Kashif Hafeez Siddiqui

Posts Tagged ‘Secular’

نصاب تعلیم، او لیول کیلے تاریخ کی کتب

In Curriculum on January 10, 2011 at 2:20 am


نصاب تعلیم، نجی اداروں کا متوازی نصاب، ایک جائزہ

In Curriculum on January 5, 2011 at 2:32 am

Reality of Secularism by Abul ‘Ala Mawdudi

In Clsh of Civilizations, Islam - A Study on September 18, 2010 at 1:12 pm

Abul ‘Ala Mawdudi

The civilization on which the world’s intellectual, moral, ethical, political and economic system is based is grounded in three basic principles, the first of which is secularism.

Secularism–which can be referred to as dunyawia or la-deenia. The basic premise of secularism is that God, His guidance and His worship are matters that belong to the personal domain of an individual. Outside of this personal domain, all worldly matters must be viewed from a strictly worldly perspective, divorced from any religiosity, based purely on human intellect and man-made moral and ethical systems. In worldly matters, it must not matter what the God Almighty states, or what He has revealed in the Scriptures.

This dogma started in the West due to the fundamentalism and backwardness of Christian theologians. However, with the passage of time, this reactionary dogma became the permanent way of life and the first pillar of the modern civilization. Under this modern way of life, religion became a private matter between a human being and God–a simple sentence that became the slogan of this way of life. Under this system, if your conscious leads you to believe that there is a God who must be obeyed, you should obey and worship that God in private. But that God of yours has no authority on anything other than your personal, private life. Under the system of secularism, God has no place when it comes to inter-human interactions.

Social, educational, economic, legal, parliamentary, political and bureaucratic systems are independent of God and His Will. Whatever relates to these aspects of life must be decided based on human whims and wishes independent of God. It is considered wrong, in fact backward and ignorant, to even raise the question: what did God say about these matters?

And as far as the individual life is concerned, so that as well has been rendered God-less due to the purely worldly (secular) education and a religion-less society. Today, very few people consciously reach the conclusion that there is indeed a God who must be obeyed. Sadly, even the personal connection with God is absent in those who are at the forefront of shaping our culture today.

The notion that God and religion only relate to ones personal affairs is a whimsical one that has become independent of any need for rational argument. If you were to look at it rationally, it is obvious that the God Almighty cannot be half-god. He is either the Lord of the entire universe, private and public, or He is not. If He is not the Creator, the Lord, the Almighty, then there is no need for a personal connection with Him. It is utterly useless and frivolous to obey such a being who has no authority and no control over what happens on this Earth. On the other hand, if this God is in fact the Creator and the Lord of this universe, then it makes no sense that his jurisdiction would be limited to ones private affairs only. It makes no sense that two men, both of whom are individually under God’s jurisdiction, become independent of that very God as soon as they interact with each other. If God himself divided up the matters like that, there should be some proof for that. And if human beings invented these limits on God’s jurisdiction, then is this plain transgression against the Lord of this universe?

Only a man devoid of all intellect can claim to obey God in his private life and yet transgress against him so openly in the public affairs.

How foolish must one be to argue with a straight face that individually, we must obey God, but as soon as these individuals come together to form a community, no obedience to God is owed.

And it is even harder to understand that if we don’t need God is our family affairs, in our towns and cities, in our schools and colleges, in our markets and businesses, in our parliaments and government buildings, in our courts and civil secretariats, in our barracks and police stations, in our war and peace, then why do we need this God at all? Why should we obey this God in any matter whatsoever? Why even waste time in worship of such an utterly useless god?

This is the intellectual side of this issue. If we examine the secular dogma from a practical perspective, its results are extremely horrendous.

The reality is that whenever we sever our ties with God in any aspect of our lives, we connect those ties with the Satan. In reality, there is no such thing as our private life. Human beings are wholes, and their entire life is a communal life. The very birth of this man takes place from the interaction of his mother and father. As soon as opens his eyes in this world for the first time, he is part of a family. As he grows up, he interacts with the society, his family, his town and his nation. He has to deal with, and live within, the socio-economic and political systems around him.

Human beings rely on their countless social connections for their very survival.

And it is only God Almighty who can show human beings how to negotiate these social connections in a manner that is just and equitable–and most importantly, permanent. Where man becomes self-sufficient and independent of God, the permanency of these social norms disappears, and along with it goes the justice and peace that God enjoined upon us. This is so because once we remove ourselves from the Eternal Intellect of God Almighty, we are forced to rely on our deficient and inexperienced minds.

Where laws and regulations are based on whims and desires–or rather the human experience and intellect–we see these laws and regulations change regularly. You can see for yourself that every aspect of human interactions is overwhelmed with tyranny, injustice, corruption–and ultimately the lack of trust that shakes the very foundations of a society.

All human matters have been consumed by the selfish desires of man. Whether it is the relationship between two human beings or two nations, every relationship has become crooked. Every individual, every group, every social class, every nation, as far as their circle of influence can take them have made rules and regulations that serve their own interests at the expense of others. The powerful rarely think about the externalities of their actions; and why should they as long as they have the power? The only time someone restricts their self-interest is when they are afraid of the other party’s power and strength.

And we should know well that power is not the name of any compassionate and just being. It is brute force, and you can never establish equity with brute force. The dilemma of power is that the powerful don’t restrict themselves to getting what is their fair share; their selfish desires lead them to pushing every boundary they can, taking every advantage possible.

So the consequence of secularism is nothing but that whosoever adapts that as a way of life is destined to a life of no purpose, no responsibility and slavery of the self; whether it is adapted by an individual, a group, a nation or a league of nations.

Destruction of Pakistan Railways and Transport Mafia (Urdu)

In pakistan on August 1, 2010 at 5:04 am

Blasphemy And The Ban on Facebook

In Facebook Conspiracy on May 22, 2010 at 9:02 pm

By Faraz Baig

Akhtar Sheerani, the poet, is said to be once in a very drunken state and was shouting profanities at everyone present or anyone mentioned. He was in such a drunken state that he probably could hardly tell what he was saying and about whom. It was in such a state that someone around him casually mentioned the name of RasooluLLAH (saw). At this the poet was suddenly outraged, he presumably threw something on the culprit who had mentioned the name and shouted, “do you want to deprive me of the only support I have?”

Ghazi Ilam din’s story isn’t different either; he was the men who killed the blasphemer who was all but set to be free by the law. It is said that when he was told that to have a strong case in the court and to avoid punishment he should deny the incident. And he said, amazed by the ignorance of his educated advisors, “this is the only thing worthwhile I’ve done my entire life, how can I deny this?”

Those, my dear readers, are the responses of two Muslims not known as very practicing ones, but they depict the truest picture of Muslims in general. Muslims may be adulterers, drunkards, usurers and downright sinners, but they can never ever withstand blasphemy against RasooluLLAH (saw). In fact, it’s been witnessed that the lesser a person weighs in practice, the more pronounced are his or her reactions. This is one thing the enemies of Islam have never been able to understand. For ages, centuries in fact, they’ve silently, clinically corrupted our thought process, our intellectual assets, manipulated our intellect from within and outside us. Imposing upon us pseudo-intellectuals who couldn’t tell one set of Hadith from another. But to see if their efforts have been fruitful, they have to run tests. The seemingly disconnected, sporadic incidents of blasphemy are in fact absolutely connected. They are to check if Muslims have left any amount of Ghairat left in them, and probably to their surprise, Muslims are down, but not out.

There are, however, some others who assume an apologetic role towards Islam as if they’ve been trusted with the burden of introducing Islam to the west. They want to picture Islam as a religion of timid, toothless followers who can’t protect their sacred heritage. They’ll never stop mentioning Hudaibiyah on the premise that RasooluLLAH (saw) accepted seemingly belittling terms set by the enemy for peace to prevail. They either don’t know or feign ignorance that when this same pact was broken by the hawks of Makkah two years later, Abu Sufiyan (ra) had rushed to Madina seeking its reinstatement and it wasn’t granted, setting the precursor to Fath e Makkah. Or they’ll mention that no one was to be harmed on the day of Fath e Makkah, only to forget that there was still a black list of men and women who were to be executed even if they were to found behind the veil of Kaaba. They’ll mention the days of Taif when Kuffar used to shout and tease RasooluLLAH (saw) him physically as well as verbally, wheras RasooluLLAH (saw) prayed for them. These apologists forget that when in Madina, he had ordered the execution of Ka’ab bin Ashraf and Abu Rafa, known blasphemers who were sensationally executed in their own dens by Hazrat Muhammad ibn Muslamah (ra) and AbduLLAH ibn Ateek (ra) respectively along with their teams (ra). These are only two of the many instances in which blasphemers were executed. There are other instances when Sahaba (ra) acted on their own and RasooluLLAH (saw) appreciated the actions.

I can understand where these apologetic stances come from, for I used to think the same. The soft image, the moderate type. Unfortunately, that’s what we’ve been fed at schools. That Muslims were always on the defensive, whatever they did was for defending themselves and any and all aggressions were done by the Kuffars. Trust me, when one reads the authentic Seerah books, it is revealed that RasooluLLAH (saw) was always many steps ahead of the enemy, creating opportunities to terrorize them, preempting the attacks in many instances, and employing battle strategies unknown even to the war mongering tribals. We must understand that there’s neither peace nor war in Islam. The goal is to implement the politico-socio-economic system of Islam to the point of making it dominant over all other systems, as mentioned in Surah Saff, Surah Tauba and Surah Fath. If that’s achieved by implementing peace, well and good, but if war’s the solution then so be it.

Coming back to the topic, one of the most striking things in the black list of Fath e Makkah were the names of two slavegirls of Abu Lahb and ibn Khatl. Scholars have called this fact extraordinary because they were woman, non combatant, and on top of that, slaves. Their crime was that they sang improper songs towards RasooluLLAH (saw), which was enough for their executions. On the other hand, Handh, the lady who had desecrated the corpse of Hazrat Hamza (ra) was given amnesty. So it can be safely said that blasphemy is a sin of higher degree.

In this context, when we look at the bans on Facebook and many others, it shouldn’t surprise us. As stated earlier, Muslims can be misguided, but they can’t compromise the respect of RasooluLLAH (saw). As of this point, many have deactivated their facebook accounts, many couldn’t because the site’s already inaccessible. Along with that, sites like youtube, flickr, and wikipedia have also been banned. A surprise, probably erroneous inclusion was that of blackberry services, but other than that, there’s hardly anything that people miss. It’s correct that these sites were the best in their respective domains, but they weren’t the only ones. Already traffic is turning to other sites; it’s a free world isn’t it? It may be argued that only the page could be banned but the administration hasn’t leant a listening ear to those reporting the abusive page, therefore, at least a temporary ban isn’t going to cause anyone to miss much, despite the site’s usability to proclaim the dawah to acquaintances in a shorter and user friendly way. Banning them is hardly a ban on expression; this is symbolic of our outrage against their apathy towards our feelings.

But the fact remains that such blasphemies are becoming more and more in number and Muslims’ responses are becoming much tamer. In an unbiased view, Muslims have brought it upon themselves. They’ve relinquished the Sunnah and mostly only recognize rituals and are comfortable doing them. So much so that in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, almost every ruler has fought vociferously against the abrogation of Riba. Even when the case against Riba was all but won, they found a way to claw back and reversed the decisions with ugly politics. Most of the educated elite are fans of Musharraf thinking he brought liquidity to the economy, whereas he brought more liquid than liquidity to the country, liquor is a commodity freely available these days, thanks to the “abstinent hermit” known as Pervez Musharraf..

There’s not a single globally recognized inch in the whole world where Islam is acted upon as the deen. We see it being practiced everywhere as individual Madhab. It’s the fastest growing religion of the world, but as a system, it’s totally dominated. That’s absolutely the responsibility of Muslims who have accepted secondary citizenship and are happy practicing Islam in their lives in whatever limited way they can. It is in this pretext that these blasphemies are done. They check the ferocity of the responses, and go back to the drawing board with a new strategy. They’re supposedly to continue unless they feel the responses are now very timid and then they’ll launch phase II.

Lastly, there’s hardly such a thing as harmless humor in media. Entities like Southpark, The Daily Show and political caricatures will always demean one end of the society to make the other laugh. So when we’re laughing on such things we should understand that such a person doesn’t respect limits and can as well make fun of things we hold sacred.

I hope and pray to ALLAH (swt) that we gather the strength to obliterate all such people who dare point even a finger at our beloved RasooluLLAH (saw).

Jinnah: Secular Or Islamist?

In Books & literature, Pakistan's Ideology on May 7, 2010 at 6:29 am

By Talha Muhiuddin

A man who spoke in English and lived a westernized life, did seek a modern Muslim Pakistan.  Why deny Pakistan’s religious [not extremist] identity?

Interview with Saleena Karim, author of a most important book on Quaid-e-Azam, “Secular Jinnah: Munir’s Big Hoax Exposed”.  Saleena Karim is also the founder and director of Jinnah Archive, world’s first comprehensive digital library on Quaid-e-Azam. This is a must read interview.

One of the most famous books in Pakistan, the late Chief Justice Muhammad Munir’s From Jinnah to Zia (1979) has finally received the ultimate rebuttal from a British-born Asian – using only one piece of evidence. Saleena Karim tells the story of how a point of curiosity – based on little more than an issue of grammar – led her to the startling discovery that a quote used by Munir and attributed to Jinnah is in fact a fake. Furthermore this quote has also been used by a number of Pakistani professional writers and scholars, none of whom have thought to check the original transcript of the interview Munir supposedly quoted from.

Over twenty-five years after the release of From Jinnah to Zia, the author shows us how much damage the ‘Munir quote’ has done – not only in terms of twisting the facts of history, but now in exposing the intellectual dishonesty of Pakistani scholarship. Saleena Karim names those who have quoted Munir, as well as discussing the other myths about the founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and sets the record straight.

“The new state would be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of religion, caste or creed.” Mr. Munir claims that these are the words of the Quaid from an interview to Reuters’ Doon Campbell. In reality these words appear nowhere in that particular interview, and in fact they appear nowhere at all (I spent years checking)”

Q) Please tell us briefly about yourself, your education and background.

A) I am a writer born and brought up in the UK. Almost as soon I learned to read, I wanted to write. When I went to Loughborough University I wanted to take a degree in publishing, but for reasons that are not worth mentioning here, I ended up studying Human Biology and obtained a BSc. I had no interest in pursuing a career in my subject area, so I followed my instinct and began writing part-time. At first I was mostly translating short articles mostly on Islam (Urdu-English), and also started a work of fiction, but I became a full-time writer after I wrote Secular Jinnah: Munir’s Big Hoax Exposed in 2005. As a child I was brought up with religious values and always considered myself a spiritual individual. As I grew older I began to question some of our traditional religious teachings and began to study Quranic principles in depth. I became very interested in Islamic philosophy and in particular, ethics, and this study helped me in ways I cannot even begin to describe.

Q) How did you get interested in the life of Quaid-e-Azam, and what inspired you?

A) Until a few years ago I knew relatively little about the Quaid-i-Azam but accepted he was a hero of Islamic history by default. My father got me interested in his life originally, but I only learned about him in detail after I began work on Secular Jinnah. I was inspired in the first instance by Mr. Jinnah’s speeches, which I later referred to as a first-hand resource on his thinking.

Q) The readers want to know what is it that Justice Munir has said in his book that is either wrong or controversial about Quaid-e-Azam?

A) In short, there is a statement that the late Chief Justice Munir quoted in his book From Jinnah to Zia. It reads:

“The new state would be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of religion, caste or creed.” Mr. Munir claims that these are the words of the Quaid from an interview to Reuters’ Doon Campbell. In reality these words appear nowhere in that particular interview, and in fact they appear nowhere at all (I spent years checking). In the first edition of my book I explained that since 1979 (when Mr. Munir’s book was released) right up until the present no one had spotted that the quote was a fake. Since then I have learned that the quote has its origins not in 1979, but in the famous Munir Report of 1953. That’s the short story, but in my book I went into much more detail about how this quote has became the favourite amongst even the best-known commentators on Mr. Jinnah to try and undermine his stated cause.

Q) What inspired you to write a rebuttal to Munir’s book?

A) It may sound trivial to go after just one fake quote, but I was inspired to write my rebuttal because of it. When I first encountered the Munir quote in From Jinnah to Zia, I did for a short time wonder whether the Quaid was a true secularist after all. I pursued the original source of the Munir quote purely to find out the truth. But this was before I obtained the original transcript of the interview. If the Munir quote had turned out to be real, I would definitely have accepted and argued that Mr. Jinnah was a secularist – but that would still have had no bearing on my personal thoughts regarding the Pakistan idea. In the beginning I intended to write just a short article detailing the finding, but my research soon showed that Mr. Munir’s quote (which I now call the ‘Munir quote’) has had an astonishing impact on scholarship. Admittedly, I myself found it difficult to believe at first, but I knew I had to write a book.

Q) Tell us about your book. How come it got such high praise from various sections of the readers’ community?

A) Other than exposing the damage done by the Munir quote, my book argued in favour of a ‘Muslim’ rather than a ‘secular’ Jinnah. I have put quotes around these words because I’m aware that they tend to mean different things to different people. The biggest problem in fact, is the meaning and use of words like ‘secularism’, ‘Islam’, ‘sovereignty’, ‘ideology’, etc. But insofar as there are two broad camps arguing over Mr. Jinnah, my research convinced me to side with the much-misunderstood ‘Muslim Jinnah’ camp. To my mind Quaid-i-Azam does not fit into the ‘secular’ category, and I explained why in the first book. I also discussed some of the myths surrounding Mr. Jinnah. The number of people actively backing the ‘Muslim Jinnah’ argument is currently dwindling. This I suspect is part of the reason that my book was well-received by the readership, who probably felt that a new entry from this side was long overdue.

Q) Did Quaid-e-Azam want to create a secular Pakistan or a Pakistan based on Islamic principles?

A) This is the big question. Mr. Jinnah certainly did not tire of talking about Islamic democracy and Islamic socialism. In my book I showed that there are literally hundreds of references to Islamic terminology and principles in Mr. Jinnah’s speeches. Additionally, whilst he stressed the absolute equality of non-Muslim citizens in Pakistan, he never once used the word ‘secular’ to describe the country. There is also some evidence lying around which shows that there were non-Muslims who properly understood Mr. Jinnah’s view of Islam, if you know where to look. These facts should really speak for themselves. People arguing for ‘secular Jinnah’ tend to get upset by this argument because they assume that I, or whoever else, is trying to imply that the Quaid was pro-theocracy. They think for instance that we support a class distinction between religious minorities and majorities, or that we advocate the idea of legislation either being written or authorised by ulema. Yet, as every sensible Muslim and especially Pakistani Muslim knows, a state truly guided by Islamic principles is as far removed from theocracy as is an ideal secular state (I might add that there is not one example of either of these states in existence today). The Quaid himself made this point about theocracy versus Islam, which again I showed in my book. The few people who do support such ideas – taken, unfortunately, from fundamentalist literature, rather than the Quran – usually belong to parties that historically were opposed to Partition and Pakistan. So why give their views special attention, and why assume that every ‘non-secularist’ agrees with them?

Q) How would you describe Quaid-e-Azam’s Pakistan? How far are we today as a nation from Quaid’s Pakistan?

A) ‘Quaid-i-Azam’s Pakistan’ as such never had a chance to establish itself. At any rate, it is not right to speak of ‘Quaid’s Pakistan’ when Mr. Jinnah said that it was up to the people and the Constituent Assembly to decide the form of their constitution. But we can safely say that the main difference between Mr. Jinnah’s time and now is that back then, a majority of people truly believed that they would rise out of poverty, be given the chance to educate themselves and then make a positive contribution to the international community, in the name of Islam. Pakistan appeared on the map at a time when the Muslim world was facing a political identity crisis, following the abolition of the Caliphate in Turkey. The end of the Caliphate was necessary, but this left the Muslim world in a void. Many people saw the creation of this new Muslim country as a laboratory where Islam would be established afresh, so to speak, taking account of contemporary political and sociological conditions. For this reason Islam in Pakistan was described as the ‘third way’, representing neither capitalism nor communism, but a form of socialist democracy conforming to Islamic (and thus universal) principles of liberty and justice. There was no question therefore, of recreating an early form of Islamic state which may have had merits in its time but could not be made to work in the twentieth century. Again, exactly how this would work was left up to the people and the Constituent Assembly. The Quaid’s sheer integrity and strength of personality was enough to keep the early leaders of Pakistan together – just. Within a few years of his death however, personal rivalries and a lack of intellectual unity between these same politicians came out into the open, marking the end of ‘Quaid’s Pakistan’ practically before it had begun. Today we see nepotism, despotism, jobbery, and discrimination running rampant in Pakistan – all qualities of the worst type of secular state (not to mention the worst of a theocracy). To even begin to undo all of this, will require first and foremost that the people look within themselves and make a concerted demand that they want things to change. Unity must come first.

Q) What do you think about the new book on Jinnah that Jaswant Singh has just written? Have you read that?

A) I have not read the book, but I have seen the interview in which Mr. Singh described its contents. From what he said there seems to be nothing remarkable or new that hasn’t been said by someone else already. There was an interesting article on this subject by Dr. Waheed Ahmad in Pakistan’s News International recently. He suggests on the one hand that Mr. Singh had courage for challenging the wisdom of certain Congress leaders before Partition. On the other, he mentions that some cynics might question the motives of the author, who is after all a veteran member of a far-right political party. Whom does it suit to be told that Mr. Jinnah never really wanted Partition? Is it not suggestive of a wish to see the two countries reunited as one India? I admit to being one of the cynics.

Q) What is the Jinnah Archive? Is it just a website or some project?

A) The idea behind the Jinnah Archive is to make the speeches of the Quaid-i-Azam easily available online. Most collections of speeches have short print runs and they end up in a few university libraries in random places across the globe. My own difficulty in obtaining collections of speeches when researching Secular Jinnah gave me the idea to try and create a searchable database on the Net. Thereafter I began tracking down and purchasing all the printed collections that I could find, and then I built the website. Some distinguished academics kindly helped by giving permission to make full use of their collections. The whole project is privately funded, is non-profit, and is entirely free to the public. Unfortunately it has been neglected of late because I was working almost completely on my own from the beginning, and other unrelated projects have taken up my time in between. This is however, something I will rectify in the very near future.

Q) How do you want to contribute to Jinnah’s Pakistan?

A) That’s an interesting question. We all should utilise our individual talents to the best of our ability. Mine is writing. I hope that my use of the pen will at least get people to think about the Pakistan idea, and not to give up on it.

Q) How would you describe Jinnah?

A) How does anyone describe an awesome personality such as Mr. Jinnah? He was evidently a man of unswerving integrity, high intelligence, pride, conviction, strength, and with more than a smidgen of dry humour. A true example of a Muslim leader, certainly one of the finest of the twentieth century, if not the finest.

Q) When is the second edition of your book coming out?

A) Soon, though I can’t promise a particular date. It’s close to completion and has already been picked up by a publisher. Unlike the first edition, this one should be made available in Pakistan as well as internationally, in both Urdu and in English languages. It contains much more on the story of Mr. Munir’s literary legacy, and in it I reveal one or two other surprises as well. But I can say no more for now.

This interview is originally posted at PakistanKaKhudaHafiz.com

The ‘inevitable’ clash!

In Clsh of Civilizations on April 29, 2010 at 1:48 am

By Sana Aijazi

Would you like an atheist American as Chairman of WAPDA? A white City Nazim for Karachi or for that matter a British Director General of FIA in Punjab? Would you encourage wine shops and dance bars across Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi and Islamabad? How would you react to roving half-naked girls at Constitutional Avenue in Islamabad and at Millennium Mall in Karachi? Just as you don’t want significant titles in your country given to westerners and your way of life swayed by secular thoughts, same is the case in United States, Europe and India. They don’t want their culture altered under the shadow of Islamic civilization.

There is nothing wrong with the reaction that the West has, as it is exactly similar to how Muslims’ respond to when their societies are threatened by liberal and secular thoughts. However, over the past few years, this reaction has been institutionalized to a dangerous level, resulting in segregation of Islam and the West.

It has become possible only due to controlled American media, campaigning strategically against Muslims since many decades. There has been intense use of propaganda techniques by various groups including PSYOPs of United States Army. 9/11, 7/7 and Mumbai attacks have only catalyzed the process and have given more strength and a tangible result to these stakeholders. As of now, we can weigh the major milestones that take us to the final and complete clash of both civilizations. Sympathy lies in the fact that all these steps were initiated by Westerners, who believe that their civilization has the power to influence the world and wipe out all other! ways of life, including Islam. Therefore, the faster the process, the earlier their dominance would prevail.

Europe and the United States have been a key player in battling Islam’s rise. The laws addressing detention, ban on scarf and minarets are not only ceilings on symbols of Islamic faith, but in a broader perspective, they are more about funneling Islam towards a totally rejected religion. Scarfs and minarets aren’t the only threats, Americans and Europeans don’t even welcome shops that sell Halal food. Maligning Islamic faith and Salat is what was extracted from the Fort Hood episode of Major Hasan Nadal, in a move to further their hostility.

Likewise, the Swiss ban on minarets is not a matter of beautiful terrains; it’s is a symbolic reaction to what they perceive as Islamic threat. During the campaigning for ban on minarets, the organizers discussed less on the construction and architecture of minarets and campaigned more about the influence of Islam, its Sharia’h and Burqa. They portrayed Islam as a civilization contrary to their beliefs, in order to gain voters for their drive. The posters reflected images of Switzerland as if it was taken over by some ‘beast’ known as Islam. The Swiss people termed minarets as Muslim power symbols.

Lately, the South Asian version of this clash was reflected in the Indian Premier League bidding and Shoaib Sania wedding. It was just another example of the assumed ‘greater civilization’ insulting Muslims for no apparent reason, other than Pakistanis, Shoaib and Sania being Muslims in faith.To ridicule Pakistan, or the symbolic fort of Islam, served the purpose of many. It has been apparent in the Indian cinema too since more than two decades, and no need to mention the threatening statements of Indian ministers and leaders.

Despite the ongoing insult and ridicule, thousands of Muslims have migrated to United States and other western countries over the past decades, felling prey to the deceptive Western civilization. Better economic conditions and improved standard of life is what low-esteemed immigrants might have achieved, but at what cost? Upon arrival, the migrants are forced to choose between the three; adapt their civilization, leave their lands or get ready for detention and death. As a result, total lost of identity is what trickles through generations or one observes people returning to their homelands after being offended. It further strengthens the argument that Muslims have never been welcomed in the West and will never be.

Muslims, in principle, are known for their self-esteem. In order to stop the influx of Muslims, methods are being adopted to institutionalize suppression of self-esteem. The full body scan introduced at American and UK airports for majority Muslim countries reflect the same. Similarly, the ‘terror threats and suspects’ mechanism ensures that Muslims do not create stronger bonds with Masjids, Muslim community and their faith.

There had been several efforts in the past too for segregation of Islamic and Western civilizations. But, since the Islamic civilization has proved to be more powerful than the western civilization, it had always superseded in terms of influence. The only solution left now is to segregate the followers of the two civilizations. However, it is a step that precedes the ‘final clash’ of both.

The ‘final clash’ will be more fierce and bloody than what we see now. The United States and its allies are loosing war in Afghanistan and can never, I repeat never, win war in Pakistan. Leave aside the state power, military and nuclear capability, the resistance in the public has already perplexed the western forces. This imbalance has the power to reverse the entire situation and further miscalculations could lead the United States to complete disaster.

Those who still believe that there is a place for composite dialogue and understanding between Islam and the West, are badly mistaken. There are no options left.

Clash of civilizations is the only thing that can happen between the two camps – The Muslims and the Non-Muslims. Both are extremists, assertive and insist on their ideology, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, logic and philosophy of mind. Its time to decide, which side are you on?


Sana Aijazi is a commentator on Defense and Security issues. She is associated with The Eastern Tribune and can be reached at her Official Fan Page.

Article taken from The Eastern Tribune | awamimarkaz.comhttp://www.awamimarkaz.com
URL to article: http://www.awamimarkaz.com/2010/04/the-inevitable-clash/

Fake Video of Swat & Chiknay Gharay (Urdu)

In pakistan on April 10, 2010 at 11:41 am