“Asked about collaboration with the US in executing the operation, the army spokesman said, “We have asked them (the US) to let us finish the job on our own and get the support of local population (against terrorists).”

On track so far.

As a matter of fact I am thinking of printing both articles, make photo-copies and distribute it at my local mosque after Jumah Salaat with prior approval from mosque management.

Islam & social reform

By Asghar Ali Engineer

Friday, 23 Oct, 2009

It is very unfortunate that many ulema should still vehemently oppose everything new, only to accept it later, reluctantly, for their own survival. We often refuse to move with the times and then time forces us to move with it after extracting a price for our refusal to change.

Traditional ulema have nearly always opposed social reform calling it un-Islamic. Many are able to mobilise support from static Muslim societies by quoting either certain selected Quranic verses or the hadith. Historically, ulema have also declared reformers as kafir or mulhid, i.e. believers in naturism rather than God.

Once such fatwas are issued against a reformer, he/she faces total isolation in society and finds it extremely difficult to carry on reform. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, whose birthday was on Oct 17, was one such great social reformer.
He never laboured over religious doctrines. He just wanted Muslims to go for modern, secular education so that modern knowledge, which was mostly available in English, could be made accessible to the Muslims. The ulema opposed his movement for modern education, the founding of an institution of modern learning, and issued fatwas against him, dubbing him variously as kafir, Christian and Jewish. One of the ulema even travelled to Makkah and obtained a fatwa for killing Sir Syed.

The question arises: why this show of fierce opposition to social reform which was, after all, for the betterment of the Muslim community of India? It was certainly not religious belief alone because opposition to social reform emanates from a host of complex factors.

Firstly, change is always feared as it brings uncertainty and unknown consequences, especially on the part of those who do not benefit from change. Apart from theologians and community leaders, it is feared by the masses who have not experienced change and have lived amid ignorance and superstitious beliefs.

Secondly, it is feared by the priesthood, by theologians as well as some social and cultural leaders because it challenges their leadership. Priests and theologians have had a grip on the minds of the people for too long, and many feel any change will throw up new social or theological leaders in which case they will lose out. Thus they oppose reform to secure their own positions. To legitimise their opposition they find what they call religious reasons and try quoting out of context from scriptures to impress the public.

The ulema in the 19th century were highly apprehensive of English education as it would mean challenging the madressah education, coupled with the fear that Muslims would be moving a step nearer to Christianity. As Arabic education was considered a step towards Islam, English education was considered a step towards Christianity. There was little more reason for the ulema to oppose modern education.

The ulema had held high positions in Mughal courts and functioned as qazis or religious judges. They were being replaced by British judges and highly qualified Indians who had studied the law. This created strong resentment among the ulema; they denounced the English education system which was taking away everything from them. Thus they had everything to fear and nothing to celebrate.

Muslim masses also supported them, because they recognised the ulema as their religious leaders and men of great Islamic learning. Secondly, Muslim society at the time was either static or decadent. Any change made the people fearful and they rightly believed the British to be their enemy, one who threatened their religious belief and political hegemony. The future was unknown and in the hands of foreign rulers.

Also, as pointed out before, change is feared by those who lose out and celebrated by those who gain from it. Only very few side with reformers who have some idea of what the future may hold. Among Muslims in India Sir Syed began the vigorous movement for modern education even before a new class of Muslims who could be the beneficiary of English education emerged.

Eventually, of course, that class came to the fore, albeit slowly, and subsequently became the harbinger of change. Among these people a galaxy of intellectuals arose who are respected to date. They included people like Nawab Mohsinul Mulk, Maulavi Chiragh Ali, Justice Amir Ali and Maulvi Mumtaz Ali Khan among several others. They developed a new vision of life and laid the foundation for a better life for the Muslims in India. Many from this new class of Muslims joined the civil, police and other services and left a mark on society.

Today many ulema are not only learning English they are also trying to project Islam to non-Muslims in the English language. What was thought to be the language of kafirs in the 19th century has now come to stay in the Muslim world. Thus, those who oppose change subsequently not only accept it, but also find that it becomes the very means of survival.

It is very unfortunate that many ulema should still vehemently oppose everything new, only to accept it later, reluctantly, for their own survival. We often refuse to move with the times and then time forces us to move with it after extracting a price for our refusal to change.

The writer is an Islamic scholar who heads the Centre for Study of Society & Secularism, Mumbai

Adapted from

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/18-islam-and-social-reform-am-03

The Origin and Fate of the Pakistani Mullahs

This is not a war the Pakistan army has chosen to fight. This is a war forced upon us and there is no running away from it.

A.H Amin said:

A gradual dis-engagement with USA other than export free zones so that the demeaning impression of the Pakistani state and armed forces as petty vassals and mercenaries of USA is reduced in the eyes of the Pakistani populace.

Amin, just assume it was the time when Pakistan had no Nukes. If India had attacked Pakistan and USA was willing to support Pakistan with military help, would you be so foolish to refuse USA help.

The fact is, as far as I know but I could be wrong, even the founder of Pakistan supported South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and Bagdad Pact with USA as the main player to safeguard Pakistan against any attacks.

Today Pakistan is under worst attack from enemies within Pakistan and people like you rather want to see Pakistan destroyed but not seek any help from USA to fight the enemies to save it. I am sure the militants and terrorists are not happy with PAK/USA coordination the same way as many of you are not happy.

Iqbal said:

Well whatever others may say these barbarian “godmen” need to be put down for ever.

Iqbal, you said the right thing.

Ateeq Tayyib said:

We need a revolution like Iran for masses and Turkey for mullahs.

Well said Ateeq.

I read the article by Anwaar Hussain and this is an eye opener. I have passed on this to many of my friends and relatives. I now believe that 99% of Mullahs, not only in Pakistan but all over the Islamic world are “Neem Mullahs” and as the saying in Farsi:

Neem Hakeem Khatra-e jaan, Neem Mullah Khatra-e Eemaan.

A half learned doctor is a threat to life and a half learned Mullah is a threat to religion.

Read the following article:

The Origin and Fate of the Pakistani Mullahs

By Anwaar Hussain

I wish Pakistan should do the same what was done in Turkey to get rid of the Mullahs who tell young Muslims “If you blow up yourself killing men, women and children, even if they are innocent, you will go straight to heaven”.

Visit
http://www.satribune.com/archives/nov30_dec6_03/opinion_anwaar.htm

Sir,

I agree that what I have suggested is easier said than done. But you must agree that what needs doing needs saying first.

What say?

Thanks for visiting.

Look at it this way Asad.

All the Mehsud uprisings were in the British colonial times. They never rebelled against Pakistan.

People often cite the case of the Faqir of Ipi. But they forget that even he was neither a Mehsud nor born in South Waziristan. He was born Mirza Ali Khan in 1897 in Shankai Kairta, which is located near Khajuri Post in North Waziristan Agency. His family was from the Bangal Khel clan of the Haibati Madda Khel section of the Tori Khel Wazirs, which belongs to the greater Utmanzai branch concentrated in North Waziristan.

The interesting thing is that the creation of Muslim led Pakistan in 1947 significantly dulled the Faqir’s insurgency. As the Government was Muslim led, the religious grounds for Faqir’s insurgency had been lost (notice the taking away of the golden shoe). Admittedly though, this did not stop the Faqir from continuing to cause problems for the Pakistani government until his death. On 4 November 1954, however, his Commander in Chief, Mehar Dil, surrendered himself personally to the Deputy Commissioner Bannu, and this, in effect, brought the Waziristan insurrection to an end. Since then there has been nothing noteworthy…until now that is.

One more pertinent fact.

After the end of the First World War, the British returned to Waziristan. This time, they built roads and forts throughout the land. The sophistication and constant patrols of the British air force helped create a secure atmosphere for their ground troops. With this sense of security, the British Army then constructed a road from Jandola to Ladha. At Razmak, they constructed a cantonment for their army officers and soldiers. The Mehsuds were then prudent enough to agree to a ceasefire because this new British tactic from the air and ground was inflicting wide-scale losses on their side. In 1925, the Royal Air Force successfully put down a Mehsud rebellion. The action, which came to be known as Pink’s War led to the tribal leaders seeking peace terms. (Notice the reliance on air power then…this is likely to be the case even this time)

Then come the major dissimilarities between then and now. The madmen out of the Mehsuds make up a very small portion of this brave tribe. Since independence, many social, economic and demographic changes have occurred in Waziristan. A large number of Mehsuds have joined mainstream Pakistani society. Now Mehsuds are employed in the militia and regular army, state bureaucracy, and involved in businesses all around the country. These upward mobile clansmen are likely not to allow the small band of the mad men to continue to destabilize the region and their gravy train that plies this region. That plus the fact that they never fought against the Pakistani armed forces that have Pashtun generals and soldiers as fierce and as brave as the Mehsuds, no less, makes me optimistic of the outcome of the turmoil.(Optimistic with the caveat that the leadership doesn’t develop feet of clay any time soon)

Well that’s my take of the situation.

Thanks

Thank you for building an important case in a very simple and lucid manner. Your suggestions are easier said than done, yet these steps need to be taken. Your reference to the onset of winters is important too, which has traditionally been a limiting factor during the ISAF operations in Afghanistan as well. The need for the use of force is undeniable, which hopefully shall pave the way for the political solutions of development, education and other reforms. In this media savvy age, the military seems poised for a continual review of its learning curve- that may be the key to eventual success.

Best

SR

Sir Masroor,

Iran had a bloody revolution and Turks killed most of the mullah crowd.

I was referring to that only.

its always a treat to read articles by you.

good luck sir.

Post number 9 by Tammy Swofford was impressive. Agha Amin’s posts were also enlightening.

Could you request Tayyab to give us the recipe of Iranian & Turkish Revolution synthesis? – Post 7.