.
I want to know why people who watch television shows do not hesitate to label an anchor a Jewish agent when they disagree with them. I want to know why, on public forums, they consider themselves within their rights to abuse each other to the point of vulgarity.
Because knowingly or unknowingly you people follow the agenda of enemy.
Fundamentalists reject democratic values and contemporary Western culture.
They want an authoritarian, puritanical state that will implement their
extreme view of Islamic law and morality. They are willing to use innovation
and modern technology to achieve that goal.
Traditionalists want a conservative society. They are suspicious of
modernity, innovation, and change.
Modernists want the Islamic world to become part of global modernity.
They want to modernize and reform Islam to bring it into line with the age.
Secularists want the Islamic world to accept a division of church and state
in the manner of Western industrial democracies, with religion relegated to
the private sphere.
The
fundamentalists are hostile to the West and to the United States in particular
and are intent, to varying degrees,
on damaging and destroying democratic
modernity. Supporting them is not an option, except for transitory tactical
considerations. The
traditionalists generally hold more moderate views, but
there are significant differences between different groups of traditionalists.
Some are close to the fundamentalists.
None wholeheartedly embraces modern
democracy and the culture and values of modernity and, at best, can only make
an uneasy peace with them
The modernists and secularists are closest to the West in terms of values and
policies. However, they are generally in a weaker position than the other
groups, lacking powerful backing, financial resources, an effective infrastructure,
and a public platform. The
secularists, besides sometimes being
unacceptable
as allies on the basis of their broader ideological affiliation, also have
trouble addressing the traditional sector of an Islamic audience.
To encourage positive change in the Islamic world toward greater democracy,
modernity, and compatibility
with the contemporary international world order,
the United States and the West need to consider very carefully which elements,
trends, and forces within Islam they intend to strengthen; what the goals and
values of their various potential allies and protégés really are; and what the
broader consequences of advancing their respective agendas are likely to be. A
mixed approach composed of the following elements is likely to be the most
effective:
Support the modernists first:
Publish and distribute their works at subsidized cost.
Encourage them to write for
mass audiences and for youth.
Introduce their views into the curriculum of Islamic education.
Give them a public platform.
Make their opinions and judgments on fundamental questions of religious
interpretation available to a mass audience in competition with
those of the fundamentalists and traditionalists, who have Web sites,
publishing houses, schools, institutes, and many other vehicles for disseminating
their views.
Position secularism and modernism as a counterculture option for
disaffected Islamic youth.
Facilitate and encourage an awareness of their pre- and non-Islamic
history and culture, in the media and the curricula of relevant countries.
Assist in the development of independent civic organizations, to promote
civic culture and provide a space for ordinary citizens to educate
themselves about the political process and to articulate their views.
Support the traditionalists against the fundamentalists:
Publicize traditionalist criticism of fundamentalist violence and extremism;
encourage disagreements between traditionalists and fundamentalists.
Discourage alliances between traditionalists and fundamentalists.
Encourage cooperation between modernists and the traditionalists who
are closer to the modernist end of the spectrum.
Where appropriate, educate the traditionalists to equip them better for
debates against fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are often rhetorically
superior, while traditionalists practice a politically inarticulate folk
Islam. In such places as Central Asia, they may need to be educated
and trained in orthodox Islam to be able to stand their ground.
Increase the presence and profile of modernists in traditionalist institutions.
Discriminate between different sectors of traditionalism. Encourage
those with a greater affinity to modernism, such as the Hanafi law
school, versus others. Encourage them to issue religious opinions and
popularize these to weaken the authority of backward Wahhabiinspired
religious rulings. This relates to funding: Wahhabi money goes
to the support of the conservative Hanbali school. It also relates to
knowledge: More-backward parts of the Muslim world are not aware of
advances in the application and interpretation of Islamic law.
Encourage the popularity and acceptance of Sufism.
Confront and oppose the fundamentalists:
Challenge their interpretation of Islam and expose inaccuracies.
Reveal their linkages to illegal groups and activities.
Publicize the consequences of their violent acts.
Demonstrate their inability to rule, to achieve positive development of
their countries and communities.
Address these messages especially to young people, to pious traditionalist
populations, to Muslim minorities in the West, and to women.
Avoid showing respect or admiration for the violent feats of fundamentalist
extremists and terrorists.
Cast them as disturbed and cowardly,
not as evil heroes.
Encourage journalists to investigate issues of corruption, hypocrisy, and
immorality in fundamentalist and terrorist circles.
Encourage
divisions among fundamentalists.
Selectively support secularists:
Encourage recognition of fundamentalism
as a shared enemy, discourage
secularist alliance with anti-U.S. forces on such grounds as
nationalism and leftist ideology.
Support the idea that religion and the state can be separate in Islam too
and that this does not endanger the faith but, in fact, may strengthen it.
Whichever approach or mix of approaches is chosen, we recommend that it be
done with careful deliberation, in knowledge of the symbolic weight of certain
issues;
the meaning likely to be assigned to the alignment of U.S. policymakers
with particular positions on these issues; the consequences of these alignments
for other Islamic actors, including the risk of endangering or discrediting the
very groups and people we are seeking to help; and the opportunity costs and
possible unintended consequences of affiliations and postures that may seem
appropriate in the short term.
The notion that the outside world should try to encourage a moderate, democratic
interpretation and presentation of Islam has been in circulation for some
decades but gained great urgency after September 11, 2001.
Minorities
The picture that study of the text yields about other monotheistic religions is
mixed. The Quran contains many hostile, incendiary passages about Jews and
Christians, but it also contains some conciliatory ones. This has been explained
in reference to historic circumstancesthe original Islamic community was at
war with these groups.
In general, non-Muslims living under Muslim control are supposed to be
permitted to practice their religions without obstacles. Muslim men are even
instructed to allow their Jewish or Christian wives to practice their faiths freely.
Minorities should be able to have their own courts and apply their own laws in
civil matters. Historically, minority communities have often fared relatively well
under Islamic empires.
FINDING PARTNERS FOR THE PROMOTION OF DEMOCRATIC ISLAM: OPTIONS
THE SECULARISTS
Although there are some ambiguities, Western democracies are premised on
the separation of church and state. It follows that the secularists should be our
most natural allies in the Muslim world.1
The problem has been, and continues to be, that many important secularists in
the Islamic world are unfriendly or even extremely hostile to us on other
grounds. Leftist ideologies, anti-Americanism, aggressive nationalism, and
authoritarian structures with only quasi-democratic trappings have been some
of the manifestations of Islamic secularism to date.
THE FUNDAMENTALISTS
We know that the radical fundamentalists are hostile to modern democracy, to
Western values in general, and to the United States in particular; that their
overall goals and visions are incompatible with ours; and that they oppose us
and we oppose them. In the past, some experts have felt that it may be possible
to work even with the radical fundamentalists in the hopes of engaging and
gradually reforming them. In places not central to Western policyAfghanistan,
for examplesome even suggested that the usual standards should be
suspended and that one should merely attempt to reach a minimal accommodation
with those who held power and otherwise turn a blind eye to their conduct.
THE TRADITIONALISTS
The traditionalists at first glance have several features that make them seem
attractive as potential partners:
They are a useful counterweight to the fundamentalists, because they enjoy
widespread public legitimacy in the eyes of Muslim populations.
They tend to be more middle-of-the-road, more moderate, a calming influence.
They are open to, and in fact often proactively seek, interfaith dialogue.
They do not usually advocate violence, although some of them sympathize
with fundamentalists who have chosen that path, to the point of sheltering
them, providing them with resources, and abetting their activities.
Potentially Useful Democratic Elements
The traditionalist belief set does include democratic elements. It can be made
to justify reforms, but not without significant effort. Traditionalists have produced
a large number of publications sketching a kinder, gentler vision of
Islam, in rebuttal of the religions negative image and of the public statements
by radicals, whom they do not wish to be tainted by. These books typically
praise the socially positive aspects of Islam, find rationalizations and softened
interpretations for practices that are today considered oppressive, and argue
that Islam is not only compatible with the principles of the modern age
(democracy, equality, social welfare, education) but indeed pioneered them.
The Danger of Domestic Backlash
There is the danger of domestic backlash in the West. Islamic traditionalism is
highly critical of, and often insulting toward, Western culture. So, it would take
considerable forbearance for secular Western publics to seem to accept the
criticism that the West is depraved and shallow, that its history has been
oppressive, and that it is to blame for many of the problems the rest of the
world experiences, while going to great lengths to show admiration for Islam
and to accommodate its religiously based demands in a secular world.
The Potential for Weakening Credibility and Moral Persuasiveness
Accommodating traditionalists to an excessive degree can weaken our credibility
and moral persuasiveness. An uncritical alliance with traditionalists can be
misunderstood as appeasement and fear.
The Possibility of Undermining Reforms
Accommodation can undermine reform trends. Overendorsing the traditionalists
is interference in the ongoing internal reform effort within Islam. De facto,
our stance further disadvantages those whose values are genuinely compatible
with ours, the modernists.
THE MODERNISTS
The modernist vision matches our own. Of all the groups, this one is most congenial
to the values and the spirit of modern democratic society.
Modernism, not traditionalism, is what worked for the West. This included the
necessity to depart from, modify, and selectively ignore elements of the original
religious doctrine. The Old Testament is not different from the Quran in
endorsing conduct and containing a number of rules and values that are literally
unthinkable, not to mention illegal, in todays society.9 This does not pose a
problem because few people would today insist that we should all be living in
the exact literal manner of the Biblical patriarchs. Instead, we allow our vision
of Judaisms or Christianitys true message to dominate over the literal text,
which we regard as history and legend. That is exactly the approach that Islamic
modernists also propose.
Weaknesses of the Modernists
On ideological grounds, the modernists are the most credible vehicle for developing
and transmitting democratic Islam, but in the current reality,
they operate
under a number of handicaps that significantly reduce their effectiveness.
Their most basic handicap, which underlies most of the others, is financial.
Powerful forces stand behind the fundamentalists and provide them with
enormous resources: money, infrastructure, weapons, media and access to
other popular platforms, control over educational and welfare institutions, etc.
Traditionalists also have a well-established power base that can include access
to significant resources. They collect taxes; receive subsidies and donations;
and have independent sources of revenue, such as businesses and foundations.
They have a captive audience through mosques, schools, and social and welfare
programs, supplemented by modern media. Both fundamentalists and
traditionalists have their own publishing houses, radio and TV stations, schools,
newspapers, etc. Modernists have nothing comparable.
As long as they are operating as isolated individuals, this is a weakness. But in
connection with support and a movement, it becomes an asset, in the sense
thatlike other liberation and civil rights movementssome individuals are
prepared to risk jail, to serve as heroes, role models, and leaders.
Modernists become professors at universities, not teachers in madrassas or at
mosque Sunday school. They dress like everyone else, which reduces their
attractiveness to journalists who are writing a piece about Muslims in America,
and they do not segregate themselves socially, which makes them harder
to findyou cannot just call an Islamic cultural center and find them there.
Since Islam is not their overriding personal identity, they are not prone to
establishing Islamic organizations or clubs.
This gives them poor visibility.
Fundamentalism has a number of qualities that make it appealing to discontented
young people, but it also has important weaknesses that could cause
young people to turn against it. This major flaw in fundamentalist political
strategy has not so far been exploited.
Fundamentalisms attractiveness to youth is based on the fact that it is
provocative and radical and seems to stand for justice and for the downtrodden
(especially as symbolized by the Palestinians).
In the Middle Eastern context, Islamic radicalism provides a means of challenging
corrupt, foreign-connected, or merely unsuccessful regimes and a way to
express ones sentiments on the Palestinian issue. In the West, aggressive Islam
is disconcerting to the majority of society, making it an easy and attractive
medium for expressing disaffection
The ideological fuzziness of fundamentalism makes it possible to append any
number of individual political agendas and grievances to the message. The program
is broad but vague: to end corruption, achieve social justice, obtain a
higher moral standard, and make the rest of the world respect Islam.
Fundamentalism
provides an umbrella for eclectic, effect-driven political radicalism.
It offers a quick fix of pride, identity, belonging, and purpose. Membership
operates on a shallow, easily acquired level. Most of the instructional materials
are tracts rather than books, quickly read. For young people, fundamentalism
can function like a sect. Emphasis is on prohibitions, rigid injunctions, and ritual;
on the outer form of Islam; and on provocative gestures and signals of
intent and solidarity, such as beards and headscarves. The psychological value
is obvious: It lends the appearance of structure and discipline, a sense of
togetherness and purpose. In more-modern environments, or when the family
one wishes to rebel against is more modern or in the West, even something as
simple as donning a headscarf is a way to achieve high impact with low effort. It
serves as a low-risk test of courage and a way to achieve approbation from the
in group. The annoyance and confusion it generates in the secular or moremodern
environment gives instant gratification.
However, radical fundamentalism has many features that should turn young
people against it. Their support of it is counterlogical, since it is against their
objective interests on important counts.
It does not value their lives very highly. By appealing to youthful idealism, and
to their sense of drama and heroics, radical Islam turns young people into cannon
fodder and suicide bombers. Madrassas specifically educate boys to die
young, to become martyrs. If Muslim youth ever begin to look at things through
a generational lens, as Western youth did in the 1960s, they may begin to ask
why most suicide bombers and martyrs are under the age of 30. You dont have
to be young to strap explosives on yourself. If its such a wonderful thing to do,
why arent more adults doing it?
Fundamentalism operates against the natural impulses and the biology of
youth and adolescence. Romantic and sexual impulses are a normal part of that
age group. Fundamentalism demands that these be suppressed or rigorously
sublimated. It thus violates a significant number of the psychological needs, as
well as the economic and other objective interests of young people.
A PROPOSED STRATEGY
Support the modernists first, enhancing their vision of Islam over that of the
traditionalists by providing them with a broad platform to articulate and
disseminate their views. They, not the traditionalists, should be cultivated
and publicly presented as the face of contemporary Islam.
Support the secularists on a case-by-case basis.
Encourage secular civic and cultural institutions and programs.
Back the traditionalists enough to keep them viable against the fundamentalists
(if and wherever those are our choices) and to prevent a closer
alliance between these two groups. Within the traditionalists, we should
selectively encourage those who are the relatively better match for modern
civil society. For example, some Islamic law schools are far more amenable
to our view of justice and human rights than are others.
Finally, oppose the fundamentalists energetically by striking at vulnerabilities
in their Islamic and ideological postures, exposing things that neither
the youthful idealists in their target audience nor the pious traditionalists
can approve of: their corruption, their brutality, their ignorance, the bias
and manifest errors in their application of Islam, and their inability to lead
and govern.
Some additional, more-direct activities will be necessary to support this overall
approach, such as the following:
Help break the fundamentalist and traditionalist monopoly on defining,
explaining, and interpreting Islam.
Identify appropriate modernist scholars to manage a Web site that answers
questions related to daily conduct and offers modernist Islamic legal opinions.
Encourage modernist scholars to write textbooks and develop curricula.
Publish introductory books at subsidized rates to make them as available as
the tractates of fundamentalist authors.
Use popular regional media, such as radio, to introduce the thoughts and
practices of modernist Muslims to broaden the international view of what
Islam means and can mean.
I want to know why there is a poverty of intellect in debate and public intercourse. Why behind every disadvantage there is an Indian conspiracy
because who ever in the world want to interfere in Pakistan they came via india with exception of america and uk.we have their assets among us who work for them just the cost of visa.
and behind every disagreement an American design.
you presidency is compromised,your interior ministry is compromised.they dictate you to whom you sign your energy deals,to whom you sign trade agreements and ironically they also dictate the terms of these agreements.they invest 50 million in our media.then why not they also share some burden of blame.
I want to know why there is an inherent hypocrisy in our social fabric.
what hypocrisy exactly?please be precise
I want to know how you allowed Maududi to became the godfather of Pakistan,
no one gives him ****.
I want to know how Jinnah became a religious visionary in our history books.
he never was.the author is lying.the religious and ideology visionary of Pakistan was Iqbal.
I want to know why Mahmud Ghaznavi is a hero
,
and why he should not be hero.he is very much responsible for shaping the current demography of Pakistan.
why Mohammad bin Qasims death was celebrated on the streets of Baghdad and not by naming a port after him.
we named port in his honor just because he brought the message of Allah to us.he came here to liberate a women who write a letter with her blood to his uncle.
his death was celebrated in baghdad because the caliph was soleman.enemy of his uncle hajaj bin yousaf.
and the hindus of sindh cried over his death and made his idols and then worshiped that idols.
I want to know why Salmaan Taseer died
,
he poked his nose in things that don't fall in his domain.
I want to know why Mumtaz Qadri lives.
he received death sentence and waiting for the execution of punishment.
I want to know where exactly in my genealogy did I become Arab, and how it is a higher race and a purer breed. Where exactly was I supposed to start identifying with a race of people that seek to distance themselves from me as much as possible?
becoming a muslim is not becoming arab.they are two separate things. and arabs are not superior to non-arabs.for details see the last sermon of prophet.we are not responsible for your inferiority complex.
I want to know who we is when you teach me that we conquered Spain.
when we used term "we" it refers to muslims.because prophet said muslims are like one body.we pakistanis are part of that same body
I want to know why it is wrong to call Allah Khuda, why it is saintly to grow my beard and to show my ankles and to leave religion at that.
in grave when angel will ask mann rabu ka?you are welcome to answer "khuda"
mir jafir
mir sadiq
..........
... In our law mout at the high court i became angy and told the judges tht they were bloody morons... 
