|
Salahuddin Saheb
Please let my response appear in bold italic
letters to differentiate from Ms. Hassan's comments. It is important to
avoid any confusion. This is my last contribution and I request you to
remove my name from your mailing list. Thanks and regards
Anis Zuberi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can very well understand Peter’s annoyance with members of this
forum for not addressing his arguments directly. Mr. Anis Zuberi’s
latest response to Peter’s considered and well-documented post is a classic
case in point. ( Ms. Farzana Hassan)
Perhaps beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I did not see
anything “considered and well-documented” in Peter’s postings. In the first
paragraph of his posting #83 of 27 February, he repeats a few of his
questions and expresses frustration at not getting an answer from FOTH. All
these questions are shallow and superficial. My comments follow below.
“Islamic fundamentalists are different in nature and degree than
Christian fundamentalists”: It is a vague sentence and one can draw any
meaning from it. However, I assume that Peter implies that Muslim
fundamentalists are violent but their Christian counterparts are peaceful.
As for rhetoric, I do not see any difference. Calling Islam a “cult”, an
“evil ideology” and “fascist” religion and the prophet of Islam a
“terrorist”, giving religious sanction and blessings to the bombings of
Muslim civilian populations is as bad as it could be. A prominent
evangelist openly called for assassination of an elected head of state. The
Christian churches and over five hundred radio stations throughout USA airing
shock-jocks such as Rush Limbaugh and his type have been constantly
spreading hatred against Islam and Muslims. They have collectively created
an atmosphere of contempt for Muslims. Charges of anti-Semitism would be
flying all over the USA
if Jews would be the target of such a vicious campaign. Consequently, in
the last presidential election Obama was frequently “accused” of being a
Muslim. In a country of 300 million, only one person, Colin Powell, had the
courage to say at the tail end of the election campaign “so what?” Peter
may but I do not see any difference in the rhetoric of a fundamentalist Muslim
or a fundamentalist Christian.
As regards violence, the situation is more complex than a simple
assumption that Islamic fundamentalists are violent. Christian fundamentalists do not require
arms or indulge in violence as their powerful armies and intelligence
agencies are sufficient to cause death and mayhem in Muslim countries on a
massive scale. These peaceful Christian fundamentalists may not have blood
on their hands but they are partners in crime. They are the cheerleaders of
violence and provide moral and ideological justification of war crimes.
They demonize Muslims and Islam and make it possible for American public to
accept the mass killing of Muslims, the “bad guys” (smiling commentators
squabble over the “right” figure of Iraqi casualties, hundred thousand or a
million, is just an example). These extremist elements are the foot
-soldiers in election campaigns of the rightist warmonger candidates of
Senate, House as well as Presidency. Their stronghold on the American
society can be gauged from the fact that notwithstanding the Bush’s 8 years
dismal record, pro-war McCain secured
almost fifty percent votes.
I do not see any difference between carnage inflicted by a
uniformed man or by dropping bombs from the sky and a similar act of violence
by a terrorist in civilian dress.
There are thousands of Muslims killed by the US army for
one act of terrorism. No intelligent person will accept the propaganda line
that “our innocent victims are unintentional “collateral damage” while
terrorists target innocents”
“There is no such thing as a “war economy” This is a debatable
concept. In every war, there are winners and losers. The nations that
engage in wars may or may not benefit from it but arms manufacturers and
financiers always do, regardless of the outcome of war. The US economy got a great boost from WWII while Britain
lost its empire status and became heavily indebted. The mighty Sterling was replaced
by the US Dollar as the global reserve currency. The CIA was founded in
1947 to help the US take
over Britain's
imperial role; dominate the world without formally colonizing it. America made money in the first
Gulf War and Arabs were the losers. In the current war, American taxpayers
turned out to be losers. As America
financed Britain in
WWII, China is financing
America’s
current war on terror. The American war-related industry and defense
contractors have been the major beneficiaries of the current wars. However,
the foundation of the American economy -- laissez-faire or unrestrained
free enterprise and free global trade -- is showing cracks though the final
chapter is yet to be written.
“Americans have been
magnanimous in building up states such as Japan”: What a shallow and simplistic statement!
States are built by its citizens not by outsider. Post-world war
re-construction of Japan
and Germany
is the result of the hard work of its citizens. Why did not American
presence produce similar result in Philippine? It is the shortcoming of
Pilipino nation that it is exporting nannies and not cars like Japan.
Elsewhere in the same posting Peter has eulogize America for
helping the development of Taiwan and quoted a private conversation with a
Taiwanese where he says, “After WW2, Taiwan became a US “client state”,
implying that Taiwan’s economic success somehow owe to the American
domination. What a non-sense! Based on the same logic Peter could extol the
virtue of colonialism by giving the example of Hong
Kong’s progress under the British rule. I wish Peter could
tell us who should get the credit for turning Singapore
into a modern city-state, America
or Britain.
Road to success is hard work and good governance; not foreign help. I know
that it is hard to understand by a person of Peter’s intellect.
“military intervention in a foreign country can sometimes be
justified” This is the most revealing sentence of the Peter’s thinking and
mother of many problems in today’s
international chaos. Who will decide which intervention is justified? Will
it be an arbitrary decision by invading power or subject to certain
international rules? Will these rules (if ever framed with international
consensus) be applied across the board or selectively? Will America attack Russia
and risk a nuclear war if Russia
does something that qualifies foreign intervention or vice- versa? The
latest case is the Russian invasion of Georgia
and virtual annexation of South Ossetia
and Abkhazia. If in such a situation intervention is not feasible then the
world should have two sets of rules, one for nuclear states and another for
non-nuclear. I would like to give another interesting example. America was applauded for liberating Kuwait by
force. However, why was foreign
intervention necessary and why were the Sabahs,
the Kuwaiti ruling family, not advised to get their land back through
peaceful negotiations with Saddam as Palestinians have been told in the
last sixty years? Would America
attack its “special friend” to liberate Palestinian and Syrian land?
Mr. Zuberi, picking up on a tangent,
focuses his entire energy on a passing reference made by Peter to Islam’s
holy book. With a single stroke of
the pen, Mr. Zuberi has proven Peter’s contention
that few on this forum are willing to tackle the issues head on. ( Ms.
Farzana Hassan)
No serious “issues” were raised by Peter that contributors of FOTH
failed to “tackle”. Peter’s postings are a collection of outlandish and
bizarre ideas like, America
is “helping” other countries to develop, some
foreign interventions are justifies, Muslims should follow Taiwanese
example etc. I do not see any
benefit in engaging in dialogue with a person who has such a close mind and
shallow thinking as Peter has. Perhaps the contributors of this website
including myself took him too seriously.
While I remain vehemently opposed to the American invasion of Iraq and feel enormous grief over the recent
deaths of innocent children in Gaza,
I agree with Peter that the Islamic world remains both ossified and
obstinately resistant to change and progress. An archaic form of Sharia
law has now been imposed in parts of Pakistan. How does a nation make progress when its
women and minorities are subjected to the worst types of inhumanities in
the name of religion and the law of the land reverts to a medieval, crude
and barbaric tribal justice system? ( Ms. Farzana Hassan)
Islamic world is resistance to change is a broad statement.
However, it is interesting to note that except Iran, out of 56 members of OIC,
no Islamic country is run by mullahs. Therefore, whose failure is this,
non-ruling mullahs or ruling non-mullahs? The Muslim world is suffering
from the crises of governance. Corrupt rulers who lack legitimacy are
providing space for extremism to flourish in Muslim societies. Turkey and Malaysia are relatively doing
well as their quality of governance is better.
For the sake brevity, I would confine myself to Pakistan. In the last 62 years, the country has
never been ruled by mullahs, though religion has been exploited by each
successive government. How then secular rulers are absolved of the present
chaotic state in Pakistan
and mullah/Islam is held responsible for the mess. Did Islam teach the
Pakistani ruling class to rob the public treasury, build palaces, and
transfer wealth to foreign lands? Pakistan is a typical example
of inefficient and corrupt governance. The rulers had money to acquire
nuclear bomb but had no funds for public education. By default, public
education was outsourced to illiterate mullahs. Now the entire intellectual
class is cursing Mullahs for establishing madrasas
rather than setting up Eton and Harrow. In the interest of brevity I would stop here
otherwise, I could go on to write about how the secular leadership from Liaquat Ali Khan to Asif Zardari kept Pakistan from achieving its
rightful place. It is not just a problem of Sharia
law in Swat; the entire region of NWFP and Baluchistan
are facing a serious uprising in.
I think that there is confusion in the minds of some contributors
of this website including Peter about the attitude of Muslim towards America. Opposing American foreign policies is not
opposing American freedom, dynamism, openness and democracy. A critique of
the American meddling in Muslim affairs is not anti-America just like a
person is not anti-Semite for criticizing Israel’s policies towards
Palestinians. I am pro-America but I detest American hegemony and its
selective interference in Muslim affairs. At times, the American agenda in
Muslim world is confusing. Wahabiism is denounced
by America but Saudi
regime, the exporter of that kind of Islam, is supported by the America. Unfortunately, instead of learning a
lesson from the fact that 12 out of the 19 attackers on 9/11 were Saudis, America decided to attack Iraq.
Mr. Zuberi also appears to be putting
words in Peter’s mouth by suggesting Peter considers America’s invasion of Iraq its
God-given right. While Mr. Zuberi may not have intended his reference to God to be
understood literally, he must still be informed that Peter is an avowed
atheist. Secondly, nowhere in his post does Peter make such a claim.( Ms.
Farzana Hassan)
I did not intend to hurt the feelings of Peter or other
non-believers by naming God and I apologize for that.
What is the difference in Peter’s thinking and my assertion? Peter
said the some foreign interventions are justified and I remarked that he
wrongly assumes that America
has a God given right to invade other nations. Since there is a long list
of countries that have been bombed or invaded by America,
I deliberately did not name Iraq
to emphasize a pattern of behavior that emerged after the WWII. So much so,
that now Americans do not believe in national boundaries and could enter in
any country on flimsy excuses. Forgetting its own status inside Iraq, America
has been complaining about meddling by Syria
and Iran
as “foreign interference”. It reminds me a joke that a desi
resident of South Hall, London,
was complaining that too many “foreigners” (white English) were moving in
the area and raising the property prices.
Peter has devoted three paragraphs commending the fairness of America in
awarding the Iraqi oil contracts and disputing the high statistics of Iraqi
casualties. Perhaps he needs to be reminded that he is talking about Iraqi
oil and America should have no role in awarding contracts and Iraqi
casualties are not a matter of statistics, Iraqi lives are as precious as
those American who died in 9/11 (this is the very thinking that I am
critical of).
We can only comment on the turmoil caused by America’s
overt operations but have no idea how much chaos CIA has been causing with
its hefty yearly budget of over 30 billion dollars. However, it is certain
that only crimes are committed in the secrecy of darkness and CIA is not an
exception.
That said, there is
much to be applauded in Western liberalism.
The societies the West has built are based on egalitarianism and the
respect and dignity of all human beings without exception. This philosophy
stands in stark contrast to the exclusionary worldviews that remain the
hallmark of many of the religions of the world.
Our modern sensibilities have come to
acknowledge the rights of men and women, freedom of conscience, the right
to liberty and prosperity without regard to the creeds we follow or the
clothes we wear. Not so with
religious philosophies that promote hierarchies in society on the basis of
belief and treat certain categories of individuals as subhuman.( Ms.
Farzana Hassan)
As for above values, I have never disputed
them. There are those like Peter who assume that Islam cannot coexist with
modernity, freedom and democracy. However, the onus is on us Muslims to
prove that they are wrong. The mother of all problems in the Muslim world
is lack of democracy that is curbing freedom, rule of law, flow of new
ideas, human development and social justice. All these ills in Muslim
societies that are often referred to on this website and elsewhere are not
the root causes but the bitter fruits of the non-democratic governance.
There is big gap between the policies of the ruling classes in the Muslim
world and people’s aspirations. That gap cannot be bridged without the
participation of the Muslim masses
|