Istanbul Airport: Some thoughts.

Back in 1980's a vicious circle of sectarian violence gripped Karachi, where people were shot in mosques, homes were bombed and people kidnapped and executed by miscreants who from both the Shia and the Sunni sects. The Taliban had not been invented, 9/11 was way over the horizon, the US war on terror was not coined and Gitmo did not exist. I then wrote a piece in which I called this the "Kalashnikov Culture": a deeply disturbing sense of right embedded in the dogma of misguided self styled "religious" figures and in effect stated that this had nothing to do with Islam but merely terrorists hijacking Islam.

A few weeks after the article I bumped into one of the self styled leaders of this sect at the karachi airport and he proudly told me his mission was to cleanse Pakistan. I narrated to him my view that he did not understand Islam and his beard and turban were ideal replacements for the ski mask that bank robbers in the US don during their raids. He was offended and called me an infidel amongst other colourful names.

Three decades on we have seen a lot of senseless killings have taken place around the world, and with it not only has the violence been politicised it has also been steeped into religious labels. The vernacular of the terrorist has become more pronounced and the acts of violence become more senseless. While the self styled leader thirty years back did not have the labels of Jihadist, Taliban or ISIS, his actions were simply violent based on his own self beliefs.

The attack on Istanbul airport highlight the blind nature of these attacks; killing innocent people and while no one has so far claimed responsibility yet seems to be motivated by the same misguided nonsense of the ISIS, and the Taliban. Before my American friends jump on this let it be said emphatically that more Muslims have been killed by these so called "Islamist" radicals than any people of any other faith. These attacks are not on the US, these attacks are against EVERYONE and most of all against the Muslims themselves.

However, we are making the problem worse by styling it as "Islamic Terrorism" and buying into the hysteria of Islamophobia because these attackers are not Muslims. If they follow the Quran and the teaching of Prophet Muhammed then their violent actions are contrary to the principles and teaching of Islam. We have to come up with a new word a new vernacular for these people and this should not be a religious one. If all the people who committed the school shootings were to say they did it because they were Christians we would be wrong to say that Christianity was at fault.

Here are my reasons to say that these attackers are not Muslims:

1. The act of taking the life of a person, and an innocent person at that, is essentially 'murder'. Assume that we buy into the argument of the ISIS that they are at war with the West and hence killing 'western infidels' is fine; here is the problem, even in those conditions the killing of a person who is not an instrument of war, nor a combatant is considered the killing of an innocent person and thus murder. Terrorism is above all murder. Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted).  verse 5:53 states , “… who so kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wrecking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.” (reference to murder in 5.53 and to corruption, which is spreading terror in the land, means that for such crimes the person committing the crime can be put to death by the 'state'.)

These verses were never abrogated or superseded and form the basic injunctions to Muslims to consider all life 'sacred'. These attackers therefore are violating the injunction of the Quran itself.

2. One common 'logic', much like the man in Karachi, of such terrorists is that they are either 'cleansing' the land of infidels or they are imposing the 'will of Islam' on the people. In Islam it is forbidden to attempt to impose it upon people through force.  The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (-The Cow, 2:256). This important verse was revealed in Medina in 622 AD, at the very advent of Islam and it the foundation for tolerance and the lack of coercion in religious matters. So to paint the acts of terror as a religious act is contrary to the teaching is Islam.

3. Even in a state of declared warfare, (which has to be declared by the established head of an Islamic state) the Quran is very explicit in extolling Muslims to seek peace. The Quran says, “But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God! For He is the one who hears and knows all things.” (8:61) The Quran in the Surah, “The Cow,” 2:190, says, “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.”

How can Islam extoll aggressive behaviour when even in warfare it is asking Muslims to seek peace? 

4. There are many other examples of traditions from the life of Prophet Muhammed where aggression and violence were not the norm, so much so that he frowned upon surprise attacks even when war was declared and in one instance warned the adversary four months before an attack. In the conduct of war specific rules were made for his forces which included not harming women and children and non combatants and not destroying the land and trees and crops. 

Indeed in Arabia there was the tradition of 'Ghazu', which were raids on caravans and other tribes to acquire livestock and food, but these 'acquisition raids' had rules that insisted that no one must be killed in these raids. This was a tradition before the advent of Islam and during the Prophet's lifetime such raids were carried out. But the raids were not about aggression to kill the other party but merely to acquire goods and livestock. Western commentators often refer to these raids as a testimony to the violent nature of Islam; in the first place Ghazu was a pre Islamic tradition, and second, very rarely did they result in the taking of a life. 

The events in Istanbul highlight all my arguments that the people who sanction such attacks and carry them out are not Muslims. This was also the very point the Turkish Prime Minister made, all the more when we see that all the people killed in the raid were non combatants and innocent people. The insistence by these terror groups that they are killing infidels is completely wrong because in the first place they kill more Muslims than any other people, and then I must emphasise that Christians and Jews are people of the Book and are not considered infidels by Islam. Jesus and Mary are both highly revered in the Quran, so much so there is a whole chapter on Mary and extolls her virtues and role.

On a broader front two things, both very disturbing are going on in the world; on the one hand politicians like Donald Trump are playing the Islamophobia card with virtually no understanding of the religion or the issues, and on the other hand Muslims themselves lack the understanding to realise that Islam is being hijacked by these terror groups who claim and evangelical purity of their cause. It is time people on both sides of the fence realise that is a battle for the minds of the young people and tolerance, understanding and a common stance to assert that these terrorists are NOT Muslims and we should not label them as such. In such labels lie the damage of labelling all Muslims (ala Trump style) as terrorists.  

In my eyes all that this is an extension of the Kalashnikov Culture of the 1980's  and all that has happened is that these violent people have adopted for themselves a religious label; a label that everyone else has bought into and hence the word 'radical Islam'. My argument is simply that if one is a true Muslim there cannot be a radical Islam it can only be a tolerant and understanding Islam. 

The Orlando Tragedy and American Politics.

At the outset let me state emphatically that I am against ALL forms of violence and any loss of life under any circumstances is a deplorable act. The tragic events in Orlando where 49 people senselessly lost their lives to a deranged man who attacked a night club armed with guns and the intent to take lives. The tragedy speaks for itself in overtones of grief that cannot be cured by words alone. In the same breath the shooting has been become a political tool for both Republicans and Democrats camps and centres around two crucial issues; the role of radical Muslim militants in this shooting and the issue of gun control.

In essence there is no difference between this attack, in its intent and ferocity, from other attacks in schools and public places all over the United States. What makes this a political issue is that the attacker was a Muslim and purported to call 911 during the attack and pledge his support for ISIS. In sincerity the attacker does not fit the profile of a Muslim radical; yes at times he attended prayers at the local mosque and claimed he had friends in ISIS and in Hezbollah, (which is very unlikely as both those organisations are sworn enemies). What is more likely is that this deranged man had an issue with gay people and exacted his anger by killing people. He was not someone fired up with ISIS ideology looking to carry out their promised attacks on America. In essence his actions in acquiring guns and entering a public place and randomly shot people no different from the actions of the shooters in the cases of Sandy Hook Elementary School and Columbine High school.

Since Jan 1, 2015 there have been 27 school shooting, (SCHOOL not public shooting) in the US, in which 23 people were killed and 52 people were seriously wounded. It may be pointed out that not one of these 27 shootings was carried out by a Muslim attacker or by a recent immigrant. In most of the cases the shooters had either easy access to guns or had no problems in acquiring the guns, and one can say that none of the shootings were politically motivated. No one has come and claimed that there is some form of Christian radical movement behind the killings only because the attackers in each case was a Christian. The fact that Omar Mateen who was the killer in Orlando was a Muslim does not make the act more radical other than giving ammunition to people to play the Muslim terrorism card. There is just as much a chance of a fundamentalist Christian angry about gay rights to carry out such an attack as it was for Omar Mateen to carry out this attack.

Using a paint brush to call all Muslims radical and to assume every immigrant to the US comes with the intent to carry out attack is ludicrous. From an international perspective lets get something very clear, that radical Muslims are attacking more Muslims around the world than targeting Americans. Yes there have been some attacks by them in Europe and the West, but these are minuscule attacks compared to what is happening in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Pakistan just to name a few countries.

Now onto the issue of gun control; why would a man want to buy an semi automatic high powered rifle to shoot rabbits? Why are these guns so freely available to the average man in America? Can we assume a proper sense of responsibility about using guns on the part of each owner? If this was the case then how come we have thousands of gun deaths in the US each year. Simply put the guns need to be controlled and ideally should only be in the hands of the law enforcement people and hunting guns should be better defined and better controlled. Yes a radical or deranged man will still try and get illegal guns but then the access will be more difficult.

I live in the UAE, we do not have guns in the hands of people. We have Muslims, Christians, Hindus and people of other beliefs living here, to the extent that one can argue the non Muslims are over 50% of the population. We have not had one public shooting, not one school shooting, not one attack based on religious hate and to the extent that any religious or ethnic hate talk is immediately dealt with by the law.

Pakistan: A Million Mother March.

Teleport yourself to Pakistan in March of 1962; Jackie Kennedy wife of US President  in an open car on the streets of Karachi and cheered by the crowd, or Queen Elizabeth’s visit in 1961 welcomed by the people. Back in the present day either of these two events would be impossible to conceive for a western public figure in the same manner as it was back then. Sadly even Pakistan’s own political leadership would think twice of being driving down a main city’s streets in an open car. While security may have become a global issue, in Pakistan it has become a daily occurrence.

Every scene of violence is ugly, the only difference in Pakistan is that it grotesque in it ugliness and the justification for the act is even more animalistic than the previous act of terror. The Taliban splinter group which claimed responsibility for the Lahore attack in a children’s park made the point that as the army continues Pakistan’s own ‘war on terror’ with venom they will choose ‘soft targets”. The implication of terror is straight forward now; a message to every mother in Pakistan that ‘your child will not be safe any more and is now fair game in this war’.

Ironically the same day that children were being blown up in Lahore, a large contingent of protestors were in the capital, Islamabad, making their point that they opposed any change in the controversial blasphemy law and chose to make the killer of the Governor of Punjab their hero for the occasion. Was this a neat diversion by the radical elements to allow their even more radical cousins to put ball bearings with explosives and walk into to the children’s park and wreck a havoc that was brutal and barbaric?

Commons sense would suggest that attacking women and children will alienate the masses from the Taliban cause. Clearly this is not a concern to the Taliban because they do not plan to come to power through the ballot box; their vote is through the force of the barrel of the gun. After all in a country that has an elected parliament and Prime Minister the process of change of law, or the protest to change it, is done through street power.  The more people you can mobilize on the streets, the more bricks you can throw, the more buildings you can burn the more the chance that the government will negotiate on changing the law, as we see with the Qadri protests in Islamabad, will grow.

How does one deal with this subversion of the democratic process? We know the religious radical groups do not have the numbers in the elected Parliament to even initiate a bill of change to the existing laws they protest about. The fact remains that in a country were religious sentiment is exploited for political gain the use of street power is considered ‘normal.’ The way to deal with this wanton subversion of the will of the people is for the silent majority to come out also on the streets. Why not a 10 million March of the Mothers to protest against the killing of women and children? Why doesn’t the silent majority speak up rather than sit in their drawing rooms and watch TV soap operas and tell their cousins abroad about how bad things are in Pakistan.

This is not the Pakistan that Quaid e Azam, the founder of the nation wanted, this is not the Pakistan that millions of decent God fearing people in Pakistan wanted. Indeed Pakistan literally means the ‘land of the pure,” but it does not imply and religious cleansing of the population by a small minority whose only way of cleansing is to eliminate the ones  they do not consider pure. Yes it is time we consider it the land of pure; the people who want it pure and cleansed from violence, intolerance, religious fanaticism and more of all the mentality that a handful decide what is good for 180 million people. Its time for the mothers to be heard, it time for the armchair opposition to violence to now come out and condemn the actions that result in ball bearings embedded into the bodies of our children. It is time to say ENOUGH OF YOUR VIOLENCE.

The Talibanization of Pakistan

When the Swat deal was done by Mr. Zardari and his rather ill informed government, I had written that this form of appeasement does not mean that the Taliban have been stopped, it only implies that they have discovered the formula of continued expansion. Thus their recent entry into Bunner district, a few rocket throws from Islamabad, comes as no surprise; indeed friends tell me more black and green turbaned youth are visible in Lahore then every before. Its almost like a Fifth column infiltrating society and given their religious accent know that opposition to them will be minimal and when needed the Taliban form of law 'Nizam-e-Addal' (System of Justice) will be meted out.

I recently saw a wonderful movie, Khuda Kay Liye (For the Sake of God) which portrays exactly the challenge we now see in Pakistan. While US statements that they would not wish to see Pakistan be held hostage by the Taliban are all fine and sweet rhetoric, the truth is that as the majority of Pakistani's do not want the Taliban in their own midst, it is they who must speak out. The People Party of Zardari and the Muslim League of Nawaz Sharif have never had an agenda of support for the Taliban and they combined hold the maximum public vote. It is therefore logical to assume, rightly, that it is these two political parties who have to speak out against what the Taliban is doing.

Well where is the solution then?

First with the Taliban spreading to Bunner, the Pakistan government should tell them the Swat deal is off, and it should establish its own effective rule over the Swat valley, and then if America really wants to help, a major program be started to rebuild roads and hospitals and schools (yes the Taliban destroyed 160 of them) which will create jobs and let people see that their future is in prosperity and not in black turbans and rocket propelled launchers. It is the lack of economic opportunities that has driven people to the hard liners who have stepped into a vacuum of ineffective government and in the process created a promise that the Taliban can guarantee security for the people better than the government.

Secondly, if the US really wants to help they must understand that missiles fired in Pakistan cannot help the eradication of the Taliban. If nothing else in the shrapnel and the dead bodies, mostly of innocent civilians, lies the very proof that the Taliban carry from village to village telling people that the 'Infidel Americans' and their 'Stooges in Islamabad' are their enemies. The hunt of foreign fighters and the issues now within Pakistan of a Pakistani Taliban are entirely different and while may be connected through some moral umbilical chord, are really a distinctly different set of circumstances. The Al Qadea want to get even with the US, the Pakistan Taliban want to take over Pakistani society through what I call 'social subversion'. While their aims may eventually be the same the battle grounds are distinctly different.

Finally, I do feel that the Pakistani ISI needs a complete overhaul, better still it needs to be disbanded and a new structure be created that is truly nationalist as opposed to religiously motivated. The damage that General Zia has done to the Pakistan Army remain deep and he must still be beaming his toothy smile that almost 15 years on and he still has his pet organization pulling the invisible strings of government.

For those who will claim that the issue of Pakistan is about Islam miss the point. Islam is not a religion about violence or coercion and its tolerance through the ages is well documented. The Taliban have no credence to claim any sanction under the name of Islam, because simply put what they advocate is not Islam, but some hybrid creed developed in the caves and villages of Afghanistan by a half blind mad man, Mullah Omar, whose understand of Islam could be put on a postage stamp and still leave room to spare.

This is indeed time for everyone in Pakistan to speak out against the tyranny of the Taliban and if we could have a million man march to restore the judges why cannot we have a 10 million man march in Pakistan to denounce the Taliban. Let them hear this message that their creed cannot be in a country which was founded on modern principles of Islam.

Hijab Politics

From my PostGlobal contribution

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2008/02/hijab_politics.html

Hijab Politics
I come from a tribal family from Pakistan and was brought up to respect the religious wishes and inclinations of all people. This meant that my mother and sisters never wore the veil, and even when my mother visited the tribal areas for the first time in 1942 and wanted to wear a veil, my father told her she should not wear it if she did not wish to. My uncles and aunts were initially shocked by my mother turning up in a sari and no veil, to which my father replied that religion was a personal matter.

Thus, all the noise in Europe over the issue of the veil seems to me a bit overblown. I personally do not believe that the veil in modern times is necessary, and as societies modernize and educate their people they will realize that the issue of a veil is more to veil one’s intentions rather than a simple cover up. In equal measure, I agree that Muslims in Europe and America can modernize and not necessarily Westernize. Yet when such societies are put under siege, with media pressure to abandon what they think is important, there is a tendency to drag one’s heels and avoid change. The freedom-loving sense within me says that if in a democratic and free system one religion is allowed to practice its beliefs, so must the others.

I feel a personal sense of disappointment that the Turkish parliament has decided to change a secular tradition in Turkey, but that feeling has to be weighed with the fact that this was an act of parliament and not an arbitrary decision by a mullah. Although as secular democrats we may find it as a loss to our ideals of freedom, we must also accept that this seems to be what the Turkish people voted for. In that sense, accepting it is vitally important, as is the hope that if indeed the people did not want it then the rule will be dissolved through the action of future parliaments. What is important is that the veil is not imposed, but is a matter of choice.

The issue of the veil is more contentious within ostensibly Christian countries, where Muslim minorities may wish to wear the veil (as was the case in France) and laws are passed to take away that individual choice. In UAE, where I live, there are Christian churches on land donated by the government and there is a freedom given to the various faiths. I do hope that other Muslim countries, especially Saudi Arabia, will eventually adopt the same attitude. Throughout history there are examples of coexistence that stand out, i.e. Spain under the Muslims. Passing laws that are targeted against religions never works, as we have seen in history, and in the same vein all that the Turkish government has done is granted the freedom of choice to women to either wear the veil or not. I would hope that in the long run, the veil will not be imposed but will continue to be a matter of choice. Choice is, after all, the premise of any democratic system, however we may disagree with it. Thus, to me, forcing women to wear the veil is also wrong.