Jaswant Singh: The Death of Pakistan?

[Abu Zolfiqar]

this guy jaswant singh needs to find better things to do with his (seemingly ample) free time

 

[Rafi]

this guy jaswant singh needs to find better things to do with his (seemingly ample) free time

Totally agree, I also think he is doing it, because he wants to make a comeback, and to that he has to appeal to the RSS, VHP, BJP.

 

[monitor]

Pakistan: Our National Purpose

2011-01-31 02:31:41

General Mirza Aslam Beg, Former Chief of Army Staff, Pakistan

The national resilience of the Pakistani people is to be judged by the degree of their consciousness and commitment to guard their values, traditions and honour, called the National Purpose, or the raison-d’etre, as the French call it. National Purpose, is sacrosanct and sublime. Quaid-e-Azam first of all preferred to affirm his own faith, belief and commitment to the cause of Pakistan. On October 22, 1939, while addressing All India Muslim Council, he said:

“I have seen enough in my life, experienced the pleasures of wealth, fame and life of repose and comfort. Now I have one single ambition, to see Muslims gaining freedom and rise to the pinnacle of glory. It is my very ultimate wish that when I die, my conscience and my Allah may testify that, Jinnah never betrayed Islam and that he relentlessly struggled for the freedom of Muslims, to forge institutional discipline among them and strengthen their resolve. I do not wish to get acclamation or reward from you. I only nourish the desire that, my heart, my faith and my conscience, all bear testimony till my death that Jinnah, ‘You contributed your share for the resistance against Islam and my Allah proclaim that “Jinnah you were a born Muslim, lived as such and died, quite steadfastly, holding the banner of Islam against the evil forces.”

After Pakistan was created, Quaid-e-Azam provided the guidance and defined the parameters of our National Purpose, on following occasions:
First Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, August 1947. You may belong to any religion or cast or creed – that has nothing to do with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state …. Now keep this as your ideal and you will find that in course of time, Hindus would cease to be Hindus, and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because, that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense, of the citizens of the state of Pakistan.
February 1948 at Malir Cantt. You have to safeguard our ‘Islamic Democracy’, based on social justice and for the furtherance of the principles of Islamic equality and brotherhood; social equality and unity are the cardinal principles of our ‘Deen’ and our civilizational and cultural values.
23 March 1948, at Chittagong. I can say with conviction that our system of governance shall be based on the foundation of basic principles of Islam, which shall be democratic. These principles are applicable in our lives now as these were thirteen hundred years ago.
14 February 1948 at Sibbi Darbar. Adherence to the golden principles of life is the only source of our viability and strength, which has been enunciated as laws, by our prophet Hazrat Mohammad Mustafa (Peace be upon him).

His guidance was explicit, and directional, embodying the vision of Pakistan, yet the nation took almost a quarter of a century to frame a Constitution, that identified our true vision of life, based on a democratic system of governance. The Constitution defined the National Purpose: “To strive for a democratic order based on the principles of Quran and Sunnah.” Thus its, main ingredients were: “Democracy” and “Islamic Ideology”, as the fountain-head, but unfortunately, we failed to serve the cause of both, democracy and the Islamic Ideology. and, till today no system has really emerged which could reflect our hopes and aspirations. The recurrent intrusions by the Army and short interlude of weak civil administrations, have led to a feeling of antipathy towards democracy.

The present democratic system, however, is fortunate that those, who trampled democracy in the past, are now reconciled to taking a back-seat. For instance USA is now in no position to install a government of it choice, as the military leadership is not prepared to play their game. The opposition, which in the past always relished a change, is now committed to the continuance of the democratic order, under the Charter of Democracy. Our higher judiciary has attained its legitimate position and has discarded the notion of “Law of Necessity”. Thus, never before, a government has had such a favourable opportunity to deliver a clean governance based on justice. But it is indeed unfortunate, that corruption, incompetence and lawlessness have weakened the very roots of societal order. If this malaise is not removed, people’s faith in democracy would erode and they would be justified in demanding a different system of governance.

‘Islamic faith’ is an integral element of our Vision of Life, but we paid no heed to it. Allegiance to faith can be built through moral principles, knowledge and action, but the tragedy is that, over 70% population of Pakistan is devoid of the knowledge of the ‘Deen’. This is so on account of the fact that 42% population is illiterate and of the remaining, only 30% possess both, the knowledge of the ‘Deen’, as well as the ‘worldly affairs’, and truly represent the Pakistani sensibility. These statistics were based on the survey conducted during 1990 by the Army, of the officers and men inducted in the Army, whose knowledge of Islamic faith was similar to what was in the general national context. It is but natural that the majority, the 70% will rightly be demanding a ‘secular’ system of governance.

In fact, we ourselves are responsible for this state of affairs. We don’t impart knowledge of Deen to our children. Our schools are also reluctant to impart religious education. And the 5-6%, who get the requisite religious education, in the ‘madrassas’ are kept out of the main-stream, suffering from a sense of deprivation and frustration, and on very trivial issues they raise big agitation, to gain a sense of ‘identity.’ The situation, therefore is greatly obscuring the real issues of Pakistan.

People with belief and commitment to their National Purpose, know how to protect the ‘values’ and ‘traditions’ that lend resilience to the nation. The living example is that of Afghans, who during the last thirty years have made great sacrifices protecting their way of life. In 2001, when USA had occupied Afghanistan, we sent the message to Mullah Umer that, “should they engage in another war of liberation, it could entail much of bloodshed and destruction. It was therefore expedient that they follow the American Plan and their promise for democracy for Afghanistan.” Few months later, we received a firm reply:

“We have resolved to fight back the occupation forces till they are routed. When we gain freedom, we would take decisions under a free environment. It is unthinkable for the Afghan nation to follow the American plans, as it was not in harmony with their religious values and traditions. We shall engage in war and Insha Allah we will triumph over the enemy and we will win our freedom”.

For the last thirty years, the Afghans have waged a grim struggle for freedom, reaching a point of victory, as ordained by Allah:

“You shall prevail, No doubt, you have suffered, but so have they” (Al-Imran, 138-139). Very soon the invaders will be forced to run away, turning their back on you (Al-Qamar, 45)

About the author: General Aslam Beg is one of the most authoritative analysts in Pakistan. He can be reached at friendsfoundation@live.co.uk

 

[lemurian]

Rambling, incoherent article probably written during a drunken weekend.. Maybe its time to chuck the whiskey bottle, Mr. Singh, before presenting your expert comments on state and religion? Although I have a feeling this is your way of apologizing to the BJP for the Jinnah book..

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Rambling, incoherent article probably written during a drunken weekend.. Maybe its time to chuck the whiskey bottle, Mr. Singh, before presenting your expert comments on state and religion? Although I have a feeling this is your way of apologizing to the BJP for the Jinnah book..

Welcome back,didn't see you here for a while.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

While much of JS's article makes sweeping statements and extrapolates too much from Taseer's assassination, it does make an interesting argument of whether it is possible to have 'secular governments' in Muslim majority societies, or to put it differently, whether the influence of religion can be completely removed from governments in Muslim majority societies, especially 'democratic' ones.

I would argue, as I have before, that in Pakistan at least, arguing for 'secularism' is a an excellent way to defeat whatever argument/policy/agenda is being advocated.

'Secularism' is now too closely connected with the West, and in many minds connected with an attempt by the West to 'undermine Islam'. They way to reform (tolerance, respect and equal rights for all) in Pakistan is through reform of the interpretation of Islam, and spreading that interpretation through the education system and media.

As Sherry Rehman argued in the article by Christian Science Monitory - her Blasphemy Bill argued for changes in the law based on alternative Islamic interpretations of the Quran and Sunnah - interpretations endorsed by Islamic scholars from different sects on the Council of Islamic Ideology. In fact some commentators have argued that it is the PPP government that was responsible for allowing the issue to blow up by not taking up the CII recommendations, publicizing them and implementing them at that point. It would have been much harder to argue against Islamic Scholars of different faiths arriving at a consensus on amending the Blasphemy Laws, than railing against people like Taseer and Sherry Rehman.

Using Islam to advance a reformist agenda of course means that religion will continue to be part of the government, but it does not mean a death of Jinnah's vision.

I don't believe Jinnah would be hung up about the 'terminology' used to describe the State of Pakistan (Islamic Republic vs a Secular Republic), but about the values the State enforced - values of equality and freedom for all, including religious minorities - Hindus, Ahmadis, Christians and Sikhs. To that end there are a significant number of both 'secularists' and 'religious reformists' advocating for change. What is needed is a government that can show some cajones to implement reformist policies that are presented on a platter to them (like the CII recommendations on the Blasphemy Bill) instead of dilly dallying and allowing the extremists to hijack the conversation and the agenda.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Moved thread to National Politics Section.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

I dont think the common man in the Muslim world understands what secular means; the Turks, Tunisians, and Lebanese (intermittantly) understand it; though some segments in their own societies who may be labelled ''Islamist'' do seem to be getting more involved in mainstream politics for their own agenda.

I personally think religion and state should not be converged into one; however in the case of Pakistan this doesnt seem to be possible or the will of the mass majority of the people. Every country requires her own suitable system and as long as it can serve the people and provide an endless justice/appeal system then that is how we can judge them good or ''bad''

Pakistanis themselves, given the large size, have mixed views. Some want puritanical Islamist state, some want a purely Islamic welfare state, some want secular state, some socialists, and then you have some confused people.


regardless, it would be prudent not to vote in parties or leaders that will be showered with gaalis and insults later on; during election time the people should be more informed about who they vote for, rather than blindly voting for who their elders may have voted for or been influenced by


free and independent thinking goes a long way. Pakistan was a dream, our national founders led by Jinnah Saab paved the way.

we need to be more grateful for their sacrifices and respect also their modern vision for the country

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistanis themselves, given the large size, have mixed views. Some want puritanical Islamist state, some want a purely Islamic welfare state, some want secular state, some socialists, and then you have some confused people.

I would argue that behind the demands for 'Islamic State' (of any kind) and implementation of 'Islamic Laws' (to varying degrees) lies a deep loss of faith in the current parliamentary system, because of its continued failure to address the issues that impact the average Pakistani, as well as the perception that the leaders it produces sell out Pakistan and make it the subject or ridicule in the international community.

So not only is the current system (democracy or 'non-Islamic System' if you will) associated with a perceived complete failure to provide proper governance, but also perceived as responsible for the loss of Pakistan's 'honor and pride' on the international stage, and that makes for a very strong combination to drive sentiment against the current system.

I would also argue that the above dynamic feeds into people gravitating towards issues like blasphemy laws, the cartoon controversy and anti-Western sentiment since it provides an easy outlet for blame on 'emotional' issues.

Without taking the impact of the failure of the 'democratic system' in providing good governance into account, analysis of Pakistani society and 'extremist trends' etc. will be inaccurate IMO, and miss the the real issues driving conservative trends in Pakistani society.

 

[Bilal Akhtar]

@moniter brother you seem to have a very pro taliban mindset.Well it is the case and i have observed that our bangladeshi brothers do follow islamic doctrines supported by the taliban ideology.Same is the case with indian muslims that i have met and had political discussions with.You see there lies a main difference between us and you.The taliban is not supported by the majority of the people in pakistan,well we may have a sympathy for them but supporting is a different issue all together.Please do not forget the brutality of their regime .especially the idea that we should live in the stoneages.Plus you tend to forget that the bralevi school of thought is more prevelant in pakistan.So it is useless to compare us with you,when the ideology is different we cant do much,but i have seen people especilly from syhlet settled in UK,and people following a more pro bralevi islam having their sympathies with pakistan even though they are from bangladesh and you probably call them "razakar".well that's your choice.So you cant judge or compare the "islam" in people,and go with the i am holier than thou attitude cause i am more knowledgeable then you.Leave this to God; only He can judge.

 

[TOPGUN]

A another indian nut case need of serious medical attention ... lolz jerks never have anything good to say never anything about friendship & peace rather pure hate for Pakistan & its people go to hell.

 

[ice_man]

NEW DELHI – This is a tipping point for Pakistan. Will it survive the current maelstrom of challenges – exemplified by the recent assassination of Governor Salmaan Taseer of Punjab by one of his bodyguards, an Islamic zealot – or will it capsize? For the world, Pakistan’s fate is an urgent, perhaps even an existential, question.

1947akistan comes into creation (world said it won't last long)

1965: Pakistan will be annexed by india (during the war of 65 and yet we survived)

1971: Bangladesh is formed (Pakistan will disintegrate)

1980s: Soviet union will overrun pakistan

1998: Pakistan doesn't stand a chance against nuclear armed and 6 times larger negihbour

2001: War is imminent for pakistan after 9/11

2007: Benazir is dead last hope for pakistan is gone pakistan will disintegrate!


and 2011 INDIANS ARE STILL AT IT! guys time you accept pakistan! live with it!

 

[Alternative]

I would argue that behind the demands for 'Islamic State' (of any kind) and implementation of 'Islamic Laws' (to varying degrees) lies a deep loss of faith in the current parliamentary system, because of its continued failure to address the issues that impact the average Pakistani, as well as the perception that the leaders it produces sell out Pakistan and make it the subject or ridicule in the international community.

So not only is the current system (democracy or 'non-Islamic System' if you will) associated with a perceived complete failure to provide proper governance, but also perceived as responsible for the loss of Pakistan's 'honor and pride' on the international stage, and that makes for a very strong combination to drive sentiment against the current system.

I would also argue that the above dynamic feeds into people gravitating towards issues like blasphemy laws, the cartoon controversy and anti-Western sentiment since it provides an easy outlet for blame on 'emotional' issues.

Without taking the impact of the failure of the 'democratic system' in providing good governance into account, analysis of Pakistani society and 'extremist trends' etc. will be inaccurate IMO, and miss the the real issues driving conservative trends in Pakistani society.

The 'Demand' which you seem to infer, is in fact, "Tow", for large majority of our countrymen. Towed by pseudo Ulemas and Maluvis, with fanciful titles, totally inverse of Hadith of Propht PBUH, "MOMIN KI FIRASAT SAY DARO K WOH ALLAH K NOOR SAY DEKHTA HAY".
This is most evident in small towns and villages.

If people want health, wealth, education, social justice etc. that don't mean that they understand what are their "rights" and what are their "obligations".
There is hell of difference between dreaming and desiring and to comprehend what entails right to any thing.
I, once asked a villager why he voted for that "chaudry" and not that "educated person" (in real, indeed, many times), his reply was "dekho ji, banday nu so court kachary day kam painday nay, othay, shariff bandha ke kary ga.

We all want to do this and that, but, way off in our endavours.

 

[Solomon2]

General Mirza Aslam Beg, Former Chief of Army Staff, Pakistan

The national resilience of the Pakistani people is to be judged by the degree of their consciousness and commitment to guard their values, traditions and honour, called the National Purpose -

For a contrasting view of "purpose", I give you the Egyptian, Sandmonkey:

As far back as I can remember I’ve had this dream. Not much anymore, but for a while I had it all the time. There’s people on a rollercoaster and they’re having the time of their lives, and it’s loud and crashing, and there’s the booming of the ocean and the acoustics of the wind, and they’re screaming with their hands in the air, and the thing that they don’t know is that the tracks stop, somewhere at a crest, just gap into nothing, and they’re hurtling toward it. They think that they’re safe but they’re not safe.

And usually the dream gets bogged down in bureaucratic detail, trying to mobilize a team to somehow solve this problem, all the futile possible ways we could save them. Dream logic; leadership dreams. Maybe if they all raised their arms at the same counterintuitive time, at the bottom of the hill maybe, it would provide some kind of drag. Maybe if they all unlatched their harnesses at the same moment, if they somehow all knew to do it at the same time, like in a football wave, if they could do this as they were launching into space, and off the tracks altogether, they would take flight, and we could… catch them, somehow. Everyone would be safe.

Karen Armstrong wrote one of my favorite books of all time, the elegant and accessible “A History Of God”. It’s brilliant, I’ve read it lots of times. In 2000, she wrote a sort of follow-up called “The Battle For God”, about fundamentalism in the new millennium.

The idea, the rationale as such, is pretty simple. We find ourselves in a complex, degenerate post-God secular world; there are no rules, the center doesn’t hold, nobody’s watching you or judging you. Some thrive; I thrive. But it’s nervous: you’re looking into an existential abyss, or you’re standing in the middle of Sodom trying to avoid eye contact, or you’re getting turned on and about to do something really stupid. Those are the main things. Fundamentalism is sort of like all of those things at once. Let me elaborate

What’s most amazing about the millennial fundamentalists, which every single religion has, is their basic intent on going “back to basics” in some fashion, while completely ignoring the fact that there aren’t actually any “basics” to go back to. The stuff they want to accomplish, for all of us, the walls they want where a body meets a body, the rules be which we must abide, never actually existed. They’re fantasies about control, mental lockdown, revisions to decisions that no moment can erase. Every single fundamentalism is synthetic, reaching backwards for an imaginary grace.

Fundamentalism reaches past all that nonsense and chaos and into a primordial world where men were men and women weren’t, where no decisions ever had to be made, where every single option was laid out ahead of time by a firm but loving God, where families meant a certain thing and sex meant a certain thing, and everything was easy except temptation. But that’s obviously a crock. You can’t honestly tell me there was ever a time when human beings were less complex, less passionate or afraid or unpredictable, less wonderful than they are now.

For me, all this was a revelation on the level of learning, as a kid, that Allah and JHVH and the christian God were the same thing: that all Big Three monotheisms worship the God of Abraham and don’t even bother hiding that fact. The idea that “fundamentalism” was a logically tortured appeal to a beautiful pure world that never existed, and that Al Qaeda and Juniper Creek are essentially parallel movements with the same agenda and arising from the same confusion and fear… Revelatory.

Things are confusing, lots of stuff coming at your face all the time. Sex keeps getting less and less kind, and we keep blaming more and more on our parents and our kids, and technology is overwhelming and even the hippest among us can sometimes feel like the world is changing so fast and flying by so carelessly without giving us more than a glimpse of itself, much less a place to grab hold. I can’t say they don’t have a point. But then, terrorists usually do. If they didn’t have something to say (even if it’s usually a crock of bullshit), they wouldn’t feel silenced, and they wouldn’t pull the they pull. They wouldn’t feel the need to scream so loudly that the whole world must listen.

For a lot of us, it’s enough to have self-control and to make good choices, and not get out of hand, or take part in what’s going on all around you. For others, the projected disarray is way too much to handle, and you start feeling like a rat in a cage as big as the world. Everywhere around you, the world is on fire, and everyone around you goes on like the world hasn’t ended. You’re on a roller coaster with everybody alive, headed for a gap, and nobody knows it but you: we’re all heading merrily toward our destruction, and we don’t even know it. We think that we’re safe but we’re not safe.

If you have that kind of information, if you know that the tracks run out and people are going to die, it’s not only your duty to use it, but your purpose on this earth. To be in the world, but not of it. To help, and to heal, and to save the world, and in so doing, save yourself. To do what’s necessary to fulfill your destiny: to love them, and take care of them, show them the glory of peace. To see your infinite mercy matched only by your power, and complete control. Isn’t that the definition of the righteous man? The saint? The martyr? All of them…Terrorists. To give up the right to walk in this world, for a duty that must be obeyed for our souls to stay intact, unbending.

 

[Alternative]

For a contrasting view of "purpose", I give you the Egyptian, Sandmonkey:

As far back as I can remember I’ve had this dream. Not much anymore, but for a while I had it all the time. There’s people on a rollercoaster and they’re having the time of their lives, and it’s loud and crashing, and there’s the booming of the ocean and the acoustics of the wind, and they’re screaming with their hands in the air, and the thing that they don’t know is that the tracks stop, somewhere at a crest, just gap into nothing, and they’re hurtling toward it. They think that they’re safe but they’re not safe.

And usually the dream gets bogged down in bureaucratic detail, trying to mobilize a team to somehow solve this problem, all the futile possible ways we could save them. Dream logic; leadership dreams. Maybe if they all raised their arms at the same counterintuitive time, at the bottom of the hill maybe, it would provide some kind of drag. Maybe if they all unlatched their harnesses at the same moment, if they somehow all knew to do it at the same time, like in a football wave, if they could do this as they were launching into space, and off the tracks altogether, they would take flight, and we could… catch them, somehow. Everyone would be safe.

Karen Armstrong wrote one of my favorite books of all time, the elegant and accessible “A History Of God”. It’s brilliant, I’ve read it lots of times. In 2000, she wrote a sort of follow-up called “The Battle For God”, about fundamentalism in the new millennium.

The idea, the rationale as such, is pretty simple. We find ourselves in a complex, degenerate post-God secular world; there are no rules, the center doesn’t hold, nobody’s watching you or judging you. Some thrive; I thrive. But it’s nervous: you’re looking into an existential abyss, or you’re standing in the middle of Sodom trying to avoid eye contact, or you’re getting turned on and about to do something really stupid. Those are the main things. Fundamentalism is sort of like all of those things at once. Let me elaborate

What’s most amazing about the millennial fundamentalists, which every single religion has, is their basic intent on going “back to basics” in some fashion, while completely ignoring the fact that there aren’t actually any “basics” to go back to. The stuff they want to accomplish, for all of us, the walls they want where a body meets a body, the rules be which we must abide, never actually existed. They’re fantasies about control, mental lockdown, revisions to decisions that no moment can erase. Every single fundamentalism is synthetic, reaching backwards for an imaginary grace.

Fundamentalism reaches past all that nonsense and chaos and into a primordial world where men were men and women weren’t, where no decisions ever had to be made, where every single option was laid out ahead of time by a firm but loving God, where families meant a certain thing and sex meant a certain thing, and everything was easy except temptation. But that’s obviously a crock. You can’t honestly tell me there was ever a time when human beings were less complex, less passionate or afraid or unpredictable, less wonderful than they are now.

For me, all this was a revelation on the level of learning, as a kid, that Allah and JHVH and the christian God were the same thing: that all Big Three monotheisms worship the God of Abraham and don’t even bother hiding that fact. The idea that “fundamentalism” was a logically tortured appeal to a beautiful pure world that never existed, and that Al Qaeda and Juniper Creek are essentially parallel movements with the same agenda and arising from the same confusion and fear… Revelatory.

Things are confusing, lots of stuff coming at your face all the time. Sex keeps getting less and less kind, and we keep blaming more and more on our parents and our kids, and technology is overwhelming and even the hippest among us can sometimes feel like the world is changing so fast and flying by so carelessly without giving us more than a glimpse of itself, much less a place to grab hold. I can’t say they don’t have a point. But then, terrorists usually do. If they didn’t have something to say (even if it’s usually a crock of bullshit), they wouldn’t feel silenced, and they wouldn’t pull the they pull. They wouldn’t feel the need to scream so loudly that the whole world must listen.

For a lot of us, it’s enough to have self-control and to make good choices, and not get out of hand, or take part in what’s going on all around you. For others, the projected disarray is way too much to handle, and you start feeling like a rat in a cage as big as the world. Everywhere around you, the world is on fire, and everyone around you goes on like the world hasn’t ended. You’re on a roller coaster with everybody alive, headed for a gap, and nobody knows it but you: we’re all heading merrily toward our destruction, and we don’t even know it. We think that we’re safe but we’re not safe.

If you have that kind of information, if you know that the tracks run out and people are going to die, it’s not only your duty to use it, but your purpose on this earth. To be in the world, but not of it. To help, and to heal, and to save the world, and in so doing, save yourself. To do what’s necessary to fulfill your destiny: to love them, and take care of them, show them the glory of peace. To see your infinite mercy matched only by your power, and complete control. Isn’t that the definition of the righteous man? The saint? The martyr? All of them…Terrorists. To give up the right to walk in this world, for a duty that must be obeyed for our souls to stay intact, unbending.

I once read a quizzical question: If the barn is on fire, where would the horse go?.... and the answer to my surprise was; horse will go in barn; why?... because in its confusion, fear, barn is the place of safety it can think of.
When in fear of USSR, Communism what the US of A did? What on the earth has not done by US of A, have/had done to save its 'Basic' values, its 'free world'? Put the world on brink of nuclear holocaust, on potential extinction of human race? Wars, Proxy Wars etc. Every thing try to return to core when put under pressure, in fear or similarly in confusion,...To nurture it, try to protect it.
In quoted flowery article, stark geopolitical realities are ignored, miseries, deprivations, tribulations, pains and sufferings are ignored, political wrangling, power-plays, games of interests are ignored, ignored, ignored and ignored. What is to blame? God and charge laid out to be"

Fundamentalism reaches ....................... where every single option was laid out ahead of time by a firm but loving God,......, less wonderful than they are now.

So, in free world(?) we don't have any thing laid out in advance to follow?
Traffic laws, Corporate laws, Criminal Laws, Business laws, family laws,.......... a whole bunch.... including some funny laws....Your can't construct a house above this height, You can't alter a window to your taste, You can't hang curtains of this color............ You can see but not touch..... you can pay to see but not to (in Australia no such inhibition)...............(list can go on to hundred lines)...........All laid in advance, to follow..... a sign of Civilized world.
Fundamentalism (a word whose original meaning lost, now solely used in reference to Islam, writer was 'generous' to include Juniper Creek) is used in article as synonymous as following the tenets of a religion, and if one is embodiment of "if you really want to live more i'll give you something to die for" then every one of some worth is a fundamentalist. Difference being the grievances and mode of solution that differentiate a terrorist from a activist, Not religion.