be irrelevant, no one will have the right to impede religious practices. As for civil laws replacing divine law....well lets see how different Shariah Law is from Secular Law:
1) Secular Law ensures that all persons, irrespective of caste or creed have an equal opportunity to become head of state.
2) Freedom of entering and leaving all religions, without any reprimand.
3) Freedom of preaching all religions, without any reprimand.
As for point no. 1, since at present there is no Islamic state, only states with Muslim majority, hence being a muslim isnot a precussor to showing "allegiance" to the state ( not to say that it is definite that in an Islamic state, the non muslims will be traitors ). If the fear is that a Muslim country headed by non muslims will lead to "UnIslamic" injunctions added to the constitution of the state... that too isnot a valid since A) There are conservative non muslims too and B) a muslim majority in the country will mean a muslim majority in the parliament and hence any thing "unislamic" will not be passed by the government of the time.
As for point 2; there are different versions regarding this. Some people claim that apostasy is a crime punishable by death and others claim that there is no such thing. Regardless, Muslims have never left Islam enmasse...so this too wont really be that big of an issue.
Point 3 is somewhat related to point 2 as well. As muslims have not historically left there religion enmasse, allowing non muslims to preache, wont be counter productive but instead should lead to Islam "winning". Why? because:
"Truth stands out clear from error" Surah 2 Baqarah Ayah 256
If Islam is the truth, and truth shall succeede no matter what ever impedes it
The biggest fear of secularism, on the other hand is that it leads to "fahashi" which loosely translates into free booze, validated prostitution and so on. Okay, but there is a slight twist. Any country which has a conservative outlook can muster up a 2/3rds majority in parliament and thereby ban Alcohol and other social evils deemed impermissible. India, for example, has some states which are "dry"..ie the prohibition of alcohol is enforced.
Now with this diversion over..lets us look at how Islam and Muslims are faring in Secular countries. Europe and its "secular" countries are facing a wave of xenophobia and panic because the "muslims are taking over". There are already calls for stricter clamping down on immigration and "checking" of Mushlim dominated areas. Whereas partly, such talk is legitimate, but by and large most of it is based on Xenophobia. Moving over to America we see people being flabergasted at Keith ellison, the first muslim to be elected to congress:
On November 14, 2006, Glenn Beck of CNN Headline News[103] asked Ellison to, "prove to me that you are not working with our enemies," saying, "And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.( wikipedia)
Barack obama drew a lot of ire because his middle name was hussein. Some circles even claimed he was Osama Bin Ladens candidate for the white house.
All in all, the underlying tone is that Muslims are taking over: "America is doomed. Muslims have begun to infiltrate the government. It’s only a matter of time before America is Islamicized and it’s citizens slaves to the peacful religion called islam" writes one blogger.
But one must ask, why do they think Muslims are taking over?. Is it because the secular nature of laws in these countries is allowing Muslims to rise up and become "active" in these countries. Yes, thats it precisely. So by all means.....a secular enviroment and democracy is conducive to Islam.
On the other hand. Lets briefly look at the state of affairs in Muslim countries. KSA and its banning of non muslim places of worship is used by Islamophobes to demand closing down of mosques in western countries. Bhai persecution in Iran is deemed an example of how much Muslims hate others. Consistent xenophobia against hindus in Pakistan and other countries like Malaysia leads Hinduvta organisations to further cement there organisations. Attacks on christians in Indonesia, give christian fundamentalists the impetus to malign Islam as an evil religion. Add that, to the general disregard of Law and basic human rights in muslim lands that cause people to wonder that is Islam really peacefull. Thus, whatever is happening in the Muslim world is actually undermining Islam.
So now coming to the crux of the argument: Should we accept, something less than Ideal (ie democracy and secularism) to achieve an Ideal condition ( an Islamic state)?. My answer: Heck Yeah!!
With in such parameters, an ideal came forth: an Islamic State consisting of all Muslim countries and governed in accordance with Shariah law. Ok, fair enough. But this led to severe schisms with in the muslim society, where brutal dictators suppressed any such movement from coming at the forefront. Hence, those adhering to these principles, were imprisoned, tortured and eventually killed off. But, just as violence never kills of anything, the movement thus didnt die.
And today its biggest adherent is the man we know as Osama bin laden.
Thus, finding a true "islamic" form of governance is at the very core of all Muslim ailments at the moment. During this time, the other types prevalent in the world; Secularism and Democracy, were shot down by a lot of people as being evil and an inherent "western" concept. On the other hand, Western powers, who selectively "imposed" these hampered the understanding of these principles amongst Muslim masses. That is why today, people have a hard time differentiating between Secular and Liberal. "Liberals" like Pervaiz Musharraf, are called secular instead.
So lets now see what exactly secularism is:
In political terms, secularism is a movement towards the separation of religion and government (often termed the separation of church and state). This can refer to reducing ties between a government and a state religion, replacing laws based on scripture (such as the Torah and Sharia law) with civil laws, and eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion. This is said to add to democracy by protecting the rights of religious minorities. (wikipedia)
Simply put: one removes religion from the affairs of the state, ie the irrelevance...not complete absence of religion in state governance. What, this means is that although religion will be irrelevant, no one will have the right to impede religious practices. As for civil laws replacing divine law....well lets see how different Shariah Law is from Secular Law:
1) Secular Law ensures that all persons, irrespective of caste or creed have an equal opportunity to become head of state.
2) Freedom of entering and leaving all religions, without any reprimand.
3) Freedom of preaching all religions, without any reprimand.
As for point no. 1, since at present there is no Islamic state, only states with Muslim majority, hence being a muslim isnot a precussor to showing "allegiance" to the state ( not to say that it is definite that in an Islamic state, the non muslims will be traitors ). If the fear is that a Muslim country headed by non muslims will lead to "UnIslamic" injunctions added to the constitution of the state... that too isnot a valid since A) There are conservative non muslims too and B) a muslim majority in the country will mean a muslim majority in the parliament and hence any thing "unislamic" will not be passed by the government of the time.
As for point 2; there are different versions regarding this. Some people claim that apostasy is a crime punishable by death and others claim that there is no such thing. Regardless, Muslims have never left Islam enmasse...so this too wont really be that big of an issue.
Point 3 is somewhat related to point 2 as well. As muslims have not historically left there religion enmasse, allowing non muslims to preache, wont be counter productive but instead should lead to Islam "winning". Why? because:
"Truth stands out clear from error" Surah 2 Baqarah Ayah 256
If Islam is the truth, and truth shall succeede no matter what ever impedes it
The biggest fear of secularism, on the other hand is that it leads to "fahashi" which loosely translates into free booze, validated prostitution and so on. Okay, but there is a slight twist. Any country which has a conservative outlook can muster up a 2/3rds majority in parliament and thereby ban Alcohol and other social evils deemed impermissible. India, for example, has some states which are "dry"..ie the prohibition of alcohol is enforced.
Now with this diversion over..lets us look at how Islam and Muslims are faring in Secular countries. Europe and its "secular" countries are facing a wave of xenophobia and panic because the "muslims are taking over". There are already calls for stricter clamping down on immigration and "checking" of Mushlim dominated areas. Whereas partly, such talk is legitimate, but by and large most of it is based on Xenophobia. Moving over to America we see people being flabergasted at Keith ellison, the first muslim to be elected to congress:
On November 14, 2006, Glenn Beck of CNN Headline News[103] asked Ellison to, "prove to me that you are not working with our enemies," saying, "And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.( wikipedia)
Barack obama drew a lot of ire because his middle name was hussein. Some circles even claimed he was Osama Bin Ladens candidate for the white house.
All in all, the underlying tone is that Muslims are taking over: "America is doomed. Muslims have begun to infiltrate the government. It’s only a matter of time before America is Islamicized and it’s citizens slaves to the peacful religion called islam" writes one blogger.
But one must ask, why do they think Muslims are taking over?. Is it because the secular nature of laws in these countries is allowing Muslims to rise up and become "active" in these countries. Yes, thats it precisely. So by all means.....a secular enviroment and democracy is conducive to Islam.
On the other hand. Lets briefly look at the state of affairs in Muslim countries. KSA and its banning of non muslim places of worship is used by Islamophobes to demand closing down of mosques in western countries. Bhai persecution in Iran is deemed an example of how much Muslims hate others. Consistent xenophobia against hindus in Pakistan and other countries like Malaysia leads Hinduvta organisations to further cement there organisations. Attacks on christians in Indonesia, give christian fundamentalists the impetus to malign Islam as an evil religion. Add that, to the general disregard of Law and basic human rights in muslim lands that cause people to wonder that is Islam really peacefull. Thus, whatever is happening in the Muslim world is actually undermining Islam.
So now coming to the crux of the argument: Should we accept, something less than Ideal (ie democracy and secularism) to achieve an Ideal condition ( an Islamic state)?. My answer: Heck Yeah!!
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Do Muslims kill and be killed to get laid in heaven?
The tragic events that took place on the 11Th of September 2001, shocked the world. America too, despite all its magnificence, was prone to evil of such magnitude transpiring in its midst. Then some years later, the world had to face the madrid train bombings and 7/7 in England. And just like all major tragedies of this kind several attempts were made to "figure out" what had caused such a truly terrible incident to take place.
A lot of theories sprung up in trying to understand the motives of the perpetrators. Some were spot on, others missed the mark by a bit, but one theory that was circulated soon after 9/11...was particularly bizzare..."Muslims kill to go to Islamic heaven so they can get laid" . This will be the topic of discussion in this post. I shall tackle it in Two parts.
Part 1: http://whatcandywrote.blogspot.com/2009/02/do-muslims-kill-to-get-laid-in-heaven.html
Part 2: http://whatcandywrote.blogspot.com/2009/02/do-muslims-kill-and-be-killed-to-get.html
A lot of theories sprung up in trying to understand the motives of the perpetrators. Some were spot on, others missed the mark by a bit, but one theory that was circulated soon after 9/11...was particularly bizzare..."Muslims kill to go to Islamic heaven so they can get laid" . This will be the topic of discussion in this post. I shall tackle it in Two parts.
Part 1: http://whatcandywrote.blogspot.com/2009/02/do-muslims-kill-to-get-laid-in-heaven.html
Part 2: http://whatcandywrote.blogspot.com/2009/02/do-muslims-kill-and-be-killed-to-get.html
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
The Curious Case of MQM
Those of us who have witnessed this Altaf Bhai classic: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHMGLUE_uhE&feature=related often come to ask ourselves how is it that a person who, at best, comes of as a mediocre comic can A) make it as a politician ? and B) be a successful one, capturing the minds of so many people? . The mohajirs after all were one of the most educated classes of Pakistan.....so how can they revere a person such as Altaf bhai so much?
The most oft repeated answer by opponents of MQM is that, Altaf bhais cadres "terrorise" people into voting for his Party. This however, in my own humble opinion is a very simplified understanding of his political support, and this is where parallels can be drawn with another Pakistani party of the 50s.
Read more here:
http://whatcandywrote.blogspot.com/2009/02/curious-case-of-mqm.html
The most oft repeated answer by opponents of MQM is that, Altaf bhais cadres "terrorise" people into voting for his Party. This however, in my own humble opinion is a very simplified understanding of his political support, and this is where parallels can be drawn with another Pakistani party of the 50s.
Read more here:
http://whatcandywrote.blogspot.com/2009/02/curious-case-of-mqm.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)