Illiteracy causes Terrorism--Wishful Thinking?

Every once in a while someone I know—not to mention a million others, often highly educated Pakistani expats and not a few caucasians both in Western governments and even progressive circles, but also people in Pakistan—will express the thought that what is really causing all this extremism and fanaticism is that Pakistan, for example, has an abysmal literacy rate. And all we have to do is start 3 million schools, and we "wild and wooly gentlemen" of those crazy parts will hold hands and chant Rumi, if not sing kumbaya. One do-gooder just a couple of days ago was saying on NPR that you could run a whole school for a year in the money spent on maintaining one foreign soldier in Afghanistan.

I am not sure I agree.

These are two separate problems. Illiteracy might be fueling extremism, but the ideology behind it is very much the product of literate brains. The inflexible, extreme attitudes we see in a lot of Pakistan's Youth--on Facebook, for example--is the product of the tinkering with the EDUCATIONAL system and society by Gen. Ziaul Haque and his regime, not of illiteracy. Making people literate--rather than enlightened--only gives them the means to read and absorb things like Farhat Hashmi, "disturbing" emails, and so on. [Which is not limited to Pakistan or Muslims; for every Geo TV there is a Fox News; for every Mullah Rocketi, a Franklin Graham. But I digress.] Just consider a few points:

• Who was it that was most enamoured of the Sufis that brought Islam to what is today Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India? (At least one or two of them literally students and friends of Rumi.) The educated elite of the day, or the poor, illiterate working folk?
• Who attends lectures by Farhat Hashmi and radical Western Muslim (like the Hizbut-Tahrir and some Americans I could mention) ? The taxi driver and the working class Muslim, or the professionals at some mosques in Silicon Valley and Toronto that I could mention?

Anyone paying attention to this? (Somalia...and Bangladesh?)

You know, we all need to be paying more attention to Somalia (and, while I am at it, Bangladesh, but I will come to that another time). For example y'all saw the headlines about the recent news about a new President taking over in Somalia. And then of his coming to an agreement with "Islamist" "rebels". (Okay, so, yes, there's much to be said about how "real" the "presidency" is and all that.)

But there's talk about ministers handing over to other ministers (okay, so the VOA might not be the best place for objective news)--something that I don't think Somalia's had since a Somali classmate of mine in Freshman year at college in Karachi told me "A civil war started today in my country."

But what really struck me was why was it ONLY the CNN article that carried this paragraph:

However, Ahmed told a news conference he won't agree to a strict interpretation of the law,which forbids girls from attending school, requires veils for women and beards for men, and bans music and television.

I mean, with all that angst about deals with Islamism (yes, I use that word; take me up on it) isn't that what it's about? Shouldn't we be paying attention to this? Being supportive of this kidn of thing if that really plays out as the quote promises rather than groping at "moderate Islamists"? [Something I need to pick on, too.]

---

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Somalia - Islamists

As Gandhi would have put it...

I apologise for the hit-and-run post, and though I have great respect for the man, I am not a Gandhian. But following everything over the weekend, I am left with a thought this morning that channels Gandhi; A War on Terror would be a great idea--if either the West or Muslims choose to take up the idea.

---

Technorati tags applicable to this post: War on Terror

Kabul; Britain; Putting a Face on Blogging and Civil Society in Pakistan...

Sorry I have been MIA for a bit. A couple or three things jump out from the New York Times, NPR and the 'Net this morning.

Firstly, there's an op-ed in the NYT this morning by the country director for the Institute of War and Peace Reporting providing his personal perspective about the bombing of the Serena Hotel in Kabul, a watering hole (and just a place to hole up) for expats, particularly. And there have been other stories about Afghanistan in The Times, on NPR, other places in the last few days. It seemed to hit me; is it a coincidence that the Western Media and Zeitgeist is sitting up and noticing--or should I say acknowledging, since some information has always been around--that Afghanistan is down the tubes because the Taliban, as Mr. McKenzie tells us, have now started a policy of targeting westerners?

The other thing that jumped out at me was from a series that NPR is doing on Muslim Women in Britain.

As I have said umpteen times, until we sit up and notice that the folks who are adopting the niqaab in Britian today are not adopting the traditional ways of Muslims, but something new, we are only going to continue headlong towards the abyss as a planet. After all, does it make any sense to, on the one hand, say that the radicals are a throw-back to medieval times and that "[o]ne meets an increasing number of British Muslim[s]... who are saying … you should go back to the veil, you should go back to our traditional ways" on the one hand and then admit that, for one, the "Hizbut Tahrir's goal is to promote a global Islam, cleansed of all ethnic or cultural traditions." I mean, think about that!

As I have acknowledged before, it is good to see folks (including Muslims, especially in Britain--the US is a generation or so behind in these matters, but what can one do about that? some things just have to run their course) finally engage with the fanatical tendencies within Muslim communities in a more detailed way. But until and unless we all--both outsiders and within the community--stop framing the discussion as, how did Sylvia Poggili put it? being the discussion between people who are "secular" and those who are "devout"; between those who think Sharia is a good idea and those who are against it, we are doomed to have the "Clash of Fundamentalisms" be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Until we start to think about what parts of the Muslim Ideological landscape--like the equivalents in other faith communities and ethnic groups and so on--are the ones from which terrorism and militant, inflexible fanaticism stem and until even us Muslims stop saying this is just about Islam versus the West or that this modern neo-purist strain that is so dominant today is the same as "traditional Islam"--or, worse, The One True, Pure Islam as practised by The Prophet--we're up the wrong creek without a paddle.

And lastly, a shout-out to my peeps, so to speak. There's a clip on Google Video today of an interview with two of Pakistan's most prominent bloggers on an English-language breakfast show. Well worth watching, what with Pakistan in the news in such a big way.



[Original at The Teeth Maestro's blog.]

---

Cross-posted on the iFaqeer, Wadiblog, ProgressiveIslam.org, and Pak Tea House, blogs.
Technorati tags applicable to this post: Pakistan - Muslims in Britain - Afghanistan - Sylvia Poggioli - Bloggers - Teeth Maestro - Jamash - Hizbut Tahrir - Islamism

Cry of Pain -- or Call to Arms?

Adil Najam's recent post on Pakistaniat is quite a cry of pain and a call to arms; he's not someone that jumps into political frays--least of all on a site he's invested blood, toil, tears, and sweat in building over the last year and a half as an inclusive space. Do read it.

Over the weekend, I got quite an education on the history of violence on Pakistani campuses--most specifically, the one I ended up on in the late 80s-early 90s--at an alumni convention here in Silicon Valley, and will post my thoughts on that as soon as I can. (I am trying to tone them down.)

And the point is not that I think no one has the right to hold the political, theological or social opinions the Taliban, the Jamaat, or anyone else holds. But subverting the writ of the state is not in the tradition of The Prophet of Islam. (SAW) He did not take up arms until a community elected him Head of State and he was at the head of a government.

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Adil Najam - Pakistan - Taliban

Who is a Muslim?

I just had reason to say this in reply to a comment on this blog by a blogger I really respect and like:

It is really odd--about 50 years ago, the government of Pakistan convened a council of Ulema to decide "Who is a Muslim?" Having declared ourselves an "Islamic Republic" the matter was legally pressing. Their decision in the end was that the State and community must recognize anyone who claims to be a Muslim to be a Muslim. That was the official position of the 2nd largest Muslim nation in the world--then the only "Islamic Republic"around--and that of its Ulema. Today, only the most progressive of organizations--who you, it seems, do not want to consider properly Muslim--holds that position.

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Who is a Muslim? - Islam - Muslims - Shia-Sunni Relations

Islamism, Episode 1: "My qualm is with Islamism and not with Islam"

Just a few days ago, someone asked what the definition was of "Islamist". One of things on my "ketchup" list is sitting down and compiling a definition from what I and others have said in conversations online and off. But this caught my eye a few days ago, in an interview on alt.Muslim, and it provides a very good place to start:

You've obviously titled your book "The Islamist," which is a bit of a loaded word these days. What is your definition of "Islamist" as you're using it in this book?

Ed Husain: In very broad terms, three things. Firstly, there's the rejection of 1400 years of Muslim traditional scholarship and re-reading of scripture with political lenses. Secondly, they advocate a world view that's based on eventually at some stage confronting the West. And thirdly, they reject mainstream Muslims and give us all sorts of labels such as 'non-practising Muslims', 'jahils', 'partial Muslims', and so on. Generally it's those three things and all of this is underwritten by the works of particular writers - to be more specific, Sayyid Maududi, Sayyid Qutb, Taqiuddin al-Nabhani and, in our times, Fathi Yaqoun, and so on.

It's a really important question, especially from a Muslim point of view because many Muslims confuse Islam with Islamism. The lines have been blurred and my qualm is with Islamism - the ideology that's been set up in the name of the faith - and not against Islam, the religion that our Prophet left us and which was developed by our scholars of all traditions - Shia, Sunni, whatever. My qualm is with Islamism and not with Islam. I think increasingly Muslims, thanks to Islamist propaganda, have failed to see the difference between the two.

You can read the whole interview on alt.Muslim:

http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1929_0_25_0_C

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Islamism - Clash of Fundamentalisms - Clash of Civilizations - tag - tagname

Mujahideen, Jihadis, and Other Afghans

In discussions on Afghanistan, it is distressing to see even serious academics with a background in Pakistan conflate all of the resistance in Afghanstan to the Soviets under the "Jihadi" label. Ahmed Shah Masood, for example, was very much one of the Afghan Mujahideen, but was no "Jihadi"...most of the warlords in that war were nowhere near the Taliban, Al-Qaeda or Pakistani Jihadis in ideology. Of course, the US and Pakistani governments had a weakness for Jihadis like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and later found they could best do business with the Taliban, but that's another story.

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Afghanistan - Islamism - Mujahideen

NPR on "What is Islamofacism?"

We've heard so much cogitating, protesting, and so on on the issue, that it was a refreshingchange to see NPR actually talk to a scholar on what the word "fascism" means and so on:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5743773

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Islamofascism - Islamic Fascism