Jinnah was no Ataturk.

A lot of Pakistan (and diaspora) "progressives" and/or champions of democracy and so on often invoke Ataturk. And say that Asif Zardari should not be President of Pakistan. So here's the summary of what I said in one such conversation:

Jinnah was no Ataturk. One was a man of legal means, democracy and the rule of law--to the extent of disagreeing with Gandhi on rabble-rousing and demagoguery. The other was a brutal autocrat.

The person I was conversing with said something to the effect of being in favour of everything Ataturk did, but without the brutality. Huh? Brutality IS what he did. Like a lot of the policies, effects, and blowback of the kind of imperialism practiced by the European powers in general and the British Empire in particular during the Age of Colonization, (and, to a large extent, still practiced as US and Western "foreign policy" in a post-colonial, some would say neo-colonial age) I see the Young Turks as one of those things that interrupted, delayed, and perverted the healthy evolution of the Turkish state and society. (The Armenian Genocide included, which was something carried out by the same team.) Giving us the Islamist government we have there today (which I really haven't made up my mind about) as surely as putting in place and propping up Mohammad Reza Pahlavi gave us the "Islamic Republic" in Iran.

This a quick summary of a discussion I had on Facebook. If you'd like to discuss something, or think I made a leap of logic you missed, please leave a comment below, or reach out on twitter or facebook. [And apologies for the earlier subject line that mentioned Asif Zardari and ZA Bhutto. More on them later.]

A Call to Compassion, Patience and Peace between Muslims in this Season

Personally, as I was saying on my Facebook status, my family and I are not in a very festive mood on this festival. But our prayers are for everyone to receive all the blessings of Eid.

One very important note that I have been working on, on behalf of the MPV, is the following. Please do ponder it and sign the pledge if you see fit:

(Click on the graphic to download Eid Song)

In The Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Mabrook! Eid Mubarak. Have a Blessed Eid.

Ramadan Kareem! The Noble Month of Ramadan is coming to and end and the blessed festival of Eid-ul-Fitr is upon us. It is a time when Muslims the world over focus on spirituality, compassion, patience, peace and the joys of having completed a month of fasting for the pleasure of God. Two months and ten days from now, we will all celebrate Eid-ul-Adha, the time of the year when we focus on sacrifice, humility, dedication to our faith, and the blessings of the pilgrimage for our community. ‘Tis the season, as the saying goes, to renew our deen, our faith in Islam, a religion that derives its very name from the same root as a word for peace.

Over the years, three or four clear positions have evolved within the global Muslim community and particularly in North America with regards the method of determining the dates of these holy days and month, with some advocating for local moonsightings, others preferring to follow Saudi Arabia, yet others relying upon astronomical calculations, and so on. Each group holds its position in all sincerity and with great passion; each group has faith, tradition, and logic to back up its position. Unfortunately, the differences in approach, and the strength with which each position is held, often lead to disrespectful exchanges within the community, and even to lasting grudges and ill will between neighbors, friends, and members of local congregations.

This year, and in future years, we at the Muslims for Progressive Values would like to invite everyone who identifies themselves with the community of Muslims, or who participates in the cultural life of the Muslim community, to make a commitment to engage with people who hold different positions on the matter of dates and calendars (or any other issue) with respect, good will, and compassion. If we can pass this test of fraternity within the community, if we can treat other Muslims with respect whether we agree or disagree, and do so without losing sight of what holds us together and makes us brothers and sisters in our faith and our humanity; if we can do that, then we can try to begin fulfilling our role as the upholders of peace and justice and truly be the best of communities.

The month of Ramadan, the Hajj season, and the days of the Eids are some of the most blessed moments of our calendar, let us try to fill them with peace, compassion, and good will towards all humanity; and let us start within our community.

Have a blessed Eid, and please sign this pledge:

We pledge to engage with respect and good will towards those who hold views different from ours on the calendar of our festivals. Wa Allahu Aalam, only the Almighty has perfect knowledge.

at http://www.petitiononline.com/EidPeace/petition.html

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Eid - Moon Fighting

Can a Muslim treat a Non-Muslim like Brother?

I first came across the sentiment I want to talk about in a video of a lecture by Zaid Shakir or someone, in which a young person asks him, after his lecture, if he heard him right when he said that it is our duty, as Muslims, to be kind and just (I forget the exact words) in our dealings with people. The young man's question was whether it was a duty to deal well with Muslims or all of humanity.

And now there's a quite a discussion going on at the Muslim Bloggers Alliance blog (and a cross-post at the author's own blog) about a very similar issue.

The question, in this instance, is whether a hadith (a report of something The Prophet said or did) that says "No one truly believes until he wants for his brother what he wants for himself." applies only to fellow Muslims or to any human being.

While that hadith in itself, since it refers to a "brother", and is easily interpreted to mean a brother in faith, the question is important.

It is very exasperating for people like me to hear things like "we Muslims have far too long advocated an exclusivist philosophy".

Funny thing is, most young American Muslims often dismiss the way Islam was traditionally interpreted and practised (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanbali, and the two Shi'a schools) as either "medieval" or "bid'a-ridden". I am not a scholar so I can't speak of whole schools, but I am a person brought up by traditional Hanafi parents (South Asians--who make up a good 30-50% of the Ummah) and who had my early education in government schools in (then traditionally Maliki) Northern Nigeria. And I have always understood "brother" in the hadith in question to mean "the next man". Man. Not Muslim.

And the curriculum in Northern Nigeria, my parents' upbringing--all of that was not put in place because "political considerations have come into play". It was what a *lot* of very traditional Muslims held to be their faith.

I know WHY he did it, but it is very vexing that my brother Naeem has to say things like "...this otherwise excellent posting..." and "Before somebody accuses me of reinterpreting this hadith for my own purposes, they should know that this is the understanding of the scholars from centuries back."

I say that in a lot of these matters, we only need look back half a century to what the conventional wisdom was in the Muslim world. And I am not defending the misogyny, illiteracy, and corruption that a lot of Muslim cultures were ridden with. I am an activist who grew up in Northern Nigeria and Pakistan and have worked in the field of human rights on the ground in Pakistan. I follow affairs in India very closely and have friends and relatives there.

But American and Western Muslim friends have often asked me in the last few years, as I got involved in organizations and efforts that carried the "progressive Muslim" label, "..but, but Islam is progressive in its nature; why do you need to say 'progressive Muslim'?" This kind of issue is exactly why.

I have often had to say to people: Islam told us to be nice to our neighbours. Not to our *Muslim neighbours*. The Prophet and Awliya and Ulema down the centuries have set an example of good conduct and actively looking out for the welfare of even their Jewish neighbours. A story is told of one aalim, of how he had a neighbour, who just happened to be Jewish, who would intentionally disturb him, especially during worship. Then, for a few days, the disturbance stopped. The aalim took it upon himself to find out and discovered that the man was ill or something--I forget the exact details--and took it upon himself to help. THAT was the Islam I was brought up in. And I am thirty-six. My upbringing was not changed because of events in 2001 or since. Today, do most of us even know the names of our non-Muslim next door neighbours?

Islam is by definition progressive and humanistic; but how we often understand it, especially how we have come to understand it in the last 2 or 3 decades, and how Muslims have come to practise it, is not at all humanistic, humane or compassionate. Looking out for your own tribe is not compassion. It is not Ihsan. It is parochialism. Being just only to members of your own tribe is not adl. It is discrimination.

Wa Allah Aalam, but in my very "naqis" opinion, one thing should be pretty obvious to anyone who reads the Qur'an--and most of the folks on that site seem much more formally educated in what we called "Islamic Religious Knowledge" in in the Nigerian educational system. Where the Qur'an wants to refer or address Muslims, it says "Ya Ayyuhal Momineen", or "Ya Ayyuhal Muslimeen". But in other places, it refers very clearly to "Rabbin Nas, Malikin Nas". Do go back and read the verses on compassion. For example:

Surah 60, Verse 8: 8. Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

Tell me He is not telling you that he will love you for being kind to non-Muslims--who are not belligerent towards you.

In my late 30s, and having lived under more than half a dozen military dictators, all forms of corruption in the Third World, and at the receiving end of the American Media, there is little that surprises me. But I have to admit that it amazes me no end that whether a Muslim should be kind and humane towards non-Muslims is even a question.

Wa Allahu Aalam, indeed!

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Ijtema.net - Progressive Muslim Thought - Exclusivist Thought in Islam

B. Raman, Hyderabad, and Bushra Zaidi

It is reassuring that I am not the only one making the connection between Hyderabad, Kashmir, and other hotspots where Muslims are a "community of concern". But it's also worrying that I am in a small minority trying to advocate for folks to take a look at the bigger picture. Just reacting to the current outrage only guarantees that the cycle of mayhem continues—and that the people and groups whose political fortunes are contingent on that cycle continue to win
.

I could have written my last two posts (this and this) almost as a rejoinder to a column from B. Raman in Outlook India. Of course, he is taking it from the perspective of a "Security" hawk within the Indian establishment and not looking, as I am trying to do, beyond the tension between Muslims and other communities and on to intra-Muslim tensions, as in Karachi. The issue really is one of fanaticism being left on the table as the only option for a lot of young, educated folks (and yes, it is the educated ones I am particularly concerned about)—Muslim or not. South Africa, where Mandela himself has never said that their resort to violence was wrong, Ireland and Sri Lanka come to mind.

Of course, Mr. Raman's article is triggered by the recent tragedy/atrocity in Hyderabad, and I haven't yet commented here about it. I have, however, been having a very interesting conversation with a young friend in the city of the Nizams and hope to post excerpts from that here soon. Suffice it to say that the circle is complete; where we in Karachi once looked at the Muslim Majlis's role in Andhra Pradesh politics as an inspiration for what a minority can achieve, the events of the last fews days, with the role of the police in shooting protesters being a very major sore point for Hyderabadis, is eerily reminiscent of the episode that kicked off Karachi's troubles 22 years ago. (Look in the righthand column here--the story is not complete on that site. What really kicked off the riots was the one-two punch of Bushra Zaidi's accident and the police's inaction about it coupled with acts like starting and moving a police van while a young female student of Bushra Zaidi's—and my mother's—alma mater was standing atop it making a speech.)

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Karachi - Hyderabad - Pakistan - India - Terrorism - Clash of Fundamentalisms - War on Terror

Following up on the Cycle of Violence and Terrorism

After my post yesterday about "Muslims in the USA, Muhajirs in Pakistan, and More", I have gotten into some very interesting conversations--which is what I was hoping; we all have to get beyond just the platitudes and finger pointing and to where we are looking at the bigger picture, anger and reaction, no matter how just, can only lead to repeating the cycle of violence and mayhem we see so often around the globe. Here's what I replied to one friend, edited and enhanced very lightly:

My point, in the Pakistani context, but that is just one example, is that there needs to be a voice at the table speaking for the concerns of Urban Sindh--especially Karachi and its Urdu speakers. And not exclusively--other voices need to be at the table, too. And, yes, the MQM has been a very flawed vehicle for that. Just as other groups, the Jiyay Sindh Movement, or Bugti, or what-have-you, have been flawed vessels of other aspirations. But I have always held that the MQM is not a cause of the problems that Karachi has, but a symptom of it. The problem is that since others did not do much for the needs and aspirations of, especially middle- and lower-middle-class, Karachi (and Hyderabad, and Sukkur), when the MQM leadership came along, they had an audience with who had tried every other option (trying to support Fatima Jinnah, the Jamaat, ...) and been bitterly disappointed.

Look at Palestine: I am a very strong opponent of Islamism (both militant and otherwise) as manifested by Hizbollah (and the Jamaat, and others), but it is because the powers that be (including Muslim leadership globally) were not going to sit down and really work with the leadership that the Palestinians had (Arafat, and now Marwan Barghouti and others), the people threw their support behind Hizbollah. That was my point behind the Black Panther Party allusion--Martin and Malcolm were murdered, which made African Americans much more open to the Panthers, and left the Panthers as the only visible "leadership" at some points. Also Kashmir--the complete hijacking of the election under Rajiv is what drove Yaseen Malik and his generation to the gun and made them open to the hot (proxy) war Ziaul Haq was trying to start....

Given that, the problem as I see it, both with Muslims in the West and globally, and "communities of concern" in places like Karachi, and Kashmir, and Palestine, is that, now that there is "leadership" in place that a lot of us find less-than-savoury, in the way that deal with them, we have to be careful not to seem like we're trivializing the real issues that they base their politics upon; otherwise the "silent majority" that we say exists in those communities, and whose "hearts and minds" we say need to reach, get the wrong message and we're set back a long way in terms of solving the problems them that make the current options successful.

Does that make sense?

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Pakistan - Terrorism - Karachi - Kashmir

Two Posts: One on Fanatics and Insurrections, One on an Artifact

Of late, I have been posting things on this blog and then cross-posting them on Eteraz.org and ProgressiveIslam.org. But a few moments ago, I posted something on Eteraz.org that started as a rant in the comments section of another post there. Do check it out if you get a chance.

The other post I want to invite folks over to read is a very different, cultural piece over at Pakistaniat.com titled, there, "Technology: Tribute to a Pakistani Artifact".

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Pakistan - Eteraz - Jamia Hafsa - Jihad

Allow Me to Join in this Call

I'd like to call upon Muslims and organizations of Muslims to join this call from the Turkish press:

"It is true that Benedict XVI made disagreeable statements about Turkey and Islam. However, the Pope is visiting as our guest..." "no matter what he has said in the past, we have to be supremely hospitable towards Pope Benedict, not only for our own esteem and image but for inter-religious peace as well."
[More at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6187010.stm ]

If we count ourselves as having any loyalty to the faith we claim to, then a guest, anyone who is an official guest in one of our communities, and particularly one who is so honoured by the faith community we believe The Prophet said is the closest to ours, should be an honoured and respected guest.

Now who will stand up and be counted?

So after I said that, someone on a progressive Muslim list I am asked about my use of the word "Ummah" and what responsibility it was of Muslims outside of Turkey to be nice to the Pope while he was visiting that country. My own response to that would have run to something like saying that it was at least as much as some of us felt to protest his famous speech. But then, a nice gent by the name of Akber Choudhry stepped in and said the following--I couldn't have said it better myself:

There are other transnational concepts like 'Ummah' in use today: 'Christendom', 'la Francophonie', 'Western', 'Slavic', etc., so it is not a big deal. We all know what it means :).

One should not forget that Cardinal Ratzinger (before becoming pope) said: Turkey should find its identity in the Islamic world (ummah) and not in Christian Europe (wonder why he did not mention Italy? or France? etc. :).

Also, by your logic, the Pope is just the representative of the Vatican state then?

I had the privilege to visit Istanbul recently, and I would advise anyone to please go visit Turkey, and particular Istanbul, to understand this critical issue at this point in history:
1. Istanbul sits in Europe (on the old Greek province of Thrace). The Ottoman Sultans' seat of government was here.
2. The Ottoman sultan was also 'sultan-i-room' - King of Rome - the Byzantine Empire (the Russian Orthodox became independent due to the conquest of Byzantium by Muslims).
3. The patriarch of the Orthdox Christian Church (technically still head of all Orthodox Christian denominations) sits in Turkey.
4. Turkey has just said, 'enough is enough' on the EU accession talks
5. pan-Islamism fervor is on the rise in Turkey, primarily due to the 50-year failed talks with Europe.

This trip of the pope is very profound. Unity between the Orthodox churches and conciliation with the Catholic Church will make Turkey an aberration in the continuum of Christendom, in which Turkey is just an aberration. On the other hand, Turkey is the wedge that pushes into the EU and divides the Catholic and Slavic communities - with the latter having bitter memories of Turk occupation. The accession of Bulgaria to the EU on 1 January 2007 is symbolic - for if Turkey is not admitted fairly soon, there would be little rational reason for it not to - as Bulgaria (Bulgaristan) was just a poor province of Turkey some time ago, and is still economically inferior to Turkey.

The dilemma is that a rejected Turkey, flexing its muscle sooner or later (20-50 years), might leave NATO and thus be the vanguard of a new Islamic alliance once again pushing into the heart of Europe - a Europe already demographically compromised by Muslim migrants.

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Papal Visit to Turkey - Ummah