DAWN: Bring IDF-Style Check-Posts To Pakistan

In the wake of yesterday’s bombings in Lahore, today’s Dawn features a piece by some motherfvcking Sri Lankan piece of trash proposing IDF-style check-posts (not that we are far from it). It goes on to say what good are the checkposts if they are not a bigger nuisance and don’t delay people for hours on end. It also proposed that if Supreme Court comes in the way of such measures, it should be ignored.

Don’t believe me? See for yourself!

Be warned: It does state things like “Oh God! Aren’t there women terrorists in this part of the world? Don’t they know it was a woman suicide bomber from Tamil Tigers who killed the Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi?”.

Then there is this gem:

I was passing a walk-through gate at the Karachi International Airport to take my Sri Lankan airline flight home when the alarm of the machine went off. I had removed all metal items from my person as required but my bracelet was there on my right hand. The guard carrying a metal detector ordered me to remove the bracelet.

“Sorry, I cannot. This is a religious thing. I cannot remove this,” I told and asked him to body-check me. But he wouldn’t, insisting that I must remove the bracelet, or miss the flight.

Our heated argument brought a senior officer to us. I invited him to a corner and started sharing some experiences. “The recent Kenyan suicide bomber never carried metal with him on board – only a mix of chemical non-metallic powder – may be around 200 grams – in his underpants. Please tell me sir, how is your colleague going to find out with his metal detector whether I am carrying explosive powder in my underpants?”

That settled the matter. The officer ordered the guard to body check me with his hands. Reluctantly he obeyed. It was then the officer who called me to a corner. “Sir, are you from Sri Lankan security forces?” he asked.

“No I am a civilian with common sense. Please advise your colleagues to trust their senses more than the machines since these could sometime deceive you. This is common sense,” I told him and walked off.

I wish I was the security officer present. I would have stripped this bastard and shoved my arm up his ass and opened my hand. Then I would have arrested him and hauled him to a lovely Pakistani jail. That’d have taught him some common sense.

He ends it with:

Sri Lankans love Pakistan for the help she rendered during the war against Tigers. It is high time that Pakistan, too, learnt some lessons from Sri Lanka’s long experience in combating and defeating terrorism. After all no one else has been able to do that in the region so far.

Ranga Kalansooriya, I hope a Tamil Tiger pays you a visit and turns your insides into outsides. I hope a few find their way to the ‘helpers’ as well.

UPDATE: How could I miss this bit (I know how — I always ignore DAWN Columnists) but here is another example from the very issue. Not only does Dawn wants us to be treated like Israelis treat the Palestinians, Irfan Hussain argues “A solid case can be made for more drone attacks, not less” 🙂

(But that is nothing new. Irfan Hussain is just being Irfan ‘Zionist’ Hussain. Here is another example where he argued “The army must move its crack troops from their barracks on the eastern front to fight the Taliban in the north.” Interestingly, he titled the piece “He who pays the piper calls the tune”
P.S. In the comments, I am also going to paste an old article that has been removed from the web — actually the whole site has been disappeared. It was based on a longer paper that is gone too and sadly I seem not to be able to find a copy of that. Another similar paper appeared on spinwatch.org but — surprise, surprise — it too is no more. Such toxic stuff 😉 If I ever find them, I certainly will post them. Of course that means my site will be disappeared too but so be it)

We Are All Palestinians Now

5 Responses to “DAWN: Bring IDF-Style Check-Posts To Pakistan”

  1. 1 nota March 13, 2010 at 11:40 pm

    Zionist Mercenaries in Pakistan’s Secular Press

    Published: Sept. 27, 2007

    In order to justify the existence of the Zionist state of Israel, the secular fascists in Pakistan have started to establish a new record. They have put a lot of effort into making people believe that Israel is a democracy and holds the right to claim the territory it occupies.

    Enjoying an effective presence in our mainstream media, the secular (some ex-communist) backing of the Zionist state has grown dramatically in both intensity and scope since the eruption of the sham ‘freedom of press’. Within this context the secular lobby has adopted an extremely racist and abusive Israel backing against Pakistan in specific and Muslims in general.

    Regrettably, our public seems to be tolerating the pr-Israel mantras which are mostly covered in the English press. The secular junta, however, is urging the Pakistani nation and criticizing the public even though they seem more accommodating and have little influence on the onward march of our nation’s history. When it comes to discussing Israeli-Arab conflict in the secular press, the terms of debate are so influenced by organized pro-Zionists lobby, like Pakistan Israel Peace Forum (PIPF), that to be critical of Israel is to deny oneself the ability to succeed in world politics!

    PIPF is the leading player in what is sometimes referred to as “The Israel Lobby”–a self proclaimed peace coalition that includes major neoconservative intellectuals and Zionists. With its impressive contacts among right-wing think tanks, influential grassroots supporters and deep connections to wealthy donors, PIPF is the Zionist lobby’s key emissary to Pakistan. But in many ways, PIPF has become greater than just another lobby; its work has made unconditional support for Israel an accepted cost of living inside Pakistan. Few would disagree that PIPF’s interest, Israel’s interest and America’s interest are today perceived to be one and the same. Serving as an Astroturf the lobby incessantly strives to influence public opinion in Pakistan with its ultimate objective being recognition of Israel.

    Though the forum claims itself being “dedicated to promoting dialogue and establishing relations between Pakistan and Israel at the political, cultural, social and economic levels” and at the same time declares “no partiality for any political position”[1] it has always pursued political motives as dictated by its pro-Israeli surrogates. Its scope of operations has not only focused on striving for recognition of Israel but has also been actively involved in promoting a minefield of interests like ‘Diplomatic Relations’, ‘Cultural and Social Links’ and ‘Economic Ties’ between Pakistan and Israel.

    This organized intellectual militant outfit was founded by a Pro-Israeli Lobbyist Michael Berenhaus based in Washington DC with Waleed Ziad a Pakistani and Dror Topf an Israeli. Berenhaus, as Muhammad Idrees describes, is “a staunch Zionist and a veteran pro-Israel lobbyist, set up the group and now serves on its advisory committee. Berenhaus is also the founder of Eye on the Post – an organization that monitors the Washington Post for its purported ‘anti-Israel bias’. Manifestations of perceived bias include such lapses as the paper’s reference to the West Bank as ‘occupied’ territory.”[2]

    PIPF’s Pakistan chapter is heralded by group of anti-Islamic nutjobs like Waleed Ziad (a self proclaimed peace activist), Shahid Javed Burki (former Vice President World Bank and Minister of Finance) and the ever present inveterate hater of Islam, Irfan Hussain (a secular bigot plaguing our English press). The group’s mandate in Pakistan is advancing

    * Diplomatic Relations – strengthening of ties between Pakistan and Israel would be a crucial factor in bringing stability and security to the region. Both countries can assist each other in brokering peace

    * Cultural and Social Links – Among the most valuable assets of Pakistan and Israel are their rich and diverse cultural and historical traditions. The opening up of relations can engender a fruitful cultural and educational exchange. Pakistan can provide Israel with a bridge to the Near East, while Israel can provide Pakistan with a bridge to the West.

    * Economic Ties – Israel has the most advanced economy in the Middle East with a large and flourishing high-tech industry, while Pakistan has rapidly expanding IT, industrial, commercial and service sectors and the fastest growing stock market in the world. The potentials for economic cooperation and partnerships are vast.

    For a group that works at ‘grass roots level’ this mandate carries mighty strong words especially when crossing rhetorical swords with right-winged Zionist think tanks and media watchdogs. Moreover, the forum claims to benchmark its activities on “Peace, reconciliation, and activism to benefit all humanity are hallmarks of the two great religions, Judaism and Islam” – a claim that runs contrary to Islamic Belief as the Holy Quran itself debunks these theories.[3]

    It has been hard for even jaded cynics not to be amazed at the apparent naivety of the PIPF involved in the so called “peace’ process.” This is the body which claims to foster close connections between Israel and Pakistan. The secular bigots at PIPF howl day night long about their relentless ‘peace’ and ‘inter-faith harmony’ efforts – their lies and hypocrisy laid exposed.[4]

    Unraveling the pro-Israeli attitudes in our ‘respected’ and ‘unquestioned’ secular media[5] doesn’t take much of an effort especially when every piece tries to battle the hostility of Pakistanis towards Israel and brings out heavy guns of advocacy to tell us that Israel’s in the right. But this Pakistani resistance has been categorized as an ‘extremist’ opposition to recognition of Israel. Eric Fingerhut, a staff writer for Washington Jewish Week, quotes Waleed Ziad on the resistance showed by the Pakistanis in recognizing Israel “To him [Waleed Ziad], the area’s biggest problem is that ‘so often on both sides … there is a refusal to acknowledge the reality’ of the other side. But often extremists have the loudest voices” and subsequently “Both Topf [Ziad’s Israeli Counterpart] and Ziad point to ambivalence in their respective countries as an obstacle for their group. Ziad said that Pakistanis generally support the Palestinian cause, but see it as far away and not an important part of their life.”[6]

    It is very hard to navigate Zionist politics especially when one tends to contort lies in order to equate ‘western colonial intrusion without legitimacy’ with ‘reality’ of recognizing Israel. Spurred on by what he sees as a ‘not in Islam’ sentiment, Ziad seeks to expose the strong ‘misconception’ about Jihad amongst Muslims “In fact, in traditional Islamic thought the concept of violent resistance against an unjust ruler was virtually unheard of; for classical jurists, tyranny was preferable to the anarchy that accompanies revolt.”[7] This bigotry is not a result of the author’s talent but is rather a result of extensive formation and the prestigious Zionist sponsors he has. Such rancid notions are a mere attempt to jump on the intellectual bandwagon to demonize the concept of Jihad and accept views that there is no Jihad at all or it is the title for promoting violence and condoning terrorism.

    Read complete paper at: http://www.icssa.org/TheSecularSupportforIsrael.pdf

    [1] Pakistan Israel Peace Forum, http://www.pakistanisraelpeace.org/

    [2] Behind the Façade of Israel-Pakistan Rapprochement, Spinwatch, April 20 2006, http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/98/8/

    [3] “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for your protectors. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.” [Surah Al Maidah: 51]

    [4] “And when it is said unto them: Make not mischief in the earth, they say: We are peacemakers only. Are not they indeed the mischief makers? But they perceive not.” [Surah Al Baqara: 11-12]

    [5] Though a significant amount of English dailies further the pro-Israeli agenda in Pakistan, the foremost perverts are “The News” and “DAWN” – owned and run by one of the sickest minds that humanity has ever witnessed.

    [6] ‘Let’s seize the day Two twenty somethings create Pakistan-Israel Peace Forum, Washington Jewish Week, Sunday January 14 2007

    [7] Jihad’s Fresh Face, New York Times, September 16 2005

  2. 2 nota March 14, 2010 at 12:15 am

    Well, found another of the articles on my harddrive and on a different spinwatch site (the one is UK. I guess they haven’t gotten to it yet and in case they do, I am reproducing it here)

    Behind the Façade of Israel-Pakistan Rapprochement

    Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, 20 April, 2006

    Ilan Pappé, the acclaimed Israeli historian, has called Israel’s much heralded withdrawal from Gaza a means for “prolonging an occupation that gets more oppressive by the day while pretending to be deeply engaged in a peace process”[1]. In the light of the developments since, most have increasingly come to the same realization; however, for the Likudniks in the US administration it has served as sufficient pretext to start pressuring Arab and Muslim states into recognizing Israel.[2] Several Arab states in the Gulf already repealed their boycotts as a result and about the same time informal contacts between Israel and Pakistan culminated in the meeting of their respective Foreign Ministers in Istanbul.

    With Musharraf pressured into broaching the question of normalization for the second time in two years, the reaction at home amongst the elites and the media has been decidedly less hostile.[3] Musharraf himself has gone so far as to declare Ariel Sharon, “a bold man, a great soldier, a courageous leader”.[4]

    While one can only speculate on the reasons for this radical shift in the views of the opinion makers, other attempts at manufacturing consent have been more transparent.

    Enter Pakistan-Israel Peace Forum.

    Pakistan-Israel Peace Forum (PIPF) claims to be a “grassroots organization”[5] but is in fact an elite network of US-based individuals with ties to prominent Zionist lobby groups and right-wing think-tanks. This veritable Astroturf [6]lobby group is striving to influence public opinion in Pakistan with the ultimate aim of obtaining the recognition of Israel. In its own words, the organization is “dedicated to promoting dialogue and establishing relations between Pakistan and Israel at the political, cultural, social and economic levels”. The organization claims to express “no partiality for any political position” however, its goals are inherently political and are meant to benefit only one side: Israel.

    The Washington DC-based organization was founded by Michael Berenhaus, an American, Waleed Ziad, a Pakistani and Dror Topf, an Israeli.

    Berenhaus, a staunch Zionist and a veteran pro-Israel lobbyist, set up the group and now serves on its advisory committee.[7] Berenhaus is also the founder of Eye on the Post — an organization that monitors the Washington Post[8] for its purported “anti-Israel bias”. Manifestations of perceived bias include such lapses as the paper’s reference to the West Bank as “occupied” territory.[9]

    Eye on the Post’s “strategic alliances” include the rightwing Zionist media watchdog groups CAMERA and Honest Reporting. Berenhaus also organized a boycott of the paper through the BoycottThePost.org website.

    Waleed Ziad, the Pakistani face of PIFP is the son of a World Bank official, and a principal at the Truman National Security Project (TNSP) — a think-tank that “envisions a Democratic Party that is preeminent in national security once again”. According to TNSP’s founder Rachel Kleinfeld, the organization was set up “very much as a counterpart to the neoconservatives of the 1970s.”[10] Ziad has written for the New York Times, International Herald Tribune and The News. He has worked for Deloitte & Touche’s International Economics Group in Washington, D.C. and as a consultant in Eastern Europe on public sector restructuring with Arthur Andersen and Ernst & Young.

    A perusal of past statements by key individuals of the group is instructive in appreciating its likely motivations.

    In a December 29, 2003 letter to the editor of The Seattle Times Berenhaus blames the decline in the number of Arab Christians in Bethlehem on “Palestinian Muslim violence and intimidation” [emphasis added]. Closures, month long curfews, road blocks, checkpoints and obstructed access to healthcare don’t factor in his analysis of the situation, however excluding mention of the 25-foot-high Apartheid wall is a curious oversight even for a committed Zionist propagandist.

    The moving story of Ahmed Ismail Khatib[11] brought about a very different kind of reaction from Berenhaus’s organization. Washington Post was excoriated for running the story of the 12 year old Palestinian boy shot by Israeli soldiers “for the second time” whose parents had donated his organs “supposedly as a peace gesture”[emphasis added]. The reason why the paper “ran this story again, particularly on the front page” is ascribed to “the Post’s long term agenda in support of Palestinian propaganda” which depicts “Israel in a brutal light” and the Palestinians “in a beneficent and peaceful light”. The Post accomplishes this by raising questions such as “Why the Palestinian children are killed?” and even adopting the “language of the terrorists”. The Post goes further in its “support for Palestinian propaganda” by describing a picture of the child “cradling a guitar”[emphasis in original] and mentioning the fact that he was “shot twice”.[12]

    Waleed Ziad is a self-described “interfaith activist” and a “left wing peacenik”[13]. In an article published in the New York Times he writes: “in traditional Islamic thought the concept of violent resistance against an unjust ruler was virtually unheard of; for classical jurists, tyranny was preferable to the anarchy that accompanies revolt” [emphasis added]. He also has some words of advice for the occupiers of Iraq: “our corporations should guide local entrepreneurs to promote a free market, the backbone of democracy. If anything is going to come of the neoconservative hope of making Iraq into a beacon of our values, it will be along these lines.”[14]

    Writing in the New York Times on another occasion Ziad offers advice on opening a new front in the “War on Terror”: “Permanently dislodging these extremists[sic] calls for educational, economic and cultural development” through a far cheaper program of funding “functional education” and “real economic opportunities” with “Western money”[emphasis added] so that the US is seen not as an occupier but a “purveyor of prosperity”.[15]

    For a “grass roots” movement, the initiative seems to have sparked little public interest, but it has garnered the support of some key individuals in high places.

    Shahid Javed Burki, a member of the group’s advisory board, is the former Vice President of the World Bank and former Finance Minister of Pakistan. Writing in Dawn Burki suggests that “Pakistan should develop relations with Israel and the Jewish community in the United States and Europe” not for any “grandiose objectives”, but for the “many rewards” it would bring.[16] 

    Irfan Hussain, a columnist for Dawn and Khaleej Times, and a member of the group’s Advisory Board, is equally forthright in advocating a policy of “enlightened self-interest”. In his view all opponents of rapprochement must necessarily belong to “religious parties” whom he faults for not presenting any “cogent reasons” beyond their “anger over the treatment the Israelis have been meting out to Palestinians under their occupation”. [17]

    Hussain’s honesty is matched only by his creativity as he offers a novel interpretation of history in which “many Pakistanis admired the Jewish state for its pluck and inventiveness” before 1967. The parallels between the birth of the two nations “are too obvious to dwell on” in his view as, like Pakistan, the state “was created under adversity”.[18]

    Jaffer Bilgrami, another member, is a spin doctor for the Prime Minister of Pakistan and works for the Associated Press, Pakistan Television and Radio Pakistan.

    The group has also managed to enlist Salman Ahmad — a prominent Pakistani musician, filmmaker and UN Goodwill Ambassador. He is the nephew of Muslims for Bush founder Seeme Gull Hassan who wanted to invade Iraq “personally”.[19]

    The group’s advisory board is composed mostly of the scions of Pakistani elite and right-wing Zionists. David Yarkony, one of the board members, is a former Colonel in the Israeli Military and a bane of Israel’s critics. He declared Prof. Lev Greenberg of Ben-Gurion University an “SOB anti-Semitic Jew” for criticizing Israel’s policy of extrajudicial killings and demanded that he be “fired immediately”.[20]

    Whereas PIPF is actively vying for visibility, other groups prefer operating behind the scenes. The Washington, D.C.-based Hudson Institute has spawned its own set of think-tanks with a curious mix of neoconservatives and Pakistani elites. Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistani diplomat and adviser to three Prime Ministers is now the co-chair of Hudson’s Centre on Islam, Democracy and the Future of the Muslim World. The Centre was established by Hillel Fradkin, a neocon signatory to a Project for New American Century, letter to the President urging a war against Iraq, and equating the Palestinian Authority with Al-Qaeda. 

    Haqqani’s association with the Zionist-right is not recent. In 2004, along with Stephen Schwartz — a neocon pundit who writes for the ultra-right FrontPage Magazine, Weekly Standard and National Review. Haqqani co-founded the Institute for Islamic Progress and Peace (IIPP), tasked with the neocon project of “religion building”.[21] Their repertoire included attacks on US based Muslim advocacy groups such as the Islamic Society of North America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Students Association. Critics of Israel were hit with the familiar “anti-Semitism” charge. During a tour promoting IIPP, they advised members of a Jewish advocacy group and the Jewish Community Federation that “[t]he Jewish lobby has to organize, write letters, and continue to contribute to politicians to counter the Saudi lobby, which has extraordinary influence in Washington, D.C.”[22]

    Like Irfan Hussain, Haqqani also feels the repression of Palestinians is insufficient reason for the continuing opposition to normalization of relations with Israel and instead ascribes it to the “anti-Semitism” that is “so deeply rooted”.[23]

    Another “grassroots” organization with a dubious agenda is the Council for Democracy and Tolerance (CDT) whose president Tashbih Sayyed is an Adjunct Fellow at the Hudson Institute. The organization’s mission statement declares that “Islamists have established themselves here in US to destroy our democratic system”; with “Islamists” being a reference to mainstream Muslim groups such as CAIR and MPAC — among some of its frequent targets. On the appointment of known Islamophobe Daniel Pipes to the US Institute of Peace, on the other hand, Sayyed was moved to declare “President Bush won my heart”.  He declared Pipes “a true American” and that it was “his holy obligation to warn the nation of terror and threat posed by militant Islamists and their representative organizations to destroy American peace and solidarity”.[24]

    CDT runs online news sites called Pakistan Today and Muslim World Today which provide platform to the extremist views of Pipes and Morton Klein besides publishing strange tales of Islamist conspiracies to take over the world[25]. Fittingly packaged in Fox News vocabulary, the amateurish website is unlikely to draw any serious visitors, but it serves a certain purpose since it is widely cited on right-wing websites, where it is referred to as a bona fide publication.

    Both Sayyed and Fradkin are represented by Benador Associates — the neocon’s publicist of choice.

    Another stalwart who came to Pipes’s defence is Akbar S. Ahmad — a former diplomat and a current chair at the American University, Washington[26]. Pipes has reciprocated by putting him on top of the list of “recommended professors” on his McCarthyite Campus-Watch website.

    Besides producing documentaries for the BBC and a feature film, Ahmad is known for insights such as: “Muslim reading of Clinton had much to do with their planning for September [11], bin Laden misread Bush on the basis of Clinton’s behaviour.”[27] More recently, he has also jumped the rapprochement bandwagon and in an article co-written with Judea Pearl — the UCLA professor famous for comparing Robert Fisk to Bin Laden for his critical reporting on the Israel-Palestine conflict — he urges Musharraf to frame the conflict as a “clash between two legitimate national movements” and implies that it is the lack of interfaith dialogue that precludes resolution.[28]

    In and of itself, it is unlikely that this endeavour will go far in shifting public opinion in favour of Israel. Israeli policies are too inhuman, and the sympathies for the Palestinians too strong. In a society as stratified as the one in Pakistan it is usually the opinion of the most privileged that carries the day. In this instance, that is precisely the constituency being targeted by these organizations. The ones listed here have access to the national media and they are already receiving sympathetic coverage.  As the Palestinians endure an ever escalating process of “creeping genocide”, it is doubly imperative that all attempts to undermine their position be foiled.

    Muhammad Idrees Ahmad is a researcher for Spinwatch. He can be reached at m.idrees @ gmail.com

    [1] Ilan Pappé, “The Disappointing Trajectory of Amir Peretz“,
    London Review of Books, Vol. 27 No. 24, December 15 2005
    [2]Robert Fisk, “Twisting Gulf Arms“, New Statesman, October 31, 2005
    [3]Musharraf’s first attempt in 2003 at normalization was thwarted by stiff resistance at home.
    [4]Interview with Pervez Musharraf, Der Spiegel, May 28, 2005
    [5]Letter to the Editor, Dawn, September 28, 2005
    [6] Astroturf Lobbying is a standard PR Industry practice defined by the Campaigns & Elections as a “grassroots program that involves the instant manufacturing of public support for a point of view in which either uninformed activists are recruited or means of deception are used to recruit them.”
    [7]Eric Fingerhut, ““Let’s seize the day”Two twentysomethings create Pakistan-Israel Peace Forum“, Washington Jewish Week, November 17, 2005
    [8] for an anlysis of WP’s coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, see Ali Abunimah and Hussein Ibish, “The US Media in the New Intifada”, in Roan Carey’s (ed.), The New Intifada: Resisting Israel’s Apartheid, (Verso, 2001), pp 233-256
    [9]Eric Fingerhut, ““Post” Boycotters Continuing Protest Efforts“, Washington Jewish Week, June 20, 2002
    [10]E. J. Kessler, “Faces Forward: Putting National Security on the Democratic Agenda“, Forward, June 3, 2005
    [11] Scot Wilson, “ Life and Hope Flow From Palestinian Boy’s Death“, Washington Post, November 12, 2005; “Palestinian’s organs go to Israel“, BBC News, November 8, 2005
    [12]Post Front Page Propaganda“, Eye on the Post Media Alert, November 24, 2005
    [13] Letter to Spinwatch.org, November 29, 2005
    [14]Waleed Ziad, “Jihad’s Fresh Face“, New York Times, September 16, 2005
    [15]Waleed Ziad, “How the Holy Warriors Learned to Hate“, New York Times, June 18, 2004
    [16] Shahid Javed Burki, “Israel: Question of Recognition“, Dawn, September 13, 2005
    [17]Irfan Hussain, “Facing up to Reality“, Dawn, February 12, 2005
    [18]Irfan Hussain, “Rationalising Pakistan’s steamy affair with Israel“, Khaleej Times, November 17, 2005
    [19]Ruhi Hamid, “Muslim America: A New Identity?“, BBC News, March 14, 2005
    [20]David Yarkony, Reader comment, Ma’ariv International, November 24, 2004
    [21]Jim Lobe, “US: From nation-building to religion-building“, Asia Times, April 9, 2004
    [22]Marilyn Karfeld, “Muslim majority is tired of extremists“, Cleveland Jewish News, February 13, 2004
    [23] Aamer Ahmad Khan, “Pakistan and Israel — New Friends?“, BBC News,  September 1, 2005
    [24]Fatima Sayyed, “Bush Nominates Daniel Pipes to Board of US Institute of Peace“, Pakistan Today, April 15, 2003
    [25]Tashbih Sayyed, “Islamist Hydra“, Pakistan Today, August 15, 2003
    [26]Khalid Hasan, “Dr Akbar S Ahmed lone Muslim voice in favour of Daniel Pipes nomination“, Daily Times, July 26, 2003
    [27]quoted in Ahmad Faruqui, “Book Review: Islam Under Siege“, Asia Times, June 28, 2003
    [28]Judea Pearl and Akbar S. Ahmad, “A Thought of Musharraf“, Forward Forum, September 16, 2005

  3. 3 Project Humanbeingsfirst.org March 15, 2010 at 5:48 am


    Thank you for posting those two articles.

    I sort of evolved a straigthforwar strategy in the aftermath of 911 as the attacks and disparagement against Muslims, Islam, and religion increased in the United States and globally. I’ll just share it here by way of an example.

    The following is a link to my article which was in response to an article by MS, which in turn was responding to an article by Irfan Hussain titled ‘Morality and Atheism’ published in DAWN, February 17, 2010.


    MS in response to IH’s article, wrote:

    “Irfan Hussain, in his article ‘Morality and Atheism’ published in DAWN, February 17, 2010, has cited an array of facts and figures to assert his point that despite rising agnostic/atheistic trends in secular Europe, those societies demonstrate better standards of morality as opposed to corrupt and decadent religious societies. This proves, according to Hussain, that there exists no direct link between religion and morality, and that atheism as opposed to religion, is equally moral, if not more.”

    Clearly IH, as always, was shilling for anti-religion, but mainly against Islam, by citing statistics.

    So, MS wrote out a thoughtful response defending Islam, and religion, in effect, taking the bait and making the conversation about Muslims, our cracks and lacunae, about Islam and its pristine virtues, and about religion:

    Begin extended Excerpt

    … In the Muslim world, following the failure of post-colonial Muslim societies to establish the Shariah in letter and spirit, religion, reduced to ‘religiosity’, suffers a similar ‘perversion’. Will Durant writes, “The nadir of perversion is reached when the clergy, whose function is to console and guide a harassed humanity with religious faith and hope and charity, are made the tools of theological obscurantism and political oppression.” This very aptly sums up the state of affairs in Muslim societies globally.

    Technically speaking, the task of establishing and regulating the Shariah of Islam belongs to governments. Given the endless chain of corrupt, exploitative and inept regimes plaguing Muslim societies after freedom from colonial rule, successive governments have utterly failed in the task, ignored or neglected it or worse still, allowed it to be manipulated and misused for the extension of political power. Although traditionally Muslim jurists have performed the job of checking and curtailing the limits of governing authorities and binding them within a framework of commitments to uphold fundamental human rights and dignities stipulated by the Shariah, this is no more the case. Muslim jurists are either marginalized from legislative process by governments, or have voluntarily disassociated themselves from the system owing to its many un Islamic elements. Those who remain are self-serving, salaried state functionaries who do little more than assent and approve. Traditionally, it was Muslim jurists who determined the law, while states used their powers to implement it, provided their strategies and regulations did not contravene Divine law. While it was the Shariah as interpreted by the consensus of the eminent mainstream jurists that was the fountainhead, politics was its protector. The fatal mistake made by contemporary conservative Muslim states like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan is that the State has been given legislative power over and above divine law. An example may be given of the government-imposed ban on women’s driving in Saudi Arabia, which seeks justification as a ‘precautionary measure’, using the logic of ‘blocking the means’ to a suspected violation of morality or law. This is clearly an instance of overweening State power that is not moderated and held in check by the guardians of the letter and spirit of the Shariah. A more indepth analysis of the malaise within Muslim societies is offered by Khalid El Fadl in his treatise on Democracy and Islam. According to him, “the disintegration of the role of the ulema and their co option by the modern praetorian state with its hybrid practice of secularism have opened the door for the state to become the maker and enforcer of the divine law; in so doing, the state has acquired formidable power that has further ingrained the practice of authoritarianism in various Islamic states.”

    Yet another aspect is the dichotomous understanding of the Shariah which drives a wedge between its ethical content and its legal aspect. In the Muslim mind, the Shariah has been reduced to a set of laws disconnected from their accompanying moral basis which the law simply facilitates and guards. Unless the Shariah is understood and established as a whole_ with its essential values of respect for human rights and dignity, equality, plurality, justice and mercy highly emphasized by the Quran, imposing a bare set of laws will do little more than give a veneer of religiosity to a spineless legal code lacking its true ethical base. This is exactly what Muslim societies suffer from. Added to this the contemporary problems of poverty, lawlessness, social disparity, what is left is the utter morass we find all over the Muslim world.

    And yet, in the heart of the terrible crises, Muslims manage to find solace in the spirituality of religious belief, adherence to social and personal values and the traditional honouring of filial ties. That has prevented these ravaged Muslim societies from moral anarchy and chaos. In contrast, the rising incidence of suicide, anxiety, depression and psychosis in the affluent, prosperous and comfortable Western societies drives home the point very effectively. Mr. Hussain fails to realize the immense psychological and social value of the ‘solace for their wretched condition with promise of compensation in after life’, as well as the moral imperative to ‘assuage guilt by giving alms generously, thereby hoping to buy a place in heaven.’ The absence of the sense of duty to pay taxes to the state is yet another symptom of the utter failure of political systems and the absence of trust among citizens for their corrupt and dishonest rulers. …

    Religion very realistically embraces this premise, and this code of absolute morality is most strikingly apparent in the pristine Shariah of Islam_ ethics and legality, beyond clerical or statist manipulation. It is the poet-philosopher Iqbal who has the last word, writing in his ‘Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam’: “Both nationalism and atheistic socialism, at least in the present state of human adjustments, must draw upon the psychological forces of hate, suspicion, resentment which tend to impoverish the soul of man and close up his hidden sources of spiritual energy. Neither the technique of medieval mysticism, nor nationalism, nor atheistic socialism can cure the ills of a despairing humanity. Surely, the present moment is one of great crisis in the history of modern culture. The modern world stands in need of renewal. And religion, which in its higher manifestations is neither dogma, nor priesthood, nor ritual, can alone ethically prepare the modern man for the burden of the great responsibility which the advancement of modern science necessarily involves, and restore to him the attitude of faith which makes him capable of winning a personality here and retaining it hereafter. It is only by rising to a fresh vision of his origin and future, his whence and whither, that man will eventually triumph over a society driven by an inhuman competition, and a civilization which has lost its spiritual unity by its inner conflict of religious and political values.”

    End Excerpt

    I am sure there must have been thunderous applause from the Muslims reading it. Very eloquent. And entirely irrelevant. At least in my view.

    Below is a concluding snippet from my comment to MS’s article. Serendipitously, a commenter before me had left an interesting three questions, and I was able to employ these as a foil to indirectly demolish IH’s myopic agenda which is the same agenda of secular humanism, while staying away from the trap of defending Islam and making it about Islam and Muslims, which it of course ain’t about.


    To conclude then, today it is the ‘white man’s burden’ that is the problem. Not religion. Secular humanism is their agenda. And subverting all religions, breaking apart all traditions, breaking apart the family unit, and replacing faith as the cohesive uniting force with scientific global dictatorship which views mankind as cattle to be centrally spawned, managed, utilized, and end-of-life’d, is the endgame. Faith in something outside of our existence, in Divinity, is their greatest obstacle. And those discussing religion, or endeavoring to make it the center of focus in the middle of hegemonic conquests for world government, better start comprehending that agenda of subversive “cognitive infiltration” and pertinently contextualize their exposition. The house negro as well as the patsy apparently grow quite ubiquitously in the modernity du jour. No exponent of truth among the ‘untermensch’ harboring a real heart, atheist or theist, would wish to be among them. This is most pertinent for Muslims today.

    Our values, our religion is under attack from all sides by highlighting the abuses and excesses which have crept into Muslim cultural practices, or attributed to us (e.g. Islamofascism), and forcing us into the discussion of religion of Islam instead (see: print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/12/islamofascism-zionofascism-judeofascism.html ).

    Attacks on others’ religions will soon follow. Rather than defend one’s religion, which one can’t, defend one’s own-self and one’s kith by minimally comprehending and unmasking modernity which is being entirely orchestrated through multiple Hegelian Dialectic. The successive “Hegelian mind fcks” is making even the most brilliant people lose perspective. The religion of Islam, as all other great religions of mankind, stands on its own. Islam needs no defending. But Muslims [mercilessly being killed and incarcerated everywhere by the thousands in the name of ‘war on terror’] do!

    End Excerpt

    The global agenda is world government, and its attendent properties, which includes no-religion, scientific dictatorship managed of a literate elite as in Atlas Shrugged, etc. Whenever they talk about Islam, or how pathetic Muslims are, it is necessary to re-orient and contextualize the conversation to that overarching agenda and entirely avoiding any conversation on Islam and Muslims. Turn it into human beings, the ‘untermensch’, regardless of their religion, being enslaved.

    Zahir Ebrahim
    Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

  1. 1 A Quickie: Columnists, Spooks, and Zionist Shills « F*ck Politics Trackback on May 22, 2010 at 7:18 pm
  2. 2 Minority’s (and Dawn’s) Typical Hypocrisy: An Excellent Example « F*ck Politics Trackback on December 1, 2011 at 3:15 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: