Letter to an American Muslim

Forget armchair musings: This is what learned ones think and write. The ones who matter to intelligent Pakistanis. Not the english-trash columnists.

Good job Ali. Now we need someone to write an interesting opinion piece like this and get it published in the New York Times and other large dailies. Its important that such messages get out to the larger American poplulation (or atleast those that read newspapers) because it highlights to them that we longer can be taken for granted and while you may make jokes about Muslims sooner rather than later we will have a voice that will have to be heard across the political spectrum.

Ref hamidm2 #137

[............... by this time you should know that my use of ``the bar`` and references to ``merlot`` are purely symbolic .............. kind of like the old poets` use of ``beloved`` to refer to a fictitious deity and ``ishq`` to symbolize infatuation with imaginary gods ...........

...... the bar could be the ball-park and merlot could be a lemonade................ ]

Please, please tell me that at least the 19-year-aged Macallen is real.

Letter to Daily Times:

Pak-Israel relations

Sir: It is great news that the Israeli Agriculture Minister, Yisrael Katz, is planning to visit Pakistan. Israel is a reality that Pakistan must accept, and I am glad that the Pakistan government has finally realised that Israel is too important a country to be ignored any longer.

Pakistan can benefit greatly by forging ties with Israel, in particular in the economic and scientific sectors. Improving its relations with Pakistan is also important for the government of Israel since Pakistan is the world’s second largest Muslim country and it would help Israel if it could establish relation with Pakistan.

The government of Pakistan must start preparing its people for the recognition of Israel (which hopefully will be soon). The people of Pakistan must be convinced that friendship with Israel is in Pakistan’s best interests and that this will not affect our stand on a state for the Palestinians. At the same time, Pakistan must tread this path carefully, not antagonising important Arab countries like Saudi Arabia. Pakistan will also have to take into account Iran’s reaction to this development.

With skilful diplomacy, Pakistan can retain the friendship of Arab countries (including the Palestinian Authority) while forging ties with Israel.
TAIMUR MASUD KHAN
USA

Hello Mr. Ali,


ANGOOR KHATTE HAIN KYA?

You may hoot n` holler about the fainlings of US, but have you looked at the lines that form ouside the US embassey? When was the last muslim gunned down in the streets of US, and how many shias sacrifice their lives in Pakistan? May be you get the point, it is just that you want to stick to your guns for now, hoping someday your children will get to the shores of green dollars.

HE at 209:

To the extent you mentioned, I agree with you. However, pinning our hopes on emotionally charged Islamic militants would be a suicide for the society, since there are many conflicting viewpoints on many a religious issues that these morons will like to settle through bullets.

Politically, Pakistan has already provided an opportunity to Islamists in partcipating in Governance and decision making process.

However, I will like to share my views on a matter that you are discussing with Tauheed.

It is not only Pakistanis who are critical of American invasion of Iraq. In my December`s trip to Europe and the USA, I found out first hand that Europeans are much more anti-Americans these days than Pakistanis, for example. And they express their hate explicitly. I was amazed at their loudness on expressing their dislike of the American policy.

#216 by tahmed32

Sorry for a long reply but judging from your melodramatic posts, it seems you are still not getting it.

Firstly, criticizing the US war effort does not make one a supporter of arab terrorists. That would make Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Nelson Mandela, Sean Penn, etc ``supporters of arab terrorists`` too (which they of course are not).

Secondly, the term ``arab terrorists`` is a racist slur against people of Arab origin. Unless you see the War on Terror as a War on Arabs, you should really desist from such phrases.

Thirdly, America has lost the battle for hearts and minds of the Muslims, even the moderate ones. Stroll into any college campus in Pakistan, and you will hear an earful of criticism.

You might argue that some of this backlash was inevitable due to the war in Afghanistan. But I am not talking about Afghanistan in particular. People were quite willing to accept collateral damage in Afghanistan in the hope that America would rebuild it.

The real problem here is that Bush changed course and started another war against another Muslim state because its WMDs presented an ``imminent threat`` to the US. This war was conceived even before the Afghanistan war was over. He wasn`t even prepared to get a UN resolution authorizing war. Now almost a year later, he hasn`t produced a single WMD or any evidence thereof. Moreover, dozens of Americans die every week in what appears to be an organized resistance. Even the major Shia population (supporters of Ayotallah Sistani) don`t want Americans to stay in Iraq. When you start a preemptive war on the basis of WMDs and then fail to produce one, it is natural for people to distrust you.

This is America`s problem now. It is distrusted by Muslims. This is no longer a war on terror. It has now become something else. You can`t blame Pakistanis for expressing their criticism of America. Attacking other people`s freedom of expression is neither democratic nor an American thing.

Many countries including France and Germany see America as a bigger threat to world peace than Al-Qaeda. As a result, Osama the Moron is looking like a victim, an underdog. His meticulous body language and masterful selection of Quranic verses is intended to convey the same message. If a superpower with the most powerful media in the world starts losing the battle for hearts & minds to a man issuing statements from a cave... then something is seriously amiss.

+++
Fourth: You claim that no pakistanis were affected by 9/11. For your information planeloads of pakistanis who were in the US illegally were sent back. Learn to face facts.

Fifth: You claim that pakistanis come to the US only if jobs are available. FYI thousands of pakistanis come to the US on things like visitor`s visa and so forth without any job offer. Many of them are paying the price.
+++

Forgive my prudeness, but why should illegal residents NOT be sent home. Deportation of illegal immigrants is not something new, is it?

To my knowledge, Pakistanis applying for visit visas had problems in 2001 but not so any more. Sure, they have to endure the racial profiling and fingerprinting at airports. But they still get visas. Can you substantiate your argument with actual figures about what percentage of visit visas are denied?

HE #211

On demonstrations: neither you nor I know for sure what impact they had. What one can say with certainty is that they did not create feelings of goodwill towards pakistan in the US.

Second: You ignore the point I made about thousands of pakistanis who joined the taliban even prior to 9/11. Ignoring inconvenient points is a good way to escape reality. It does not make you any wiser, nor does it change reality.

Third: You talk about collateral damage caused among afghan civilians by US bombing. You conveniently forget the ``collateral damage`` caused by those arab murderers on the 40-50 pakistanis who were killed at WTC. The US was forced into the war on terrorism due to 9/11, the arabs and islamists are the ones responsible for every single life lost or ruined in this conflict. You may find it inconvenient to believe this, but these hijackers of islam and their supporters will not escape Allah`s justice.

Fourth: You claim that no pakistanis were affected by 9/11. For your information planeloads of pakistanis who were in the US illegally were sent back. Learn to face facts.

Fifth: You claim that pakistanis come to the US only if jobs are available. FYI thousands of pakistanis come to the US on things like visitor`s visa and so forth without any job offer. Many of them are paying the price.

CONCLUSION: There is threfore a cost to pakistanis of this irresponsible anti-US ideology that you and urstruly and others living comfortably in the US maintain.

And there is a cost pakistanis have paid for these islamist types that you support: and that cost is not only in terms of money, but in terms of blood (for those pakistanis killed on 9/11 by the arab terrorists).

No wonder you people are in denial on 9/11. Because the truth is too much for you to handle. So you can live out your lives in falsehood and delusions. If you believe in the Day of Judgement, you would be more concerned with being honest and straightforward.

rsridhar #213 agreed on 1, 2, 6 and 7. these add to, but do not replace, the reasons i gave.

disagree on:

5: what gen paddy does speaks louder than what he says. it is quite clear that the mood in india was to overrun pakistan once and for all. that mood took a sudden swing once it became clear that pakistan was prepared to use the nuclear option rather than allow itself to be run over.

6: throughout the 90`s the bjp tried to have pakistan declared a pariah state. i remember clearly the news reports on indian official statements. didnt work. in the post 9/11 world, with pakistan out of the woods, sanctions lifted etc., there was even less reason for pakistan to think that the self-serving indian government viewpoint would be accepted by the international community. so i dont accept this is being a concern.

the reason i support settling on the LOC is simply because i see it as the only practical way to move forward to more important issues (i.e. poverty alleviation within both countries). not because there is anything inherently moral about the dispute which is ultimately a territorial dispute due to the mess the brits made when leaving india.

rsridhar #213 thank you sir for the kind words. i am glad you and i have the same vision for peace in the subcontinent which will one day, most surely, become a reality.

re:#191 by tahmed32

``And incidentally, the best way to get rid of an enemy is to make it a friend. In this sense I am 100 percent behind musharaff in his peace efforts with India.``
Well said, tahmed Sahib,
I concur whole heartedly with this line of thinking.
Sridhar

re:#198 by tahmed32

``Pakistan-India: Recent imporvements in relations seem to be based on solid underlying reasons - (a) A realization among the extremists in India that pakistan cannot be bullied (I believe the turning point came last year when the million man army was neutralized by musharaff`s brilliant moves in terms of referring to the nuclear option and carrying out a few well timed missile tests). (b) A strong public resentment against militarists in pakistan who are seen as using the kashmir dispute as a reason to enrich themselves. (c) A general desire for peace and friendship among people in both countries, and a realization that both countries have a joint economic stake in a peaceful and progressive South Asia. ``

As usual, Pakis conveniently forget the real reasons for the Indo-Pak rapproachment.

1. US strategic interests are not served by Indo-Pak rivalry. Pak had often complained to US that it is unable to spend enough manpower and energy due to its rivalry with India and having to dedicate a large portion of its manpower and resources towards its eastern border. With new peace initiative, US believes Pak will be more serious in taking on the Al-Qaida warriors on its western border.
2. Pak`s role in fomenting jehad and trying to drain India`s resources thr` a ``thousand cuts`` in Kashmir failed as its own economy started to falter and India`s forged ahead.
3. India is a status-quo power and is satisfied with the realities on ground. It is Pak which is trying to change the status-quo in Kashmir. Nuclear deterrence might have saved an attack by India following attack on its parliament when it mobilized its troops along the border (i personally doubt if India was deterred by Pak`s nuclear status; read what General Paddy had to say on the matter from Ballukhan`s post), but it definitely did not help Pak to change the status quo. Nuclear assets were like an albatross around Pak`s neck as recent happenings testify.
4. Following 9/11, the equation changed drastically. India was successfully able to project itself as the victim of jehad and terrorism from ``across the LOC``. In the new world order, terrorism had no place, even if these were ``freedom fighters`` as Pak claimed (even LTTE claims itself as freedom fightrers but there are few takers for this line of reasoning, in India or abroad).
5. All above literally compelled Pak to sue for peace
6. For India, realization came that it too had to solve the Kashmir problem if it wanted to get out of this ``Indo-Pak`` rut that it has been in for years and become a global player.
7. Role of US in bringing an Indo-Pak rapproachment is unmistakable though not publicly acknowledged.
Sridhar

#165 by tahmed32

Let me first disabuse you of a few incorrect impressions.

Firstly, the demonstrations that took place in NWFP and parts of Sind during September 2001 comprised only 5,000-8,000 protestors. At one of the demonstrations in D.G.Khan, there were more policemen and press-reporters than protesters! The Mullahs basically failed to mobilize masses against US because of a huge sympathy wave for the Americans.

Only after news of massive collateral damage & human rights violations by Special forces/Northern Alliances poured in... the sympathy wave turned into an anti-US wave in NWFP, Karachi and Baluchistan. The first mass protest occured in late December and mid-Jan 2002.

Secondly, every weeks hundreds of Pakistan are getting visit visas for US. If today Pakistanis are not getting H-1 (work) visas easily, its because there are no new jobs in the first place!! With millions of Americans laid off since March 2000, the H-1 quota has already been reduced from 195,000 (in 2000) to 65,000 (in 2003).

Once U.S. companies begin re-hiring foreign workers, Pakistanis with the right qualifications will have no trouble getting H-1 visas... even if they sport a beard and criticize America`s foreign policy. The FBI and INS does not subscribe to your blanket definition of terrorism. It has its own specific and measurable criteria.

re: #170 by ballukhan

+++
UrsTruly, malik, Romair,HE can you answer these question?

1. Do you think that the American Jews are actually controlling the ``war on Terror`` efforts being made by the Americans?
+++

Yes and no.
The Israeli lobby (not all American Jews are pro-Israel) and an influential section of neo-conservative Christians are exploiting the ``War on Terror`` to implement their vision outlined in Paul Wolfowitz`s Project for the New American Century. This essentially means extending American influence over the world through military means and re-creating the world (by force) in America`s image. Destruction of Al-Qaeda is just a footnote in this project.

+++
2. Do you believe that America has corrupted and defiled the Muslim world, has stolen its wealth and whose foreign policies obstruct the attainment of the muslim political goals?
+++

No America has not corrupted/defiled the Muslim world. This is a task that corrupt Muslim kings, politicians and dictators have done themselves. However, American foreign policy supports regimes (Israel, India) that perpetrate state terrorism against Muslims and occupy their lands. It is these specific political problems (Israel in particular) that pitches Muslims against America.

+++
3. do you believe in the notion of Jehad as having the following goals and objectives:

· Establishing the rule of God on earth.
· Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God.
· Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity.
+++

Depends on the definition of ``rule of God``, ``cause of God`` and ``depravity``. There must be consensus among Muslims regarding the meaning of these terms... i.e. one state can`t arbitrarily accuse another state of ``depravity`` and then declare Jehad against it.

Secondly, it must be established that there are no peaceful ways (preaching, legislation, diplomatic pressure, economic pressure, etc) to achieve these goals.

Armed Jehad is only the last resort. And it must be undertaken by a state, not individuals/groups.

#186 by ahmadzai

I agree that Islamists can become a liability if they outgrow their wings. This is largely because of their inflexible doctrinaire world view. Isolationism is the root cause of this rigidity. Instead of marginalizing the Mullah, we need to include him in Pakistan`s decision making process. A few years of exposure to governance will facilitate a sea-change in the Mullah`s mindset.

Until 2002, the Islamist parties enjoyed power through the backdoor but never directly. They enjoyed the patronage of Army yet always remained in opposition. They could abuse power and yet evade criticism. Not any more.

Consider the change in Fazlur Rehman`s attitude towards India. Before 2002, his JUI (which is the parent of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba & Jaish-e-Muhammad) was a vocal supporter of Jihad in Kashmir. Ever since MMA`s ascent to power, the Maulana has adopted a dovish attitude towards India in general and Kashmir in particular. He even visited India on a bid to improve relations.