My Response to Kamran Pasha's Letter

Here's my counter-response to Kamran Pasha's letter which I posted in my previous note:

Dear Kamran,

Wa Alaikum Assalaam. Thanks for responding. I would not say that the death threat made against you is "understandable." If I were to call it that, then I would be justifying it. I believe that such death threats constitute vigilantism, and thus, they are never justified. What I was trying to do is help you understand why someone may be upset by the content of your book. "The Message" was also controversial in its day; I remember reading about a group calling itself "Hanafi Muslims" that held hostage some people who went to see the movie at a theater (in Chicago?) This was also totally unjustified. But "The Message" had a purpose, and that purpose (according to the late Moustapha Akkad) was to educate the Western world about the religion of seven hundred million people (which was the global Muslim population at the time).

The purpose of your book may indeed be the same as "The Message," but from what I heard in the interview you gave, you seem intent on portraying Aisha as some kind of fiesty, feminist heroine. I would agree with you that Aisha was no shrinking violet; she was a strong individual. And maybe your intent is to show that Islam does not oppress women, and that Aisha's independent-mindedness is a model for all Muslim women. But many Muslims today associate feminism with the radical movement from the 1970's that involved burning bras and challenging the status quo. I would concede that some elements of modern feminism are compatible with Islam, such as the rights of women that you mentioned in your interview (e.g. right to own property, right to education, right to divorce, etc.) I would also concede that challenging the status quo is not necessarily contrary to Islamic principles; after all, the Prophet himself challenged the established practice of female infanticide.

But some Muslims view the forces of globalization as a threat to their traditional Islamic values. And when this social structure is threatened, then a minority of people tend to respond in ways that are un-Islamic... such as issuing death threats or burning down girls' schools. These acts of violence are wrong. But just because a minority of people are carrying out acts of violence or issuing threats in response to what they see as an ideological misrepresentation of a venerable figure from Islamic history, this does not mean that the concerns of the larger group of people should be discounted.

The Taliban are a group of misguided people, and I do not sympathize with misguided people. I sympathize with those that are suffering, especially the more than 2 million people who have become refugees in their own country. Traditional Islamic law does not call for military action against those that destroy mosques; it calls for those responsible for the destruction of mosques to be arrested, put on trial, and brought to justice. Military action drives innocent people from their homes. The Prophet MuhammadProphet Muhammad never drove innocent people from their homes in order to fight the tyrants oppressing those innocent people.

The tactics of the Taliban are not laudable, and neither are their goals. As a student of sociology, I try to understand the root causes of such movements. I feel that it is intellectually negligent to just attribute extremism to Satanic whispering and call for military action against them. Under Islamic law, military action would only be justified for the purpose of eliminating the Khawarij. But is there any historical evidence to show that military action has ever successfully eliminated Khawarij? Although using brute force may neutralize an armed insurgency, it does not always end militancy altogether. In fact, it appears to exacerbate it. The US has not succceeded in eliminating the Khawarij from Afghanistan or Iraq. Algeria fought the Khawarij for over a decade. Although the insurgencies in these 3 countries have taken hits, there are still sporadic attacks by the Khawarij in all 3 countries.

And it is near impossible to prevent sporadic attacks like destruction of mosques. If it appears that military aggression against militants increases the chances of hotels and houses of worship getting attacked, then there's a good argument to be made that such military aggression against the Khawarij is sinful since it leads to devastating retaliation by the Khawarij. In a country of 173 million people, anyone can destroy a mosque. If a person from Karachi or Lahore destroys a mosque, then this does not justify a huge military response against Karachi or Lahore. If a terrorist from Swat or South Waziristan blows up a school, then this does not justify military action against Swat or South Waziristan. Pakistan's campaign against terrorism is just as brutal, just as unjustified, and just as un-Islamic as Russia's anti-terror campaign against the Chechens, Israel's anti-terror campaign against the Palestinians, and India's anti-terror campaign against the Kashmiris.

Furthermore, traditional Islamic law would also support the removal of President Asif ZardariAsif Zardari by force. He is responsible for stealing $ 1.5 billion from the Pakistani Treasury. According to Shari'ah, Zardari should be tried in an Islamic court before an Islamic judge. If he is found guilty, then there really isn't anyone else in the world who deserves to have his right hand amputated more than a man who stole $ 1.5 bn from the Pakistani people. How many desperate Pakistanis have committed suicide out of desperation due to their poverty while Mr. Zardari was enjoying his riches? Should Mr. 10 % not be held accountable for his sins?

Even if Zardari is removed, the Pakistani army is still the most powerful institution in the country. According to traditional Islamic law, it is obligatory to remove the Pakistani army from power. It is responsible for the oppression of the Pakistani people. At a time when people are starving, the army continues to increase its defense spending. Pakistan spends more on defense than it does on health care. Due to the displacement of more than 2 million people, the Pakistani health infrastructure is on the brink of collapse, and the Pakistani army with all its expensive weaponry has not been able to eliminate the Taliban or kill its leaders. As a matter of fact, elements within the Pakistani army may be colluding with the Taliban. The ISI sponsors Lashkar e Taiba, and LeT is now an ally of the Taliban. The leader of LeT was just released from house arrest, arguably due to pressure from the Pakistani military intelligence.

Is it not sinful for the Pakistani army to support extremism that harms the innocent people of Pakistan, the innocent people of Afghanistan, and the innocent people of Kashmir? If the Pakistani army is only fighting the Pakistani Taliban while supporting the Afghan Taliban and LeT in Kashmir, then this is sinful as well. It has long been speculated that the leader of the Afghan Taliban lives in Quetta in Balochistan under ISI protection. How can the Pakistani army claim that moral authority to fight the Khawarij when they are sleeping with the Khawarij? Both the Pakistani army and the Zardari government are responsible for far more oppression than the Taliban. The Qur'an and the Sunnah support fighting oppression.

You mention Khaled Abou El Fadl. Something about that man strikes me as peculiar. He reminds me of George BushGeorge Bush, in the sense that both of them are ideologues who will exploit their situation to push their own point of view.

Example:

George Bush - attacked by religious fanatics (al Qaida); responded by attacking a secular despot (i.e. Saddam Hussain).

Khaled Abou El Fadl - imprisoned and tortured by a secular despot (Hosni MubarakHosni Mubarak); responds by dedicating his life to attacking religious fanatics in print.

You also mention Surah 49 Verse 9: "And if two parties or groups among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both. But if one of them outrages the other, then fight you (all) against the one that outrages till it complies with the Command of Allah. Then if it complies then make reconciliation between them justly, and be equitable. Verily! Allah loves those who are equitable."

I would respond by arguing that the Pakistani government did not really try to make peace with the Taliban. It did not negotiate directly with the Tehrik Taliban Pakistan. The leaders of the TTP are Maulana FazlullahMaulana Fazlullah and Baitullah Mehsud. The Pakistani government negotiated with Sufi Mohammad. He is the leader of TSNM. Given the fact that some members of the TSNM were recently ambushed and murdered by the TTP, I think it is fair to say that these groups are rivals. So no effort was made by the Pakistani government to reach an understanding with the TTP. Instead what the Pakistani government did was exploit the invasion of Buner the same way that the US government exploited the harmless Gulf of Tonkin incident to start the disastrous Vietnam War. The invasion of Buner was not even really an invasion. The Taliban left almost immediately after they entered the city.

I believe in negotiating a peace deal with the Taliban. This is something that has never been done. Even General Musharraf never negotiated directly with the Taliban; he always talked to the tribal elders who had virtually no influence on the Taliban just like Sufi Mohammad has no influence on them. I would like to close by mentioning Surah 49 Verse 10: "The believers are nothing else than brothers (in the Islamic religion). So make reconciliation between your brothers, and fear Allah, that you may receive mercy."

- Saad