What's new

Who Are the Real Hijackers of Islam?

Solomon2

BANNED
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
19,475
Reaction score
-37
Country
United States
Location
United States
Maybe the hijackers are the peaceful ones.

For years, we’ve heard how the peaceful religion of Islam has been hijacked by extremists.

What if it’s the other way around? Worse, what if the peaceful hijackers are losing their bid to take over the religion?

That certainly seems to be the case in Pakistan.

Salman Taseer, a popular Pakistani governor, was assassinated this week because he was critical of Pakistan’s blasphemy law.

Specifically, Taseer was supportive of a Christian woman, Asia Bibi, who has been sentenced to death for “insulting Muhammad.”

Bibi had offered some fellow farm laborers some water. They refused to drink it because Christian hands purportedly make water unclean. An argument followed. She defended her faith, which they took as synonymous with attacking theirs. Later, she says, a mob of her accusers raped her.

Naturally, a Pakistani judge sentenced her to hang for blasphemy.

And Governor Taseer, who bravely visited her and sympathized with her plight, had 40 bullets pumped into him by one of his own bodyguards.

“Salmaan Taseer is a blasphemer and this is the punishment for a blasphemer,” Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri said to the television cameras as he was being arrested.

Now, so far, it’s hard to say who is the hijacker and who is the hijackee. After all, Taseer the moderate was a prominent politician, Qadri a mere bodyguard.

A reasonable person might look at this tragic situation and say it is indeed proof of extremists trying to hijack the religion and the country.

Except, it was Taseer who wanted to change the status quo and Qadri who wanted to protect it. Pakistan’s blasphemy laws have been on the books for decades, and while judicial death sentences for blasphemy are rare, the police and security forces have been enforcing it unilaterally for years.

And what of the reaction to the assassination?

Many columnists and commentators denounced the murder, but the public’s reaction was often celebratory. A Facebook fan page for Qadri had to be taken down as it was drawing thousands of followers.

And what of the country’s official guardians of the faith?

A group of more than 500 leading Muslim scholars, representing what the Associated Press describes as a “moderate school of Islam” and the British Guardian calls the “mainstream religious organizations” in Pakistan not only celebrated the murder, but warned that no Muslim should mourn Taseer’s murder or pray for him.

They even went so far as to warn government officials and journalists that the “supporter is as equally guilty as one who committed blasphemy,” and so therefore they should all take “a lesson from the exemplary death” of Salman Taseer.

If that’s what counts for religious moderation in Pakistan, I think it’s a little late to be talking about extremists hijacking the religion. The religion has long since been hijacked, and it’s now moving on to even bigger things.

Pakistan isn’t the only troubled spot. In Egypt, Coptic Christians were recently slaughtered in an Islamist terrorist attack. The Egyptian government, which has a long record of brutalizing and killing its own Christian minority, was sufficiently embarrassed by the competition from non-governmental Islamists that it is now offering protection. How long that will last is anyone’s guess.

But Pakistan is special because it has nuclear weapons and is inextricably bound up in the war in neighboring Afghanistan and the larger war on terror. U.S. relations with the Pakistani military remain strong, but — as we’ve seen with Turkey — good relations with a military don’t make up for losing support from an allied government as it goes Islamist. And it seems unlikely that a government can long stay secular when the people want it to become ever more Islamist.

Sadanand Dhume, a Wall Street Journal columnist (and my colleague at the American Enterprise Institute), writes that even “relatively secular-minded Pakistanis are an endangered species.”

While most of the enlightened chatterers remain mute or incoherent as they struggle for a way to blame Israel for all of this, the question becomes all the more pressing: How do we deal with a movement or a nation that refuses to abide by the expiring cliché, “Islam means peace”?

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. © 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

 
Solomon2,
The 'status quo' was introduced barely 3 decades ago by a ruthless military dictator, supported by the West and the Islamic world, to counter the Soviets. Now, I know this may sound like a Pakistani like me is trying to white-wash Pakistan's own involvement/culpability in radicalizing its society. But I really think that had Pakistan been ruled by ZAB through the 80's then, yes, one can say that you had elected ZAB and he chose to radicalize Pakistan.
But that was not so. The dangers of fighting the Soviets using these highly charged religious bigots were pointed out as early as in 1982 by Pervez Hoodbhoy when he mentioned that these young kids will, in a generation, come to haunt Pakistan. Oh, how right he was!
Coming back to who is hijacking who. Yes, if you consider that Pakistan's religious ethos have a starting point of 1979 then it was Taseer who was trying to change the status quo. However, at least since the invasion of Sindh by Mohd. bin Qasim in the 8th century, Sufism is the dominant form of Islam in the sub-continent and it remains so almost intact in Sindh province even now.

In my book, Taseer and we liberals have over a thousand year old claim to the legacy of Islam in the sub-continent compared with these Arab-influenced Wahabbis' 3 decades of ugly legacy.

And I still insist that the blame on Pakistan should not be put in a disproportionate way: When Zia was doing all his crimes any Pakistan who rose up was ruthlessly crushed. In this context, the history of the Pakistan Peoples Party (the PPP) is one of an epic struggle against the world-backed mullah dictator from 1977 till 1988.
 
Solomon2,
The 'status quo' was introduced barely 3 decades ago by a ruthless military dictator, supported by the West and the Islamic world, to counter the Soviets. Now, I know this may sound like a Pakistani like me is trying to white-wash Pakistan's own involvement/culpability in radicalizing its society. But I really think that had Pakistan been ruled by ZAB through the 80's then, yes, one can say that you had elected ZAB and he chose to radicalize Pakistan.
But that was not so. The dangers of fighting the Soviets using these highly charged religious bigots were pointed out as early as in 1982 by Pervez Hoodbhoy when he mentioned that these young kids will, in a generation, come to haunt Pakistan. Oh, how right he was!
Coming back to who is hijacking who. Yes, if you consider that Pakistan's religious ethos have a starting point of 1979 then it was Taseer who was trying to change the status quo. However, at least since the invasion of Sindh by Mohd. bin Qasim in the 8th century, Sufism is the dominant form of Islam in the sub-continent and it remains so almost intact in Sindh province even now.

In my book, Taseer and we liberals have over a thousand year old claim to the legacy of Islam in the sub-continent compared with these Arab-influenced Wahabbis' 3 decades of ugly legacy.

And I still insist that the blame on Pakistan should not be put in a disproportionate way: When Zia was doing all his crimes any Pakistan who rose up was ruthlessly crushed. In this context, the history of the Pakistan Peoples Party (the PPP) is one of an epic struggle against the world-backed mullah dictator from 1977 till 1988.

and while I would have agreed about your theory of sufism vs wahabism uptil last week, I don't anymore. Why?

It was a gathering of 500 sufi/barelvi ulema who issued a fatwa that Taseer's murderer did a service to religion and Taseer's Namaz-i-Janaza is haram.

So whether you call a mullah Barelvi, Deobandi, Wahabi, Shia or anything. They may not agree among each other but they all have one thing in common VIOLENCE.
 
and while I would have agreed about your theory of sufism vs wahabism uptil last week, I don't anymore. Why?

It was a gathering of 500 sufi/barelvi ulema who issued a fatwa that Taseer's murderer did a service to religion and Taseer's Namaz-i-Janaza is haram.

So whether you call a mullah Barelvi, Deobandi, Wahabi, Shia or anything. They may not agree among each other but they all have one thing in common VIOLENCE.

I am not entirely sure if I can agree with this--yet. I have thought about this 'Barelvi' angle for past few days. I am aware of the 500 so called Barelvi 'ulemas' decreeing something against Taseer.

Here is what I think: First of all I don't think that a large numbers of Pakistanis who like the Mazar culture: Qawwalis, Dancing, Chanting etc are necessarily Barelvis in a strict sense. This is just folk Pakistan which is poor, largely illiterate, and don't have much concerns beyond everyday life. They go to Mazars to pray. To get food. To listen to music. They are likely to skip the mandatory 5-prayers a day. They largely don't care if you are Hindu, Sikh, Christians, Sunni, Shia...

These are still the majority of rural Pakistan. At least in Sindh anyway. And they are looked down upon by the more 'pure' kind of Muslims as heretics. 'Bid-ati'. And this kind of division is not entirely new: I remember way back in the 1980's, being a student at Karachi University, I mentioned to a class-mate (a Jamaat i Islami guy) that I was planning to go to Ziarat (which is a hill station in Baluchistan). He got offended, frowned and thought I was going to a Mazaar to be part of the some 'bid-at' un-Islamic place to 'worship' some 'saint'.

Things in Pakistan have gone worse since then.

But still it is too early to say about Barelvis. May be they don't want to miss-out on appearing 'Muslim' in the competition against the 'Deobandi'. In case of these religious people, 'No News is BAD news'. We shall see.
 
PetroIslam

Islamic Extremist have no morals, so whenever someone come to power and they have no real support amongst the population and no real economic or social policy they use the islam card to get support of extremist parties.It also allows them to avoid the democracy by calling it unislamic . This is not just in Pakistan but world over especially in Saudi Arabia.

In Pakistan the blame lies on Zia-ul-haq and his cronies for ruthless replacing imams of some sunni school of thoughts replacing them with more fundamental ones . Nawaz Sharif is still a legacy of zia , as are the domestic terror group such as ssp and jaish-e-mohammed.
 
this was the same guy that wrote the idiotic book "liberal fascism". In his book he asserted that all fascist movements come from the left. He also fails to mention that there were a number of protest that happened after the killing that condemned this act.
Plus this guy writes for the National Review online which believes that obama is actually a secret muslim.Obama’s Muslim Childhood? - By Lisa Schiffren - The Corner - National Review Online
 
Islamic Extremist have no morals,...
Wrong...We do not live our lives in complete intellectual and moral vacuum. Everything we do, even biological actions such as eating and drinking, has justifications. The only difference between a biological justification versus the intellectual and moral justifications is the latter two require in-depth examination prior to actions. That mean 'extremists' are no less 'moral' individuals and even more firm in their convictions of their moral foundation than you are.
 
Back
Top Bottom