Journal of Muslim and World Affairs

By: Waheeduddin Ahmed, Ph.D.

We are in the season of primary elections in the U.S.A. The incumbent President Barak Obama is unchallenged by any Democrat. So it is just the Republican Party hopefuls, who are running in the pack. There is nothing in their rhetoric, polemics, histrionics and the aerobics, which may excite the voters, especially the young ones and turn those around who may have already decided to reject the whole electoral process as meaningless. It will take a miracle to bring back the zeal of the voters of election 2008. They are feeling let down by their choice. Candidate Obama was given an unprecedented mandate by the progressive forces of this country, which he rejected by becoming a tool of the establishment. This created a big opening for the Extreme Right, which resurged and made possible for the Tea Party to emerge and for the Congress to change hands. The young voters now have no prospects of their dreams being fulfilled and have nothing to look forward to.

The politics in America has a ritual, in which all candidates running for presidential elections, who have lined up for debate turn towards Jerusalem and sing Hatikvah, the Israeli national anthem, turning their backs on the American flag in doing so. If you carefully look at their facial expressions, you see that their faces betray their unease. Their muscles twitch and their eyes twinge, being out of tune with their tongue. It is an open secret that they have no real concern for Jews or for Arabs. Their preoccupation is election and votes and to get to a place where they can wield power and enjoy influence and pay back the lobbies, whose money has put them there. Obviously, it is expediency that drives their campaigns as elections in this country have become a for-profit enterprise.

This poses the questions: Are we a sovereign nation? Is America now devoid of honest and courageous leaders worthy of a superpower? The candidates think that they must woo the Jewish voters but do they really understand the requirements of the Jewish electorate? Sure there are many Jews who are elated by the polemics made by Romney, Gingrich and Santorum but Jews are supposed to be intelligent people as many of them are. They know that the safety and the security that the Jewish nation needs will not come through opportunistic, overenthusiastic and bellicose statements made by election candidates, who have only their own interests in mind. It will only come when we have honest and sincere leadership. The biggest enemy of peace and for that matter, of the safety of Jews, is arrogance and militarism. Peace will come, when America has a president, who is honest, courageous and self-respecting and Israel has a leadership, which is conscious of the fact that neither the military balance of power nor the ground realities of the American electorate have any constancy. Intelligent American Jews know this and can make the world livable for themselves as well as for others, only if they rediscover their own heritage.

Moreover, does it look good to the world Jewry that today the prospects of world peace hinge on the interests and attitudes of a tiny minority of the world population and that they are blamed as before for being at the center of a devastating world conflict? Is it not a travesty for the American presidents and the Capitol Hill to be forced into alliance with them, which the American citizens of the future will look at in dismay and disbelief?

We are fortunate to be living in “freedom” and in a “democracy”. May be we are but while the former term is relative, the latter needs qualification. We are a democracy, so are the West European nations and Russia and Iran, where compared to the other nations in the region, the people are given a chance to change their rulers. What is common in these democracies? Except for the presence of ballot boxes nothing is common. Each democracy has its cultural eccentricity. How much money is spent in elections in Britain, the mother of modern democracies, compared to American elections? Nominal! So is it not fair to say that the American democracy is unique in that it is a game in which money rolls like in a casino? No money, no game. Tons of money, you win. Also, in America elections are a liars’ contest. The biggest lie repeatedly told and concealed in Goebbelsian articulation carries the day. So, democracy, meaning the rule of the people is a misnomer for what we have; plutocracy (the rule of the wealthy) may be a better word.

Our country is a superpower. We spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined, which includes all the seven nuclear powers. We can project our forces to any spot in the world almost overnight. We have bases scattered all over the six continents and floating and navigating all the oceans on the globe. We can send our drones to any country on earth, regardless of sovereignty issues and assassinate any individual, who dares challenge our power. And yet many of our citizens live in abject poverty and the standard of living here is lower than several countries in Europe and Asia. There are at least twenty countries ahead of us in the standard of education. Even after topping the list in health expenditure, the health of our citizens is miserably low. We are hated by a majority of the members of the United Nations and resented by the rest. Our mighty military has won all the wars since WW II or has it? Korea: a stalemate, Vietnam: a defeat, Iraq: a total fiasco, Afghanistan: a retreat in progress.

Let me suggest that military does not a superpower make. All military powers decay and disappear. Rome has left no vestiges of power. Great Britain has fallen from the pedestal of grace. Russia has left its silos of military power in a hurry. France and Germany are locked in a European box. We can retain our superiority in America provided that we convert our military superiority into moral superiority. Easily achievable! All we have to do is to force our leaders to be honest, truthful and above all patriotic.

World’s attention is now turned towards Iran as it is perceived to want to have nuclear weapons, which may pose a danger to Israel. Iran cannot logically be a danger to Israel. We shall deal with this misconception later. First let us consider the relevance of nuclear weapons themselves in the context of contemporary world politics. Sixty-six years have passed since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No other nation has dropped the bomb and no other nation has been hit by it so far although there are now eight nations which possess the bomb. We have to be blind not to notice that atom bombs are now obsolete and their use is almost impossible. They are good only for blackmail. It is this blackmail, which causes the adversary to seek counterweight and as soon as the other party also has the bomb the game is over and the lights are switched off. The bomb keepers sit and yawn. India and Pakistan are a case in point. Kashmir is a matter of contention for both. The advent of atom bombs on both sides of the border has put the conflict in the cold storage. No solution is possible. Pakistan is a loser in this as nothing suits India more than the status quo. Expenditure on conventional military forces on both sides is an absolute waste, especially for Pakistan, as it comes at the enormous cost for its people, keeping them backward in many respects and pushing them further and further behind in the region where India is making very steady progress in many walks of life.

Let us take another example in which the bomb is possessed only by one side. In spite of the elimination of Saddam Hussein and the destruction of his regime, Iraqis have not forgotten the attack on Osiris, nor have the Palestinians forgotten Sabra and Shatila or Gaza for that matter. The memory of the bombing of Beirut is still fresh in the Lebanese minds. If the war atmosphere prevails, the bitter memories will linger and some day in the future there will be an explosion. Perhaps by then America will be an inward looking country. When that explosion occurs, Israel will consider using nuclear weapons, which it has stock-piled only for such an occasion and if it does, it will be the doom’s day even if there is no counterattack because we cannot imagine what the world would be like after this day. From Hiroshima to the doom’s day will have been a short journey.

Now Iran! All the whipped-up frenzy and paranoia about Iran getting the bomb and dropping it on Israel is as ridiculous as it is mischievous. Nobody in his right mind can think that Iran has a score to settle with Israel. It is like living in a dreamland. Iran and Israel do not share a border and have no conflict of interests. Historically and culturally they have no reason to be at each other’s throat. Rhetoric motivated by Islamic solidarity must be viewed in its generic perspective. Iranian support of Hizbullah and Hamas is like the Israeli support of the Jews in Brooklyn or in Morocco. Besides, what would Iran do with a bomb except for the prestige of having it? It is Ahmadinejad’s polemics, not the national policy which has driven the world to a crisis point. His ill-considered diatribe about the Holocaust, so unbecoming of a head of a state was what has caused this controversy, not the Iranian nation. The next president of Iran may undo all this. Jews, who know their history, understand this even if the American Gentiles don’t! So notwithstanding this perspective, if Israel attacks Iran with the consent and support of the American administration, it will be a self-inflected wound oozing perpetually. It will create a monster of a conflict which will transcend time and space and create a formidable enemy, who will live only to seek revenge.

Let me now go back to the topic of my discussion: democracy and election. I have already dealt with the traits of American democracy. Election is synonymous with choice. If I have a choice, I will exercise my vote but really I have no choice and therefore I am excluded and expelled from the process. Some people will vote for the “least of two evils”, some for the “best of what is available”. I believe that to choose the lesser of two evils is no less than an evil act. It perpetuates evil in one form or other and will be against my conscience. Things will never get better if we keep voting for whatever is thrown our way. We should demand better and ask for candidates, who are first and foremost honest and truthful. Other qualities matter but never as much. Until then we should desist from voting. Let this be a bloc vote saying enough is enough. I ask those who agree with me to propagate this by any means at their disposal including social networking.

By: Waheeduddin Ahmed Ph.D.

More than 4000 years ago, in the then city of Ur, a young man by the name of Abram or Ibrahim stole in the temple of Nanna, when the high priests were away attending a town festival and broke all the idols, the false objects of worship and submission, as he thought to himself. This was perhaps, the first act of ideological revolution in a civilized settlement of humans and the first ever expression of the rejection of false gods.

In so far as the archeologists have excavated, explored and unrivalled the history of civilization, the first ever civilization, which has revealed itself was in Mesopotamia (that is in present day Iraq). There were those Sumerian cities on the banks of the river Euphrates. Then some time in the third millennium B.C. a strong man by the name of Sargon conquered the various cities and established the Akkadian empire centered in the city of Akkad or Agade. Then after a few hundred years, when the Akkadian empire was waning, there was a short Sumerian revival and a third Sumerian dynasty came to power in Ur. At the time of Ibrahim (A), there was a king by the name of Ur-Nammu. The Judaic traditions mention his name as Nimrod, although the Qur’an doesn’t give the king any name: simply talks about him as malik (king). This king was very powerful. He gave the world the first ever legal code, 300 years before the code of Hammurabi. He erected Ziggurat (Zaqqarat), the tall structures like the pyramids. This king, also, probably for the first time in human history institutionalized polytheism, idol worship, in violation of what was engrained in human consciousness from day one. There were temples dedicated to sun, the moon and various other objects. The temple of Nanaa was the temple dedicated to moon. This was the temple where the young Ibrahim (A) carried out his act of idol breaking. With this historic act began the battle between Towheed and Shirk in human history. The legends associated with this battle have come to us through the Bible but the Qur’an gives us a wonderful narrative of a dialogue which ensued between the king, who ruled at the time and Ibrahim (A), one, an idol maker and the other, an idol breaker. This dialogue is a masterpiece of logic ever to be found in any literature.

Alam tara ila al-ladhi hajja Ibrahima fi rabbihi an atahullahul mulk.
Have you not seen the one, who argued with Ibrahim about his lord, the one whom Allah had given the kingdom?

Idh qala Ibrahimu rabbi al-ladhi yuhi wa yumit
When Ibrahim said that my Lord is the one who gives life and takes it away

Qala ana uhi wa umit
He replied: “I give life and I take life.”
(Legend has it that the king ordered two prisoners, who were condemned to death, to be brought in. He ordered one prisoner to be executed and pardoned the other one.)

Qala Ibrahimu fa innallaha yati bisshamsi min al-mashriq fati biha min al-maghrib fa buhitat al-ladhi kafar.
Ibrahim said: “ But surely Allah makes the sun rise from the east. You make it rise from the west. The one who talked kufr was thus confounded.”

No discussion, no debate and argument between the greatest philosophers of the world could be as clear and conclusive as in this dialogue given in the Qur’an. It’s beauty and simplicity is astounding.

As we can see, this conflict between the truth and falsehood, monotheism and polytheism, Towheed and Shirk started right at the dawn of civilization and is with us ever since. The Qur’an says that Ibrahim (A) was the imam (the leader) of the mankind. A leader is the one, who sets out to articulate his message; in this case inviting people to believe in one god and to reject false gods. As the history has told us, Ibrahim (A) left Mesopotamia; went to Kan’an, Syria and Egypt (the so called Fertile Crescent), before settling in Kan’an, the present day Palestine. This was the whole world of civilization at that time. Wherever he went, he invited people to Towheed (belief in One God, the creator, the one who gives life and takes life, the one who makes the sun rise from the east, acts which no one else in the universe can emulate, nor have any share in such action. Thus the essence of the kalmia: La ilaha illa Allah, the first element of the Islamic faith was institutionalized and which permeated the consciousness of every human being for all times to come.

Inviting people to Allah, which we call Da’wah is the most important Abrahamic tradition. Also, the breaking of idols as we have seen is another tradition of Ibrahim (A). The battle began with the smashing of idols in the temple of Nanna. You can take it as the manifestation of the first political action. History suggests that Ur-Nammu was the first to establish a kingdom. This action, this battle is never a one-time battle. The conflict is ongoing and eternal. Once you have broken some idols you cannot sit on your laurels, as the idols have a tendency to pop up again and again, at one place or another. Ibrahim’s (A) Sunnah had to be repeated by Prophet Mohammad (S) after he conquered Mekka. He smashed the heads of Lat wa Manat with his own hands. There is a symbolism here. Idols may not be made of stone. The icons of falsehood come in various shapes and forms. Sometimes the idols are ideas of falsehood. Sometimes, they are abstract like tyranny, oppression and injustice. With the smashing of their heads at one time and place in history, they do not disappear forever. They germinate again in suitable circumstance. It is therefore of absolute necessity that the revolutions made by Ibrahim (A) and by Mohammad (S) are kept alive, active and continuous. This continuous revolution is named in the Qur’an: amr bil maroof wa nahi an al-munkar enjoining good and forbidding evil..

In the context of our own history the conquest of Ka’ba did not solve the problem for ever. There was only a respite for a period; then the idols came back and set themselves up in Arabia, in Cairo, Baghdad, and Damascus and in all the other cities of the Crescent. For centuries, it looked as though the Sunnah of breaking the idols was in abeyance. The hands which are made to break the idols were paralyzed. It is only now, it seems that a ray of hope has penetrated the darkness of despair and we have witnessed the so-called Arab Spring, in Tunisia and in Egypt. The struggle continues in other countries. Time and again, year after year, we stood here as khateebs and decried the subjugation, which Muslims suffered and cursed the tyrants, who had terrorized the Muslim Ummah. We had given up hope and thought that the moment of liberation would not arrive at least in our life time but we had underestimated the spirit of our young people. They rose up, first in Tunisia, then in Egypt, in Libya, in Yemen and in Bahrain. However, the biggest challenge we are facing today is how to keep the Spring free from infiltration and contamination. The enemies of Revolution have joined the ranks of the revolutionaries, looking for opportunities to sabotage and subvert. There are ex-colonialists and neo-colonialists. There are demons coming forward wearing the faces of angels. History shows that any gold they have touched has turned into dust. The revolutionaries need not rejoice too soon. They need to be forever vigilant.

Our generation is living through one of the most tumultuous times in history. Only two decades ago, the world was divided into two camps: communism and capitalism. The protagonists of each camp believed in the absolute validity of their beliefs. They believed that their own system was the answer to all the problems of mankind. Then all of a sudden one camp tumbled and disintegrated, making the other camp the master of the whole world, allowing it to be arrogant to the extreme, hitting out in all directions and proclaiming a “new world order”. Soon the surviving camp realized that it was witnessing the second phase of a new world disorder. Communism was gone and capitalism is tattering at the edge of a disaster. It is committing suicide. People have woken up and a world revolution has begun, in New York, in Oakland and in almost every capitol in the world. While the communist system suffered from a lack of incentive and ownership, resulting in low productivity, capitalism gave incentive and utmost freedom to a few people to exploit and plunder. The vulnerability and the misery of the people was a commodity sold for exploitation. The gap between the rich and the poor kept widening and now it has reached a danger point. As we now well know 1% of the people own 40% of the wealth in this country. A recent study has shown that one in fifteen people in America is suffering from extreme poverty. Who is to blame? A presidential candidate, who is a billionaire and happens to be black, has said that if you are not rich it is your own fault!

So, how did this gap between the rich and the poor develop and is widening every day? The answer is not as complicated as some people may think. It lies in the phrase: “redistribution of wealth”. This phrase is associated with socialism i.e. take from the rich and give to the poor. In fact it works both ways. What has happened during the past few decades is that the wealth has flown in the wrong direction: from the poor to the rich. Wages have been stagnant; benefits reduced, unions busted. Globalization has brought extremely competitive labor market. Jobs have been exported. All this has caused the income of the poor and the middle class to drop and the profits to increase, which the employers have refused to share with the employees. There was a time, when they used to share it with the workers and the wages were linked to productivity; not any more. Many corporations, including the pharmaceutical companies do not pay a penny in tax. The GE has paid zero income tax in America. At this time of widespread unemployment, the corporations are sitting on three trillion dollars of cash, which they could invest but are not investing and yet there is a lie being spread that if you give the rich tax break they would invest that money and the economy would improve.
The oil companies wait for a small upheaval in the Middle East. As soon as it happens they jack up the gas prices. Each increase in the gas prices, while making windfall profits for the gas companies, increases food prices worldwide. As a result, people who are living on the edge of poverty fall off the edge. This is the grand larceny, which goes unpunished, even rewarded under Capitalism. Why are they unpunished? It is because they share some of their loot with the lawmakers.

We are only too aware of how the whole world economy was brought to a ruin by the greed of a few people recently, making scores of people homeless and throwing millions of people into misery, hunger and poverty. As it happened they first sold the so-called subprime mortgages to the unsuspecting, uneducated and vulnerable people; then packaged those toxic assets and sold them to unsuspecting investors. Knowing that these assets were going to fail, they bet against them and made enormous amounts of money. We all know what happened since. The banking system crashed, the whole world economy collapsed, making millions of people unemployed and homeless. What happened to these criminals? Did they go to prison? No. Our government again took our money and gave it to them under the pretext of stabilizing the system, which they used to give themselves bonuses. Goldman-Sachs has set aside $292,000/ per staff member as bonus this year, while millions of people in this country are struggling to make ends meet as a result of their criminal acts.

They threw the Patriot Act at us, setting themselves up as the symbols of patriotism. In fact it is the 1% elite, who are anything but patriotic, the antithesis of patriotism. They include the politicians, legislators, the incumbent presidents and the prospective presidents, who come to you for votes but serve the special interest groups after being elected. They have nobody’s interests in mind except their own. Marx and Engels had declared: “workers of the world unite”. They did not but the capitalists of the world did.

They start wars so that the businesses associated with the war industry may prosper, appealing to your patriotic instinct, designing and fashioning enemies for you, whom you are expected to hate in the darkness of your prejudiced minds, which they have crafted for you. This country of ours sent our sons and daughters to two world wars, the Korean War, the war in Vietnam, two Gulf wars and the Afghan War. What were your interests in those wars? The WWI started because a crackpot Serbian assassinated the crown prince of Austria: Archduke Ferdinand and the major European monarchs declared war against each other. The WWII started as Germany was economically oppressed as a result of the Treaty of Versailles and the German territories were taken from Germany and were given to the adjacent countries, forcing a resurrected Germany under Hitler to go to war to regain those territories. Wars in Korea and Vietnam were fought to stop the Domino Effect, whatever it meant! Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought on behalf of an unjust and unlawful state in the Middle East. Can any man in the street say that he benefitted from these wars? Those who benefitted were in the top one percent of the population, the capitalists and the industrialists, who paid the politicians to carry out these operations on their behalf. And of course like the elite members of the Roman Senate they claimed the crown of patriotism for themselves.

This country of ours, founded on the noblest principles of freedom and justice is now flouting justice domestically and internationally. Our prison population is one of the highest in the world. The poor are more likely to be convicted and executed than the rich. The black people, who are only 7% of the population, have a 32% share in the prison population. Our present administration, drunk with unchallenged power has broken every international law. Extrajudicial killing is its favorite pastime. Once in the middle ages there was this Old Man of the Mountains called Hassan Ibn Sabah, who created the act of assassination on the world stage. Centuries later, our government, equipped with drones instead of daggers is staging the same act in a grand finale.

In 2012, the circus of elections begins again. In 2008 the young people in this country were very optimistic. Today, that optimism has evaporated. They are on the streets now to occupy Wall Street and close down Oakland. They do not have any trust in the system or in the politicians. This may be the beginning of a revolution, at least in the thinking.

We as Muslims, have a greater reason to be skeptical. We know that both Communism and Capitalism are not the solutions to the ills of the society. We knew at the outset that these systems would fail. We have a better system, economic, social and political but we do not have a model of this system anywhere in the world today because of the dark ages which have interrupted our civilization.
The big question however is whether we should partake in the political circus of elections which is to come shortly while many honest non-Muslim citizens are rejecting it. I think that we should do well by keeping our distance from this ugly drama of treachery and deceit.

By Waheeduddin Ahmed, Ph.D.

Islamophobia, as it exists today in America, cannot be assigned to a single cause. It has a variety of causes. Differences in belief systems have little to do with it, since such a chasm would require awareness, which is all but lacking in the general populace. Clash of civilizations is hardly causative in a civic society, where only one civilization prevails. In fact, it is the cultural side of Islam, which arouses prejudice and disapproval on the part of some and suspicion on the part of others. Muslims are regarded as “cultural misfits”, isolating themselves from their neighbors, some walking the streets in conspicuous traditional clothes, men wearing kufis (skull caps) and women wearing hijabs (head scarfs), making no attempt to camouflage their dress with less conspicuous substitutes like some other conservative religious groups do.

The second cause is the global political conflicts in which Muslims are seen as occupying the center stage. Incessant news and events depicting individuals committing terrorist acts, with their religion specifically highlighted in the media if they are Muslims, constantly plays on the minds and emotions of the American people. The worst act of terrorism in its history occurred in New York on September 11, 2001. It was carried out by a few foreign miscreants from the Middle East with Muslim names and had roots in the Arab-Israeli conflict. While it shook the world, it sent chills down the spines of the Muslim inhabitants of America. They were hit the hardest just by name association. They walked the streets under suspicious and disdainful eyes and are still struggling to reclaim their rightful place in the American society.

We are living in an era sequential to global communism. The phobia which dominated that era was the fear of the great Bolshevik conspiracy, which would undermine our freedoms and individual liberties. The product of that phobia was the Cold War, generating thousands of nuclear weapons, sufficient to obliterate human race many times over and which gave birth to scores of dictators all over the world, who subjected their countrymen to tyranny and humiliation. The succeeding era would not pass without a phobia to decorate it with.  Islamophobia readily served the purpose. The bogey of the worldwide Islamic khilafa replaced that of the Communist conspiracy and is beginning to inflict the psyche of the American public. If there are any people, who are unaware of this khilafa “conspiracy”, it is the Muslim people themselves.

The Phobia and its Profile: The Mosque Controversies:

Proposals to build mosques to serve the religious needs of Muslims countrywide have brought out deep-rooted prejudices even from the members of the clergy, from California to Wisconsin to New York. Acts of vandalism against the Muslim places of worship such as in Tennessee proliferated. In Sheboygan, Wisconsin a Muslim doctor who owned a store type building proposed to convert the property into a place of worship for hundred or so of Muslims. The place was close to the hospital he worked in. A public hearing brought out some of the patients he had treated and had faith in, who spilled out venom against Islam, a faith they had no knowledge of. It shook the wits out of him and many of the citizens. In Manhattan, Muslims had been praying at Burlington Factory House at Park51 a makeshift mosque for a year before the Cordoba House proposal. On Fridays the congregation at Farah Mosque nearby would spill over on the street for want of sufficient accommodation. It was not a matter of “desecrating” Ground Zero but a matter of dire necessity and equal rights under the constitution. The proposal became such a big controversy that everybody from the president to the governor to the archbishop to the Jewish Defense League weighed in. It was made to look as though the proposed Cordoba House was a monument of Muslim “triumphalism” at Ground Zero.

Ban the Sharia Legislations:

The campaign against the Cordoba House project was started in a blog “Stop Islamization of America”, a xenophobic campaign, playing on the aforementioned fears of people, of the perceived impending transformation of the country’s religious face and its cultural profile. This is an outrageous presumption and a wildly imaginary scenario. Exact statistics are lacking but according to a study conducted by the American Jewish Committee there are 2.8million Muslims in America, while many Muslim organizations have been claiming that the total number stood at about six million. This makes the range of percent population to be from 0.9 to 1.9%. The true number may be closer to the lower figure than the higher one. Of the total population, the practicing Muslims may be less than half that number, scattered over a continent and among the population of 308.7 million. What a force for the Islamization of the United States of America!

The force behind this anti-Sharia tirade is an Arizona lawyer: David Yerushalmi, a White supremacist, an anti-Islam hate monger and the founder of the “Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE)”. He argues that whites are genetically superior to Blacks.  He wrote: “Some races perform better in sports, some better in mathematical problem solving, some better in language, some better in Western societies and some better in tribal ones.” He urged that the United States must declare war on Islam and all Muslim faithful. This puts him in the same category in hate mongering, as the likes of Meir Kahane, Baruch Goldstein, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz and Peter Emerson. He had pushed legislation in 2007 to make adherence to Sharia a felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Sadly, it is him and the likes of him, who are driving the conservative legislative agenda in this country. He is either the author of or the consultant for most of the anti-Sharia bills, which have been introduced. The American legislators, who have been led onto this path by people like Yerushalmi, in the name of patriotism, should realize that their actions are mutilating the values and the principles on which this country was founded.

A majority of the anti-Sharia bills is considered to be, in the main, innocuous and inconsequential, emotive rather than practical, save SB1028, the State of Tennessee bill as originally proposed, which would have dangerously violated the basic human rights of Muslims, guaranteed in the constitution, by criminalizing the day to day acts of worship. The other acts of legislation have been rightly branded as: “A Solution in Search of Problem”. However, there are some very complex legal implications, which cannot be overlooked.

Sharia, meaning “the way” or “the path” encompasses many disciplines such as ritual worship, moral principles, trade, charity, dietary rules, monetary transactions, matrimony, inheritance as well as criminal law. Many of the Sharia rules have been absorbed into cultural norms and adherence to them is almost subconscious, such as the dietary rules. Although ritual worship is an essential part of religion, some Muslims pray and some don’t and those who pray would do so even under the shadow of a guillotine. The criminal law (the Sharia penal code) is in abeyance in a majority of the Muslim countries, as secular criminal laws have taken its place. The laws of marriages, divorce and inheritance are in general followed, except that polygamy is now obsolescent among the common people. Most of the laws of Sharia, including the penal code, bear striking similarity to the laws of the Old Testament (Halacha) and those followed in early Christian communities. Reformist movements in Judaism and the Church in Christianity have amended those laws but since in Islam there is no Church, Pope or “reform” authority, the Sharia has remained immutable, except where the rules are amenable to ijtehad (dialectical derivation).There is a corpus of exegesis in Sharia law but its implementation however, has been effected with a varying degree of laxity.

As for the criminal law, it must be noted that Muslims have lived under secular laws for ages without protestations. There are only two countries where Sharia law is applied, albeit selectively: Saudi Arabia and Iran.  American Muslims have therefore no qualms about living under the law of the land. Civil laws however are a different matter. Let us take the example of India, home to 161 million Muslims (13.4%) among a total population of 1.2 billion. The criminal law is the law of the land and is applicable to every resident. Muslims are not clamoring for the imposition of hudud, qisas or ta’dhir (elements of religious criminal law).  In civil matters, Muslims are allowed to follow their own “personal law” or opt for the secular law. Western countries would do well to consider this precedence.

The Archbishop of Canterbury had proposed a similar procedure for the British courts, where arbitration, with the consent of the contestants, would amiably settle disputes without burdening the courts with costly trials and litigations. In any case, in the matters of divorce, inheritance, child custody and child support, the parties would have an option between the Sharia and the secular laws, whichever they think serves their interests best. This kind of arrangement, if mutually agreed upon by the parties and allowed by the courts, does in no way threaten the integrity and the tranquility of the society; it may on the other hand enhance them. Nevertheless, we must ensure that the women’s rights and the children’s welfare are safeguarded by the courts in the best way possible. There will be times when the Sharia will serve women better than the states’ laws. In California recently a court ruled that meher payment (a contractual sum payable to a woman by her husband on divorce under the Sharia) violated the state law prohibiting spouses from “profiteering” from divorce. Loss to the woman in this case is obvious. In general the interests of the citizens as well as of the state would be best served when the courts are independent and have discretion — not obligation — in when to reference religious laws and when not to do so.

“Foreign” Law and the U.S. Courts:

In many states legislation prohibiting the courts from considering “foreign” law or international law is being pushed with a vengeance. This raises a number of very complex legal issues, involving international treaties and trade. Compliance with international treaties, when ratified, is vouchsafed in the U.S. constitution and may be outside the jurisdiction of any one state. However, there may be areas of trade and labor laws, where complications may arise and hamper businesses of American companies.

In the U.S. courts presently marriages contracted abroad and under the Sharia are recognized, so are divorces executed abroad. The integration of many immigrant families is based on this provision. In the matters of matrimony, parenthood, inheritance and execution of wills disputes do arise in courts and could not be settled without reference to “foreign” laws. There is a serious concern that the ramifications of ban on foreign law now or in the future may put strains on the justice system and adversely affect the social structure of the American society.

Islamophobia, the Underlying Reason:

It is hard to believe that the proponents of the ant-Sharia bill of Tennessee, as it was originally written, were unaware of its unconstitutionality. Clearly, their intent was provocation and their motive was historic religious prejudice. It is not uncommon in the American history and in the history of many other countries for hate groups to arise in certain political and economic circumstances and by their actions and rhetoric malign the very society whose wellbeing they claim to protect.

It was said after 9/11 that “history begins now” or words to that effect. How true! Muslim Americans have been living in the full glare of history ever since, with their faces lit with bewilderment, although some governmental agencies, the top political leadership of both the parties, the law enforcement agencies and the leadership of almost every faith have helped to take the attention away from them. We still remember with gratitude the president of the United States’ visit to a mosque in the aftermath of the tragic event and the kind words uttered. This brought out what was good in the American people and averted a possible catastrophe. We appeal to the same good nature of the American people not to heed to bigotry, prejudice and electoral polemics. America will lose its soul if it succumbs to religious intolerance. It will lose its reason for being.

Muslims in America are a highly diverse community, consisting of almost every race, ethnicity and culture, including a large indigenous section. Among them are doctors, engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs and workers, enriching the economy with their contributions. There are Nobel laureates such as Ahmed Zewail news anchors such as Fareed zakaria and many sports celebrities. There are highly regarded congressmen and mayors in many cities.

Muslim contribution in highlighting the moral values is an asset to the society, which should not be ignored. The mosques are not a threat to anybody but beacons of light. They are centers of spiritual uplift as well as of education, social activism, moral reformation and charity.  Most mosques have prison visit programs, which have resulted in transforming many individuals into productive and law-abiding citizens. Many mosques in the inner cities have food pantries, counseling and crisis management programs.  Above all they curtail social ills. Consider a man who comes to the mosque to pray early morning, early afternoon, late-afternoon, at sunset and at night, five times in Twenty-four hours, to renew his commitment to God. What are his chances of committing unsocial acts in between his prayers? If two million people do this in a society, is the society better off or worse?

Waheeduddin Ahmed

In the Op Ed page in the New York Times of May 4, 2011, Robert Klitzman, a psychiatrist, who lost his sister on 9/11, writes:

“When the members of Al-Qaeda attacked on 9/11, Americans wondered, ‘Why do they hate us so much?” Many here believe they dislike us for our “freedom,” but I think otherwise.

There are lessons we have not learned. I feel Karen (his deceased sister) would share my concerns that underlying forces of greed and hate persevere. American imperialism, corporate avarice, abuses of our power abroad and our historical support of corrupt dictators like Hosni Mubarak have created an abhorrence of us that, unfortunately, persists. We need to recognize how the rest of the world sees us, and figure out how to change that. Until we do that, more Osama bin Ladens will arise, and more innocent people like my sister will die.”

The question: “Why do they hate us?” was being asked on 9/11 and immediately thereafter but it is no longer being asked. Those powerful people, whose interests lied in keeping the Americans uninformed, moved swiftly to erase the question. They couldn’t care less about those who died on 9/11, nor hundreds of thousands who died thereafter as a result of unjust military actions on the part of the American administrations. Their interests, as Robert Klitzman has pointed out outweighed anything and everything, including world peace. In fact, 9/11 was a global event, which unleashed the dark forces of destruction, born of self-interests, unmitigated hatred and avarice.

Osama bin Laden is dead but his death, as has been reported, is only a footnote in the Arab countries. In fact Osama bin Laden had been dead for all practical purposes, ever since he left Tora Bora but the war has continued and is likely to continue unabated until questions are asked and answered. Innocent people will continue to be killed: American GIs in their twenties and teenagers from Afghanistan and Pakistan. The only thing that will survive will be ignorance and those, who nurture ignorance.

9/11 was a reprehensible act. The Muslims of America condemned it most vehemently, in the street and from the pulpits of masjids. No people has suffered as severely, as a result, as the Muslims of America, whose wellbeing has been in jeopardy ever since. The perpetrators of that act must be brought to justice, as some have been. However, Osama bin Laden’s assassination, in the manner that it has been carried out, poses some serious questions. His guilt has not been proven and he stands to assume martyrdom and even sainthood in the minds of many people. Sentiments do not need a shrine on the ground. Statements given immediately after the operation contained deliberate falsehood and bring into serious doubt anything that the authorities say. It was said that a Muslim’s corpse must be buried according to the Shariah within twenty four hours and was thus slid into the sea! This is not a thoughtful excuse, which we expect from the president and his team. Since when has Pentagon assumed the authority of Islamic jurists? By hastily disposing of the remnants of the deceased, what was the Pentagon hiding? Time and again the present president of the United States has shown that he has no regard for the international law and has tried to prove that he is more macho than the Texan he succeeded.

Now for Pakistan: Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are ending. Conditions are being created to start another war, this time in Pakistan. Osama bin Laden hiding under the noses of the Pakistani military elite may be incredible for some Americans but not for us, who are familiar with the peculiarities of the Pakistani society and the traits of its culture. Choosing a place to hide, where he hid, indicates the genius of this man. The generals were not likely to search for him in their courtyard. Their search began away from their homes. The ISI is embarrassed but the Pakistanis are thoroughly amused. A folklore has begun, which the people had badly needed, to bring in some fragrance into their miserable daily lives. Besides, the Pakistani law enforcement and crime investigation agencies are seemingly the most incompetent in the world and the people know it. From 1948 up till now not a single political assassin has been caught.

The White House, the Capitol Hill and the Pentagon must think twice before doing anything to destabilize Pakistan any more than they have already done. It will explode with a vehemence, which will shake the world. It is a country of 180 million people, with 100+ nuclear weapons complete with delivery systems, with a military, which does not like civilian control. The civilian government is controlled by one of the darkest forces in history. Corruption is its pride, not its shame. The best we can do for Pakistan is to stop the “aid”, which we are giving. The people of Pakistan do not want this aid to continue, only the corrupt do. If we leave Pakistan alone, it will not only survive but prosper and flourish.

Another forgotten question is: Why Pakistan is in the state that it is? Is Kashmir not at the heart of instability in that region? Do the Kashmiris not deserve freedom as the Libyans, the Syrians and the Bahrainis do? The nuclear forces of both India and Pakistan are linked to these questions.

By: Waheeduddin Ahmed Ph.D.

It all began with these words “— falyablighi al-shahidu al-ghaiba — It is incumbent on those who are present to convey this to those who are absent” (The prophet’s sermon in Hajjatul Wida, the last Hajj, Bukhari: II, 132:795). Then those who were present got up, pulled their cloaks and blankets about them and spread out to distant lands. His message was neither about conquests, nor about Rome and Persia but a social message for the purification of souls and the reformation of mankind. The Quran and the Sunnah, such as the one quoted, illumined their path. Some ended up in the land of Caesar Heraclius, some in Malabar and some in even China. Armies, which were perhaps marching along the same routes did not necessarily have the same motivation, synchronous but not synergetic. The armies were the forces of history and the pioneers of a civilization, they, the emissaries of the Prophet and the forbearers of a universal brotherhood. The Quran had given them clear instructions about their mission: “kuntum khaira ummatin ukhrijat linnasi, tamuroona bilmarufi wa tanhouna anilmunkari wa tuminoona bi-Allah — You are the best of nations sent out to people, (because) you enjoin good and forbid evil and you believe in Allah” (Quran 3:110). They were told not only what to do but how to do it: “Ud’u ila sabeeli Rabbika bi al-hikmati wa al-mouizati al-hasanah — Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching” (Quran 16:125). “Wa man ahsana qaulan min man da’a ila- Allahi, amila salihan wa qala innani min al-muslimeen — And who is better in speech than the one who invited (people) to Allah, did good deeds and declared: ‘Indeed I am from those who have submitted to Allah?” (Quran 41:33). As anyone can see, the sword is not mentioned in any of these instructions from Allah, nor from the Messenger. The sword and the Quran have an obvious disconnect here.

The conquests had their own momentum. They proceeded with a lightning speed and enveloped three continents. Uqba Ibn Nafi, reaching the west shore of Africa plunged his horse into the Atlantic Ocean with glee thinking that he had reached the end of the world, an act, which Iqbal alluded to in his Shikwah:

[Dasht to dasht hain darya bhi na chore hamne. Bahre Zulmat men dauradie ghore ham ne]

(Deserts are but deserts, waters stopped us not. In the Sea of Darkness did our horses trot.)

However, conversions lagged centuries behind because their dynamics were far too different. Let us consider some statistics as illustration: The battle of Yarmuk took place in 637 A.D. opening up Syria for Muslims but the country had a Christian majority until the Mongol invasion (1244-1323A.D.). Likewise, the battle of al-Qadisiya, which took place in the same year, laid the vast territories of the Sasanian empire open to Muslims. No mass conversions immediately followed. In fact, the Muslim population in Iran reached only 40% in the mid-Ninth century and not until the end of the Eleventh century did it reach about 80%. In Egypt, it took Muslims four centuries to attain a majority. In the Malay Archipelago, Arab traders had started settling from the time of Khalifa Othman (646-656 A.D.) en route to China, as evidenced by the tombstones that have been excavated. However, when Marco Polo visited the region in 1292 A.D., he found only one Muslim kingdom out of many non-Muslim ones. Ibn Battuta’s visit a few years later has also confirmed this. In fact there was a gradual process of social intercourse in which Islam supplanted Hinduism and Buddhism, becoming a dominant religion by the end of Eighteenth century. It still left the island of Bali predominantly Hindu. Thus Malaysia and Indonesia are the shining examples of non-coercion in the propagation of Islam as a religion. In India, Muslim rule spanned twelve centuries and yet by the end of that period, the Muslim population stood at only 25%.

The process of conversion is complex and is not amenable to rational analysis using simple historiography as a tool. It needs the genius of Ibn Khaldun, rather than the narrative skill of Al-Tabari to unravel history in its true colors hidden under the debris of wars and conflicts. Among the various factors involved in conversion, we may consider: theology, ritual practices, ethics, law, economic incentives, societal mores, intellectual prowess and occasionally political pressure too. If theological discourse was the only factor, Islam could have easily prevailed over the Trinitarian concepts of the Christians, the Dualism of the Zoroastrians, the Atheism of the Buddhists and the Polytheism of the Hindus but intellectual debates and documents rarely engage a lay person’s mind. It is the totality of the religious practices, the faith and the morality manifest in actions, which attract people’s attention. History records some very odd reasons too. When the Portuguese conquered Goa, it was not the promise of salvation, which made Christianity triumph but the spectacle of pomp and glamour, the colorful costumes of the priests, their liturgy and the whiteness of their skin, which caught people’s fascination and made them submit to the Lord Savior.

In the Byzantine Empire, dogmatic conflicts within Christianity, persecution of sects, which were out of favor with the Popes or the emperors were largely responsible for opening up the countries for Muslims. The populations accorded the invaders, in most cases, a warm welcome, who in turn demonstrated good governance, religious tolerance, justice and fair play to win the people’s approval.

In India, low caste Hindus saw their chance of emancipation in converting to Islam. On the other hand, the high caste Hindus found that they could lose their social privileges in the egalitarian community of Muslims if they converted; so they largely abstained. However, some of them like the Kaests and the Khatris adopted the Islamic culture, while steadfastly adhering to the Hindu Dharma. Raja Todar Mal of Akbar’s court and Maharaja Kishen Pershad, a wazir of the Nizam are examples. The first president of independent India Dr. Rajendra Prasad’s primary education had taken place in a madrasa, where, he had learned Persian among other things.

In the final analysis, it was not the scholar but the saint, who was instrumental in inculcating the faith. It was not the articulation of dogmas but the luminescence of virtue, which brought light into the lives of the people. In other words, it was not the rhetoric but action which met with success. Those who shared the burden of survival, the daily pains of living and the routine trials and tribulations with their neighbors were the ones, who by demonstrating the strength of their character as Muslims exerted influence on others.  Khaja Moinuddin Chishti is reported to have urged upon his disciples “to develop river-like generosity, sun-like affection and earth-like hospitality”. “The highest form of devotion”, he said “is to redress the misery of those who are in distress — to fulfill the needs of the helpless and to feed the hungry.” This is a formula, which worked in the past and will work in the present circumstance.

In America, black people were attracted to Islam, basically for two reasons: to find a group identity, based on pride, which would help them fight against oppression and secondly to extricate themselves from what they saw as Christian hypocrisy in “love thy neighbor” (as long as he is of the same race). On the other hand, they saw in Islam a strong message of universal brotherhood and a chance to draw solidarity and moral prowess from it, which could energize them in their fight against injustice. How far the Muslims of America, the immigrants in particular, have been able to live up to this expectation is the burning question of the day!

To sum up, we can say that Islam spread, because it had to. The river flows down the slope and in doing so, creates its own contours and landscapes. We can also describe the process in Huntington’s words as “clash of civilizations”. The Islamic civilization in its heyday collided with various other civilizations, overpowering, sometimes overwhelming the weaker of them but finding stubborn resistance from those with strong intellectual and cultural traditions. However, the conversion of Persia seems to be an anomaly. This very fertile and vitriolic civilization transformed itself by first dissipating and then coalescing within Islam to impact it in all its intellectual avenues and cultural manifestations as no other civilization has done.

Today, the Islamic civilization is at its lowest point in history, while progress is erupting all around the Muslim world with unprecedented vehemence. Muslims now stand in the wilderness, distraught and destitute, leaderless, oppressed from within and pressured from without. They are lashing out in frustration, throwing bombs in every direction and upon themselves. In Western Europe and North America where Islam was making great inroads only a decade ago, Muslims have been put on the defensive. Islam and terrorism is an exercise in word association, an addendum for psychologists.

We cannot counter this defamatory tactics unless we correctly read the enemy’s mind and then choose the right strategy. The root of the conflicts is in the occupation of lands and subjugation and exploitation of people by the western neo-imperialist powers, using as they always do, the rulers of those lands as their agents. It is not too difficult to see that any people under these circumstances, Muslims or non-Muslims, Jews or Gentiles would rise up in revolt. Hit by armies, navies and air forces they would hit back with whatever weapons they could lay their hands on. The conflicts always have a geographical context and a specificity of human groupings. Unfortunately, in the times that we are living; almost all the people at the receiving end of oppression happen to be Muslims. They are the ones who are fighting back. The enemy has found it enormously useful and profitable to put a label on them: “Islamic militants” to prejudice the minds of those who might otherwise support a just cause. The “militants” failed to see how cleverly they were being manipulated and willingly became stereotypes. The Islamic leadership, from the scholars to the politicians failed to counter the move and went along with it. Voices raised in protest were feeble and drowned in the drumbeat of “jihad”. We had no answer to the cunning; such a pity that Muslims do not have a Machiavelli or a Chankia of their own.

I suggest that in order to regain the initiative in the Islamic movement, particularly in the area of dissemination, we must do two things: First, disengage Islam from the so-called “jihad”— Remember jihad was also used by the C.I.A. as a weapon in Afghanistan. The conflicts involving Muslims and the West are in the nature of “just wars”. Let us bring them back in that category, where they belong. People who are fighting these wars have a duty to their cause. Their weapons are their options. Others may support or oppose them, depending upon their political orientations. They may condone or condemn the choice of weapons according to their conscience but let the Islamists most emphatically disengage from this conflict and pay attention to the articulation and propagation of Islam. Let us change the posters at the storefront!

Secondly, in the perspective of the post-nine-eleven America and the negative unmitigated propaganda unleashed against Islam, the efficacy of articulation has greatly diminished. People must now see Islam in action, not hear or read about it. Great effort and resources need to be put in the humanitarian side of Islam, as Khaja Moinuddin Chishti has urged upon Muslims to do. He succeeded against tremendous odds and Insha-Allah we will too.

There is another very serious problem we are seeing today. In America, when Islam was first introduced, it was a pristine religion, pure and simple like in the days of the Sahaba. It did not have time to undergo centuries of pollution, schisms and diversions as in the Old World. Immigrants from the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent are now working to drag the New Muslims into their courtyard, where everyone is either: Sufi, Salafi, Devbandi or Barelwi and where people are vociferously slandering each other and where Muslims without labels are unwanted guests. The New Muslims caught in this melee are nowhere to turn. The clannishness of the Arabs and the class consciousness of the Indo-Pakistanis are posing another problem. The images of Sunnis and the Shias blowing each other up in Iraq and Pakistan are ubiquitous and cannot be hidden from those who are invited to the party. They are at the back of their minds when they are gazing at our Da’is giving them lectures. If Muslims cannot rise to this emergency, they will be doomed to eternal ignominy.

By: Waheeduddin Ahmed, Ph.D

I went to Libya in the early Seventies. Having obtained a Ph.D. from the University of London two years previously, I received a telegram from the University of Libya in Tripoli (now Al Fateh University) to come and teach there. After arriving in Libya, I was told that I was to teach industrial chemistry to the B.Sc. students. This was a surprise since my training was not in that area. However, I designed a course in a week or so which was available before the semester started and hoped to do the best. Soon thereafter, the October War (the Yaum Kippur War) started. Although Libya was not involved in the war, there was much excitement on the campus. Qadhafi was complaining in his speeches that he was not consulted — Obviously, Sadat, nor any other Arab leader had trusted him. However, I saw many battle tanks with Algerian markings moving along the main highway towards Egypt but before the Boumediene’s forces could reach the battle front, the war was over as Nixon had sent Apache helicopters with antitank weaponry directly to the war theatre from the American bases in Italy and Sharon had found a gap in the Egyptian positions to pour in troops at the rear of the Egyptian lines and had destroyed the missile batteries which were vital to the air defense. The Egyptian professors on the campus told me that defeat was staring Egypt in its face. So much for the war Euphoria! We did settle down to teaching chemistry after the war was over.

As a person teaching industrial chemistry, I had an opportunity to see some of the country’s industrial infrastructure first hand, as I took students on visits to industries as a part of the curriculum. I found that at least in those days the infrastructure was feeble and scanty and mostly manned by foreign workers. What was hindering progress was obviously a shortage of skilled manpower. Many decades have passed since but what is obvious is that even allowing for sanctions, the country is, as yet, far from becoming a Malaysia, a Singapore or even a Dubai or Qatar. The country’s cash reserves are enormous but the lack of opulence among the common people is strikingly clear. I must admit that I have soft corners for this planned egalitarianism but the hazards of one man’s whims have had their effect as we shall see later, which could put this idealism in disrepute.

I saw Qadhafi only once during my stay. It was when he came to supervise elections of one of the “ people’s committees” (lajnat-al-Shabia) in the university. The jamaheer (democracies) idea had a striking similarity with the soviets and the Chinese communes, which were hybridized with Qadhafi’s own brand of Islamism — Literature from the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China was banned in Libya and was made inaccessible to the people for comparison. We knew about Mao Tsetung’s Cultural Revolution, his Red Guards and the Red Book. Amid this cultural turmoil in the world Qadhafi’s own Green Book took shape and a bizarre cult of personality ensued. More about this later:

When Qadhafi and his associates staged the coup against King Idris, he had attracted attention from much of the Muslim population of the world because of his youth, his charisma and the fact that his rhetoric included reference to Islam in the governance of the country, in marked contrast to the prevailing secular and socialist ideologies in most Arab countries, notably in Algeria, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. However, the mask soon came off when during my stay there the Muslim Brotherhood members were persecuted and crushed. Some of the University students at that time became victims of this persecution.

In the following years, Qadhafi became the supreme leader, the law giver, the jurist, the mujtahid, commander-in-chief of the armed forces and everything else one could possibly think of. He dismantled the traditional military structure and gave the task of defense to people’s committees, whose unprofessionalism soon became fatal as was evident when those responsible for manning missile batteries proved to be incompetent in even defending Qadhafi’s abode against an air raid ordered by President Reagan. He modified the Islamic calendar, which is in use in Libya and nowhere else. He effaced the influence of Ulama and Fuqaha as he envisaged himself to be the sole interpreter of the Sharia. He saw no need for the Qur’anic interpreters, as in his words “Qur’an was revealed in plain Arabic” and therefore Arabs did not need intermediaries between them and God. He considered no other source beside Qur’an to be valid. Next in importance was the Green Book (three volumes), written by him, without any partnership, which encompassed the constitutional framework of the government, the law, judicial exegeses, the penal code, philosophical anecdotes and everything else on earth. His own wisdom became sacrosanct, unrivalled even by Confucius. So as a result of his systematic destruction of all traditional institutions, at present there is no social, military and religious infrastructure in Libya to be relied upon in the aftermath of the overthrow of his regime.

All this would have been considered maverick and scholarly, if one could not notice in his eyes clear signs of a disturbed personality. His behavior ranges from idiosyncratic to psychotic. He reminds me of the Fatimid khalifa Al-Hakim, who showed signs of psychosis and was run out from Cairo by the populace.

It is natural for us to be skeptical when the West demonizes a Muslim leader. He automatically gets the benefit of our doubt but in this case evidence against him is abundant. He forced Wahdah (unification), first on Egypt then on Tunisia. When the Arab countries did not show any interest, he turned towards Sub-Saharan Africa and wanted to lead her in a United States of Africa. That dream also did not materialize. He tried to purchase an atom bomb from China. Spurned by Zhou En-Lai, he turned towards Pakistan. When Pakistan too said no, he became very bitter. He ordered Egyptian navy during the period of unification, to sink the luxury ocean liner QE2, full of American tourists, in the Mediterranean. The naval commander would not do it without referring to Sadat. There were reports that he asked Nasser permission to shoot King Husain in an Arab summit conference in Cairo. It is also a known fact that he sent assassins to kill King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. The blowing up of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie in Scotland is another example of bizarre behavior. Then all of a sudden he metamorphosed from Mr. Hyde to Dr. Jekyll and became from enemy number one to the best friend of the West, meeting with Condoleezza Rice and embracing Gordon Brown, Sarkozy and Berlusconi.

We need no further evidence to conclude that autocracy, whether benevolent or tyrannical, is something we must not tolerate in the Muslim world. It will certainly be inimical to human development. My experience of the Libyan people is that they are very sweet, friendly and full of promise. They deserve a better leadership. However, there is a real danger now that the upheaval in the Arab countries may once again provide entries to Trojan Horses — I am not talking about Islamists — and usher in another era of exploitation. The Revolutions must be on their guard against such hazards.

In the 2010 midterm elections, we have just seen a significant rightwing revolution in Americanhistory. Only a blind person could have failed to notice this revolution in the making. In 2007,the American economy plunged to the bottom, taking most of the economies of the developednations with it, causing a recession second only in magnitude to that of the Thirties in theTwentieth century. Everyone knows who and what caused this crisis. So let me skip the details.The American tax payer bailed out some big banks and financial institutions, released them fromtheir “toxic assets” and set them free into the fortune building wonderland. As a result, theseinstitutions, which were on the verge of bankruptcies owing to their dishonest practices, mademore profits than ever before. At the same time, the Congress imposed some restrictions onthem, so that the tax payer might not have to suffer the consequences of their greed once again.But the banks and the billionaires said: not so fast buddy, let us show you “who is the boss!”Bang! What followed was a rightist revolution. No surprises here. The masters had decided tocrack their whip, and used their conventional clout in manipulating democracy.
The American democracy is complex but only for those, who dwell in its thicket. For those, whoare not interwoven in its fabric, the contours and the facets are clearly perceivable. Nevertheless,there are times when there are glimpses of its machinations apparent even to a non-inquisitivemind and this was that moment.
In the region of India, where I come from, once there was a serious political crisis. There wereriots in the streets and people had died. The then prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru and hiseducation minister, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a famous Quranic scholar, came to deal with thecrisis. In a huge public rally, which I attended, Nehru spoke, rambling and ranting as usual fortwo hours. Then Azad spoke briefly only for a few minutes. He started off saying: “mein phoolpatton ki bat nahin karunga, mein to jar ki bat karunga” (I will not speak about the foliage; I willspeak about the roots.) This seminal statement has kept ringing in my ears ever since. What weare seeing in this country: wars, economic crises, health crises and even political assassinations,as we have witnessed recently, are all rooted in our system of democracy and yet we go onranting about the spikes and thorns forever. The roots, which lie at the bottom of all these do noteven come to our minds.
In any political system, be it a dictatorship or a democracy, there are only two sides: the rulersand the ruled. The popular axiom: ‘the government of the people, by the people and for thepeople’ is only a façade behind which lie a mêlée in which one side is clobbering the other. InAmerica, the gulf between the rulers and the ruled is very wide. Unlike most of the westerndemocracies, here in America one cannot be elected to the presidency or other offices, without
the backing of millions of dollars, which must be spent on television advertisements and othermeans of propaganda. Needless to say that this money comes directly or indirectly from bigbusiness and organized lobbies: political, cultural and commercial, which have vested interestsin the government. Those elected must then serve their interests. At the same time, to getelected, one needs votes from the common people, who must forego their own interests afterthe elections. It is here that the American democracy exhibits its finesse. As the common manmust forget his interests after he has cast his vote, he has to be desensitized, his mind numbedand his social and political consciousness kept to the lowest possible level. Here the media playsthe most important role. After all, it is owned by the big business. Is it surprising therefore thatAmerica, the richest nation in the world has one of the lowest standards of education in theindustrialized countries? Is it an accident that our hospitals, our research institutions and ourhigh-tech industries are filled with the Asian and East-European immigrants, without whom,America will find itself further south in the chart? In short, the relationship between the twosides in the American democracy, the rulers and the ruled is the same as it existed in feudalismand in serfdom. They had serfs and peasants; we have a captive electorate. What has changed isonly a degree of sophistication.
In 2008, Americans were awakened to a glimmer of hope that may be all this was destinedto change. Barak Obama’s candidacy appeared on the horizon as a rainbow of expectations,promising to usher in a revolutionary new era in the history of politics in this country. Theyoung, who had come of voting age (our intelligentsia), saw him as the one who would fulfilltheir dreams and lead them out of the wilderness of despair. Others saw him as a novelty and asa symbol on which they could shower their feelings of Christian benevolence. To the media, theDemocratic candidates, the black man and the white woman presented an exquisite opportunityfor an exciting year of journalistic forays. More exquisite was the fact that contrary to theconvention, Obama’s funding had come in small donations on-line from small people. Thisamounted to millions of dollars far exceeding the money his opponents were able to collect frombig donors. All of a sudden, there was entirely a new electoral landscape. His election was hailedby friends and foes alike as the triumph of virtue in American democracy over the evil that it hadbeen subjected to. Where else could this have happened? Where else in the white western worldwas a black man president? They asked. Furthermore, not only was he the president of Americabut he was the most powerful man on earth. However, President Obama wanted no part of thisfantasy land. He was not to be swayed by the wishful thinkers and deterred from doing whathis instincts would urge him to do. After all, we humans cannot easily redesign ourselves. Sorevolting against the Messianic mission enforced upon him, he turned his back on his campaigncontributors (the small ones) and told the dreamers that it was time to wake up. They woke upalright. They woke up, not only to his present but also to his past. Here was a man, who hadpreviously turned his back on his African religious heritage and then again had turned his backon his mentor and pastor Jeremiah Wright, preparing to be listed in history as the first (andprobably the last) black president of the United States. Ideas he had plenty; ideals, he had none.Now the pundits are advising him to move to the middle in Clinton-Morrisonian style. Dick
Morris is not to be heard these days. Instead there is a new guide in town: William Daley, anexecutive of J.P. Morgan. He had openly opposed Obama’s healthcare reform and the financialregulation bill — My God, what a turnaround, from Obama to Nobama!
We are living in a world, where words like democracy and dictatorship have lost their meanings.Marx had given the slogan: “workers of the world unite”. They never did unite. Their workers’utopia was sabotaged by Gorbachev and modified beyond recognition by Deng Xiaoping but thecapitalists, without even publishing their manifesto, united into an almighty globalized force.Today the capitalism is omnipotent and omnipresent. It is faceless, non-discriminatory; does nothave any religious affiliations, no race barriers and no geographical boundaries; nurtures everyreligion under its wings and provides solace to every race on earth. Here in the United States, theCapitol Hill is where it lays its eggs and 535 men and women sit to hatch them.
There are three big businesses, which drive the engine of global capitalism: the oil industry, thepharmaceutical industry and the arms industry. Although the first two are closely linked to thehappiness and the miseries of people on earth, the armaments industry is highly specialized;assumes patriotic posture and determines the conditions of war and peace — or rather war onpeace — and has adversely affected the lives of every man, woman and child. It writes theprologue for the Armageddon. We can start with the wars in Europe, the First and the SecondWorld Wars, the Korean War, the war in Vietnam, the two Gulf Wars and the present Afghanwar. Millions of lives have been lost in those wars, including those, who died and were maimedin Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What were the outcomes of those wars? Did any ideology triumph?Did any empire expand? Did any group of people gain advantage over other groups? Did thecommon man in America receive any return on the enormous sacrifice of lives his fellowmenmade in those battlefields? None! It was just a morbid dance of destruction, a satanic expositionof murder and pillage around the globe, in which, the Capitol Hill and the White House haveplayed a prominent part.
In the First World War the Rothschilds had financed both the sides. Similarly, the financierscontrolling the armaments industry sell arms to the belligerents on both sides posing as patriotsin each country, extorting profits from hot conflicts as well as from the Cold War. They aredemons without borders. To achieve their goals they must create the conditions of fear and anatmosphere of paranoia among people, the most fertile ground for which is the United Statesof America, its legislators and its ill-informed electorate. The Cold War was their coup degrace, no battles, just war drums and massive arms sale. The United States now spends 54% ofits annual budget on “defense” and homeland security, much more than the rest of the worldcombined, although the main defense activity now is not armies and marines, navies and airforces but the C.I.A. drones, which shower fire on villages in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Thisis supposed to prevent attack on the continent of America by the Al-Qaeda brigandage acrossthe oceans. People are also made to believe that the Taliban have such mystical powers thatthey would engage America’s military might on the American soil, if not confronted in the
Indo-Caucasus. ”If we don’t fight them there, we will have to fight them here” is the amazingGoebbels style propaganda lie, the people here has been bombarded with for ages. Proposals toincrease expenditure on education and healthcare, which threaten to reduce profits for the armsmerchants are immediately countered by the Rightist revolution.
Those were some of the features of the American democracy. Now let us turn to the Arab-Israeliconflict in this context, the most relevant subject in this argument. Notwithstanding the rightsof each party to their homeland, the atrocities committed on the Jews by the Europeans and theJews on the Palestinians, the present realities stand on their own and should be viewed visa visthe global power politics. The biggest part of the world’s expenditure on armaments is directlyor indirectly connected with this conflict. The security of the state of Israel, which everyone isharping about, is only secondary to the wellbeing of the world armaments industry. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a bonanza for the arms manufacturers. The conflict provides it to endowIsrael with the most sophisticated weapons that have been invented and dump the extraneoushardware in the Arab countries. It is all a part of the war games and testing the equipment inreality situations. The process is guaranteed to continue, as long as Israel remains “invincible”and Arabs “the barking dogs”. In the Eighties Saddam Husain was one of the largest importersof arms in the world, but in the two Gulf wars, his hardware was sitting in the junk yard and hisarmy folded up in disgrace. In the contemporary scene, Saudi Arabia is where the money is andthe population full of princes with the penchant for extravaganza. Consider this comparison:Saudi Arabia’s population is about seven million, its total troop strength 247,000 and its annualdefense expenditure 38.2 billion dollars (ninth largest in the world). In contrast, India has apopulation of more than one billion; its total troop strength is 4.8 million (second largest in theworld) and its annual defense expenditure is only $32.7 billion (less than Saudi Arabia’s). It isanybody’s guess where the Saudi money is going and who is benefiting from it. Besides, onecannot see by any stretch of imagination the Saudis going to war against anyone any time sooninstead of waiting for the Americans and the Pakistanis to arrive.
So I strongly suggest that people, who are downtrodden, such as the Palestinians, see theirproblems in the light of the contradictions mentioned above. Humanity is now in two camps:the invisible exploiters and the exploited masses. The former has unity and solidarity, the latteris disingenuous and distraught. It is incumbent upon the exploited to know and recognize theenemy and then unite against him with those who have similar predicaments. This is the onlysolution. Waiving national or Islamic flags is glorious and spectacular but will be of no avail.The battle between truth and falsehood is universal, as mentioned in the Qur’an and everyother scripture. The America Muslims must join with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and theBuddhists on a common platform and fight against the tyranny of injustice. This way there willbe no stereotypes and no scapegoats. When you succeed, those who are on the side of justice,Muslims or Jews, will be rewarded and those on the other side will be thrown into the dustbin ofHistory.

By: Waheeduddin Ahmed, Ph.D.

Muslim citizens in the U.S.A., as well as in Western Europe are facing an unpredictable future because of the ever-increasing xenophobia which pervades these societies. Among the various causes is the compulsion of imperialist wars, started by the Bush administration and zealously expanded by its successor. Such wars are necessitated by the bulging unchallenged military power of any country as history has repeatedly shown. The socio-political dynamics in such a situation do not work in any ethical or moral framework. The military machine has momentum in accordance with its weight. Bush or Obama at the wheel make no difference. It is no accident of history that as the USA, finding itself the supreme unchallenged military power feels to flex its muscles, Muslims happen to be its choicest target. Weak, fragmented, non-nuanced, fratricidal and estranged from rationality, they are ready to be preyed upon.

At present, the American military machine has rolled into Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. Other countries will follow, which offer suitable political landscape for such channelization. The wanton destruction of life and property and established institutions in their homelands has radicalized hundreds of thousands of Muslim youth worldwide. Nowhere will this effect be more prominent than in Europe and North America, which are home to millions of Muslim youth, native-born or immigrant, who will be angry to the point of committing irrational acts. Here lies the potential danger. It will be a fallacy to believe that they are controlled by Al-Qaeda or governmental or non-governmental agencies in their homelands. They are the products of the socio-political environment in vogue in the countries of their residence.

The Department of Homeland Security and its counterparts in the European countries are doing a good job in trying to prevent terrorist acts from happening, although there have been some clear cases of enticement to commit crimes and entrapment of gullible youth by the law enforcement agencies. However, we cannot expect these efforts to be 100% effective. Things will happen, which will change the dynamics of community relations and harden the attitudes of the people. The more our military destabilizes the Muslim countries, more will be the number of youth joining the terrorist groups and greater their chances of success. To make matters worse, the American government has put itself in a straitjacket by declaring that any act of terrorism on the American soil by ex-patriots such as the people of Pakistani origin will provoke a strong response against that country. This will close the loop of mutual destruction and usher in a terrible period of turmoil for the entire world. Unfortunately, nobody is looking at the obvious solution nor is the White House amenable to any suggestion from our side.

So, here is the question. What are we, the Muslims of America, to do in terms of self-preservation? Shall we resign to our fate and wait for the doomsday or shall we be stirred to action and at least develop a strategy to avert the impending disaster?  I suggest we opt for the latter.

There is no doubt that we have to treat this matter as a national emergency. It must be the fulcrum of all our activities. If we can learn from the Jews how to survive, we must. We should put “Islamophobia” at par with “anti-Semitism”. The meaningless and wasteful annual conventions should give way to focused debates and discussions. Strategies must be developed and solutions must be found. The urgency with which we are confronted, demands, first of all, that we obliterate commercialism, sectarianism, egotism, oligarchy and other negative traits from our institutions.

Secondly, we should stop looking towards our Old countries and detach ourselves sentimentally from them. They have created an unbelievable mess. For example, individuals and institutions in Pakistan are immersed in corruption from top to toe. It is only a matter of time before providence deals them a final blow. The Arab world, it seems, is peeping out from the dustbin of history. Events in Palestine, which is the epicenter of all the turmoil in the Arab and Muslim world, now presents a scene, which makes us think that we are hallucinating. Having told us a million times that Israel was theirs and our arch enemy, the Palestinian leadership is now aligned with the same enemy in exchange for peace and comfort and plots to use the Israeli gunships against their poor relations in Gaza. The most powerful Arab states tell the Israelis to attack other Arabs and finish them off quickly before the UN Security Council could intervene. It seems that we must exit from this world of madness, if we want to keep our own sanity intact.

After retrieving our sanity, we should look inwards and see if there is something we should or should not be doing. For one thing, it should not be difficult to surmise that while our actions have been quite benign; our mouths have been on a mission of quixotic self-infliction. We have killed hundreds and thousands of Kuffar in our verbose hallucinations invoking, falsely and stupidly, the injunctions from the Quran and Hadith. Many of our khateebs test their indiscreet verbosity at the pulpit. We must put an end to this.

Our opiate self-indulgence in irrational gossip and conspiracy theories is another problem, which keeps us sterile. The problem we have been discussing above has been solved and resolved as our detective masterminds have discovered that the Jews done it! We are now free to sit down for another round of dope. We must free the minds of our young men and women from lazy thinking and intellectualize them — Don’t take my word for it; see the various exhortations in the Quran. Teaching rituals is fine but rituals are not the end; they are a means to the end. We must broaden the scope of our teachings, in schools as well as in the masjids, to include religious as well as secular topics — Remember Dar-al Hikmah?  Anger is justified and anger against injustice is sacrosanct but we should sublime this anger into the spirit of competitiveness.

Friday khutbas are the greatest means of mass communication that our religion has bestowed upon us. People gather in numbers unachievable in other gatherings, captive in one place and attentive to a word. At no other time and at no other place can an educator get an opportunity to disseminate information with such ease. We should fully utilize this opportunity to fill the gap in knowledge and awareness, instead of sprinkling on the congregations, words which are fragrant but of no consequence. Inspirational speech must be occasional, not perpetual. Putting people in a trans does not translate into actions.

Interfaith dialogue is a significant part of our activities these days. No one can deny the usefulness of this public relations exercise. However, what is more urgently needed in the present circumstance is building bridges across communities and groups: rainbow coalition, as Rev. Jesse Jackson would call it. Traditionally, the first generation immigrants are inward looking and self-centered and very resistant to social intercourse with other communities. This is very prominently manifest among the first generation Palestinians, a majority of which owns businesses in inner cities. In many cases the nature of their relationship with their clientele borders on hostility. Experience has shown that this situation is not likely to change any time soon but the second and the successive generations must be malleable as the cultural orthodoxy gets diluted. It is this generation of immigrants which must be coaxed into being outward looking and to sever adhesion to parental attitudes.

There have been a number of incidents in which the converted Muslims are accused of committing or attempting to commit terrorist acts. We must recognize that New Muslims are our greatest asset. Since docility is not one of their characteristics, inappropriate militancy can be very easily induced and used by special interest groups to serve their ends. These special interests themselves do not proselytize. They attract people who are already in the fold of Islam but are looking for explanations and directions which the masjids have failed to provide them with. They are also looking for social adoption having been estranged from their non-Muslim families. The solution to this problem is obvious but not easy. Here again insular attitudes are the main culprit. A focused and concerted effort to meet their educational, spiritual and social needs is an absolute requirement for the security and the integrity of the community.

I am not a legal expert but I am baffled by the fact that the law allows a government agent to spend months and years with a gullible young person, slowly working up his emotions and wearing down his resistance to commit a violent act, whereupon the courts step in and commit him to life imprisonment. To me this is a travesty. Since there does not seem to be a legal recourse, we must have our own “counterespionage”. Also, the parents, the guardians, friends and companions and community leaders must keep a watchful eye on our vulnerable youth and their questionable associates in order to prevent things from getting out of hand. Our young men and women should be strictly forbidden to discuss politics with anyone except in large groups.

Lastly but not less importantly, I want to touch upon a complex issue: stereotypes. In France, they have legislated against women wearing veils. As is obvious, this is only a propaganda issue. The number of resident women wearing veils is miniscule. In the United States, one will have to wait for years, if one wants to catch a woman in veils and in a majority of the Muslim countries, veiled women in public places are a rarity and yet we have allowed our enemies to create controversy over a non-issue. However, the Islamic requirement of modesty is another matter. There is extraordinary leniency with regard to men as compared to women.

Men can dress in tuxedos or in beachwear.  They don’t have to wear a kufi at work and they don’t. Women, on the other hand are required to dress modestly, which is defined in the Quran and Sunnah. We must remember that hijab is a mode of clothing, not a style. This is where we have plenty of flexibility. Instead of wearing a uniform let our women diversify the “hijab” and be creative. Let us camouflage and offer multiple stereotypes rather than one. A case may be made that we must insist on our fundamental rights but the realities are often very ugly. There are various ways in which a woman wearing hijab could be discriminated against in hiring and in promotions, without a reasonable chance of successful litigation. We should not believe that we are living in a society of benevolent and compassionate angels.

By: Waheeduddin Ahmed, Ph.D.

From what I have read, the idea originated in the mind of a real state developer, Sharif El-Gamal and was sold to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Mrs. Daisy Khan, a modernist interior designer, who heads ASMA (American Society for Muslim Advancement). Mayor Bloomberg, a friend of these people supported it and has since made it a question of his unshakable beliefs in the freedom of religion and the rights of all Americans to express it. Many articles have been written about it. Maureen Dowd, in her typical flare, passion and wits has supported it, whereas Tom Friedman, expressing his conditional liberalism has linked it to the freedom of religious expression in Saudi Arabia. Governor Paterson of New York has suggested government land away from Ground Zero, on which to build the mosque and the Republican candidate Rick Lazio has made the opposition to the mosque a campaign issue, so have many election hopefuls in other parts of the country. The former mayor of New York Rudi Giuliani is vitriolic in opposition to the mosque. Sarah Palin appears in the contraversy with all her glamor, gimmicks and election promises on behalf of the Tea Party. President Barack Hussain Obama passionately defended the right of Muslims to build the mosque, only to reverse it the very next day, demonstrating his lack of integrity as we all have come to know by now. The Jewish Defense League and Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York have come out against it.

However, nobody has asked the Muslims of America or even those of New York whether this is what they want and whether this showpiece mosque would be in their interest. The public opinion in America is against the mosque. If the purpose of the proposed mosque was reconciliation and to promote better understanding between Muslims and the people of other faiths, this purpose has already been defeated. It is now a political football between the American “liberals” and “conservatives”. It will be a bonanza for the Tea Party and a security risk for Muslims, who pray there, not to speak of permanently strained relations between Muslims and Christians. It will be a memorial of the perceived Muslim attack on America for all times to come, not an interfaith center or a bastion of “moderate Sufi Islam”, the brand which Imam Feisal is supposed to propagate.  Have we taken leave of our senses?

Speaking of the “Muslim attack on America”, let us not forget to bring home the point that what happened there was an act of war, a war, which had been raging for a long time, between the American government and its perceived enemies overseas. We the Muslims of America may have our opinions about certain issues, depending upon what we see as right or wrong and we may even be opposed to the actions of our government but we were certainly not a party in that war. Our young men and women are performing their patriotic duty when called upon to do so and are serving in the armed forces. So, we refuse to be associated with 9/11 or any symbol of it in any shape and form, even if it is a mosque, so thoughtlessly proposed by those in New York.

By Waheeduddin Ahmed, Ph.D.

I am very fond of reading the editorial page of “Jang” on line, the daily Urdu newspaper of Pakistan. The articles are no less articulate than those of the Op-Ed page in the New York Times: perhaps even more so. “Jang” can justifiably boast that it was and still is at the pinnacle of Urdu journalism. I remember reading the columns of Shaukat Thanwi, Rais Amrohi, Ibraheem Jalees and Ahmed Nadeem Qasimi years ago. Now, when I read “Jang” my nostalgia kicks up and I am tempted to summon my own talent in writing Urdu prose and poetry, which has been in slumber for many decades. However, a number of things prevent me from doing so. Firstly, regaining fluency in Urdu will be time consuming; secondly, I would have no means of publishing my Urdu writings and the most important reason being that if the passion and the devotion of such literary geniuses as Irfan Siddiqui, Ata-ul-Haque Qasmi and Haroon Rashid have so far failed to move their nation, what difference would my mediocre political critique make, as I don’t even live there?

The ahl-e-qalam (literarily the people of the pen) are pouring out their lamentations day and night, about what they see in and what they think will happen to Pakistan, in the manner of the prophets of Israel: Amos, Micah and Isaiah but will anyone listen? I say to myself: didn’t the states of Judea and Samaria eventually perish?

The area of Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa, already hit by many man-made disasters is under water, drowning people’s hopes and aspirations and the “elected” president is on an official self-serving tour of the enemy country; the prime minister goes to inspect a fake hospital for the victims of the flood! Can anything remotely as shameful be found in the annals of history?

In Pakistan, the word government means different things to different people. To some it is a God-given chance for the unlimited enhancement of personal wealth, to others, an opportunity to extend the power of life and death over other people. To the common man, words like democracy (jamhuriat, its Urdu equivalent) mean as much as a Latin botanical name for a family of wild flowers, devoid of any practical meaning. Elections are periodical episodes for pleasing the  landlords and the bosses or to form gangs and bargain away the votes.

Pakistan was an idea, not a nation. Its morphosis never even began. Since the demise of its founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, ideals have evaporated and the light has gone out of nationhood. Starting from bureaucrats like Ghulam Mohammad, imperialist political agents like Iskander Mirza and self-declared field marshals like Ayub Khan, a long winter of oligarchical rule began, wherein some genuine politicians were assassinated like Liaqat Ali Khan and some like Khawaja Nazimuddin and Fazlul Haque trampled under the boots of dominant ethnic cultures,  resulting in the eventual dismemberment of the country. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was a populist charismatic leader. His eloquence, his rhetoric about “Islamic Socialism”, his quest for nuclear deterrent and his anti-imperialist stance did not sit well in Washington and London — a parallel may be drawn with Patrice Lumumba of the Congo and Salvador Allende of Chile. So he was promptly dispatched. None like him had preceded him in Pakistan and none has followed. His progeny has taken up his mantle, like in many other South Asian countries where wives and daughters follow famous fathers and husbands but the mantle never fits; the hidden faces of incompetence and unworthiness assume enormous proportions under the veils of lineage. The ancestral genius seldom propagates; often it degenerates. In Pakistan, Bhutto had tried to abolish feudalism but after him it came back with a vengeance and took hold of the party he left behind. His daughter was wooed by the very countries and cultures he had denounced and was married into a family of business people with unsavory business practices, quite distant from the educational standards of the Bhuttos. In the end, following his execution, his idealism was also  put to death.

We have four secular political parties in Pakistan today. Each is a family mafia, more like the Columbian drug cartels than like the All India Muslim League of Jinnah. Elections in Pakistan are incapable of returning any government but of thieves and dacoits. The mother nation will deliver what it is impregnated with, its womb being vile and defiled. As the elite live in ivory towers, intermittent military dictatorships toll the bells of doom in the corridors of power. Alternating between the cabals of political parties, when a general is not at the helm, has increased the surge of fatalism and corruption. Some religious leaders are so devoid of religious ethics that when they cast their shadows on society, many contemplate relinquishing religion. Masjids are now slaughter houses for vile sectarian fanatics, who seek hellfire under the minaret rather than in whorehouses and taverns.

To a historian these conditions are not unfamiliar. They existed in many countries prior to revolutions. The French revolution, the Bolshevik revolution and the Islamic Revolution of Iran were carried on the shoulders of people fed up with less severe socio-political conditions. Pakistan is now ripe for a revolution but the nature of the revolution is unpredictable. Revolutions happen in urban centers, not in the agrarian hinterlands. In Pakistan, the demography of cities like Karachi, Hyderabad, Lahore, Peshawar and Multan will be a determining factor. Karachi is in the grip of a mafia exploiting people’s ethnic divisions and grievances. Spontaneous uprisings such as in Paris and Tehran may or may not happen in Karachi and Lahore. However, if the young ones: the students, the workers and the unemployed come out, they will have a tryst with success. There is no time to waste; they should rise and march towards destiny.