Saturday, May 9, 2009 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

Pakistan is Already an Islamic State

by Ali Eteraz - Dissent Magazine

Thanks to Stefan for the link.
Reposted from
http://dissentmagazine.org/online.php?id=235

A recent sharia-for-peace deal between militant groups and the civilian government in Pakistan’s quasi-autonomous Swat region has ignited interest in the status of Islamic law in Pakistan. The U.S. State Department, concerned about terrorist safe-havens, called the deal a “negative development.” Meanwhile, Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek, trying to look at the bright side of things, argued that the deal might drive a wedge between “violent” radicals and those that are “merely extreme.”

Both of these views, rooted in the “war on terror” frame of thinking, diagnose Pakistan’s relationship with Islam incorrectly. The real issue in Pakistan is not that from time to time a group of militants, while demanding the implementation of sharia, begins attacking civilians. This, while deplorable and painful, is a consequence of Pakistan’s constitution. The essential problem in Pakistan is its flawed constitutional framework, which forces every citizen to refer to their idiosyncratic and personal views on life through the lens of “Islam.” Such a state of affairs has the effect of concealing every political, material and economic demand behind theological verbiage, and that situation ultimately favors religious hard-liners and militants who are willing to use violence.

Pakistan will not be rid of such religion-based conflict until it addresses the problem of its 1973 Constitution. That document’s constitutional Islamization engenders a cultural competition over who controls Islam—a conflict which, thanks to the Soviet war in Afghanistan and then 9/11, has become politicized, militarized, and weaponized.
...
Click below to continue reading
http://dissentmagazine.org/online.php?id=235

Posted: Saturday, May 9, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 24 of 24 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #374446 by VolcanicComet on May 9, 2009 at 8:05 am

.......no s*it Sherlock!

Other Comments by VolcanicComet

2. Comment #374451 by Godfree Gordon on May 9, 2009 at 8:22 am

Musharraf’s '99 coup couldn't kick it
His hudud played a quite sticky wicket
In Benazir's grave
She was heard to say
"My dear boy its simply not Cricket"

Other Comments by Godfree Gordon

3. Comment #374459 by Paine on May 9, 2009 at 8:49 am

Brilliant article.
Its subtitle could well have been 'How religion poisons everything'.

Other Comments by Paine

4. Comment #374468 by LittleFluffyClouds on May 9, 2009 at 9:57 am

Precisely. When contingent and limited demands are put in absolute and immutable terms, there cannot be any compromise or accommodation.

Other Comments by LittleFluffyClouds

5. Comment #374475 by NewEnglandBob on May 9, 2009 at 10:38 am

This is logic???

...drive a wedge between “violent” radicals and those that are “merely extreme.”

The article, though, makes a good argument for changing the Pakistani constitution and getting rid of the religious state.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

6. Comment #374493 by PrimeNumbers on May 9, 2009 at 12:29 pm

Pakistan would probably be a great country if it were not for Islam.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

7. Comment #374494 by Quetzalcoatl on May 9, 2009 at 12:43 pm

Pakistan wouldn't exist were it not for Islam.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

8. Comment #374495 by Border Collie on May 9, 2009 at 12:46 pm

'sharia for peace deal' ... an outrageously, ludicrously, absurdly surreal phrase ...

Other Comments by Border Collie

9. Comment #374499 by Duff on May 9, 2009 at 1:06 pm

If it weren't for the nuclear weapons in Pakistan, probably the best thing for both Pakistan and Afghanistan would be to put a cordon sanitaire around both of them and let the Taliban have them both. Only after they dragged both nations back into the 12th century and made them totally destitute will the citizens finally reject Islam and its preposterous sharia.

Not a valid prospect, I'm afraid.

Other Comments by Duff

10. Comment #374504 by rod-the-farmer on May 9, 2009 at 1:48 pm

I have sometimes wondered about just HOW we would cordon off or quarantine a rogue state. Block the land crossings at surrounding borders, OK, that might be do-able with some work. Same for maritime traffic. Prevent air craft that took off from that country, from landing in YOUR country, easy. But what about land/sea/air traffic that passes through a third country ? How about four countries removed ? Do we put THEM on the blacklist as well ? We would need ALL countries to agree, and there is little chance of this happening. If the rogue state was surrounded by countries who agreed, that helps, if there is no saltwater access. But aircraft can hop several borders. It might help if we said "Any country that allows aircraft originating in rogue state R to land in their country, will find THEIR aircraft banned from landing in those countries who agree with the quarantine."

Not feasible under the current world situation, I am afraid. Now if the Taleban got hold of Pakistans nuclear weapons, then we are ALL in real trouble.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

11. Comment #374506 by Steve Zara on May 9, 2009 at 2:18 pm

Comment #374504 by rod-the-farmer

Not feasible under the current world situation, I am afraid. Now if the Taleban got hold of Pakistans nuclear weapons, then we are ALL in real trouble.

Not really. Western states have been prepared for decades to deal with significant numbers of intercontinental missiles from the Soviet Union or some equivalent threat. If a middle-eastern state launched an attack it would result in a local catastrophe. It may result in the death of hundreds of thousands, or millions. But it would not be a global threat.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

12. Comment #374509 by epeeist on May 9, 2009 at 2:41 pm

Comment #374506 by Steve Zara:

If a middle-eastern state launched an attack it would result in a local catastrophe. It may result in the death of hundreds of thousands, or millions. But it would not be a global threat.

I disagree.

For a start off I wouldn't expect the delivery system to be missile based. Far better (if you are a terrorist) to smuggle it in to a seaboard city by boat and then a van to a central location and get one of the many volunteers to detonate it.

If a nuclear weapon was detonated specifically by a religious group for a claimed religious purpose then the backlash could be horrific. Especially if the believers in that religion were spread world wide.

It isn't the initial attack that would worry me, as much as the extent of the retaliation.

Other Comments by epeeist

13. Comment #374510 by Steve Zara on May 9, 2009 at 2:47 pm

Comment #374509 by epeeist

Yes, that is a reasonable analysis. A nuclear attack on a major Western city by a fundamentalist religious group would have worldwide consequences.

It would not even require an actual nuclear weapon. A "dirty bomb" in some financial centre would have a dramatic effect.

I was thinking more of the North Korean situation. I see I was mistaken.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

14. Comment #374514 by epeeist on May 9, 2009 at 2:59 pm

Comment #374510 by Steve Zara:

Yes, that is a reasonable analysis. A nuclear attack on a major Western city by a fundamentalist religious group would have worldwide consequences.

And to couple it to the "Texas is only 6000 years old" thread.

Assuming that it was an Islamic terrorist that commited such an act I could see perfectly ordinary people in Leeds attacking the Muslim districts in Bradford. But while this would be unforgivable it would be anger and a thirst for revenge pure and simple.

But the "Rapture Ready" and "End Timers" would see it as an opportunity and a vindication of the their theology.

Other Comments by epeeist

15. Comment #374515 by Steve Zara on May 9, 2009 at 3:07 pm

Comment #374514 by epeeist

But the "Rapture Ready" and "End Timers" would see it as an opportunity and a vindication of the their theology.

I have enough trouble sleeping normally, let alone thinking about such situations.

I guess we can be grateful that people with those views are no longer in the government of the last remaining superpower.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

16. Comment #374543 by jamiso on May 9, 2009 at 7:20 pm

In a thread a few days ago, I argued about how dangerous it was, when you have secular minded people who cling to these identities (I'm muslim, I'm christian, ect).

If you read the entire article you will see the reason why.

Other Comments by jamiso

17. Comment #374583 by flistr8 on May 9, 2009 at 9:13 pm

"Now if the Taleban got hold of Pakistans nuclear weapons, then we are ALL in real trouble."

This was the freakin' reason the U.S. went into freakin' Iraq, for christ sake. Keep the nukes out of the terrorist's hands. That was b.s. This isn't. When, not if, the nukes in Pakistan are under the control of Islamists, the game will be surely on. Indeed, nothing more sophisticated than a truck need deliver one of those suckers to a port, put it on a container ship and sail it into San Francisco bay.

I love this board and respect the posters highly. I hate to come here and rant (I am ranting, aren't I). But this topic seems truly large, looming and intractable. Pithy responses that will allay my fears will be gratefully received.

Other Comments by flistr8

18. Comment #374628 by epeeist on May 9, 2009 at 11:50 pm

Comment #374515 by Steve Zara:

I have enough trouble sleeping normally, let alone thinking about such situations.

Indeed.

On further consideration I think we are both being somewhat parochial.

I envisage somewhere like London or New York being the target for my scenario. I think your idea of a missile attack is also possible, but the target would not be anywhere in the west. Rather it would be New Dehli or Mumbai.

And there is also a mixed scenario, with a missile being shipped to a country such as Sudan or Iraq, whichever is easier and within the range of Israel.

Other Comments by epeeist

19. Comment #374640 by Enlightenme.. on May 10, 2009 at 1:34 am

It's Gaia.
The Black Death was a required cull of a third of us to give us enough time to get to Malthus, now she needs to cull around 2 billion of us.
I'm off to do some flying before it's too late.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

20. Comment #374665 by jamiso on May 10, 2009 at 2:42 am

19. Comment #374640 by Enlightenme..

No no, be fruitful and multiply. Birth control is the devil and god still hasnt made all Abe's offspring more numerous than the stars in the sky (that's like three thousand million billion) so we got plenty of time

Other Comments by jamiso

21. Comment #374687 by ZT on May 10, 2009 at 3:29 am

#374640 by Enlightenme..

I think that when the time comes it will be closer to 5 billion.

That depends on whether Lovelock is on the ball or not but it sounds feasibile.
He said that after global warming kicks in for real there would be three main islands that would remain habitable; New Zealand, Canada and the UK.

Assuming one or more isnt totally irradiated!

Other Comments by ZT

22. Comment #374802 by Mel Olontha on May 10, 2009 at 8:54 am

I recommend everybody reading Salman Rushdie on this topic. He wrote a great essay "Zia Ul-Haq 1988" available in the anthology "Imaginary Homelands" in which he criticised especially the USA and Britain in supporting Zia and "the medieval, misogynistic, stultifying ideology which Zia imposed on Pakistan in his 'Islamization' programme". This was the same policy that brought us Al-Quaida and the Taliban, the problem that now hunts us.
Also "snot-noses" adventures in "Midnights Children" give a good impression of the way "the Land of the Pure" functions.

The abovementioned article is however right on the spot when the author criticises the inherent flaw of Pakistans design: the state is based on religion. But this did not start in 1973 it just got worse than because the elite, the mainly Urdu-speaking military caste, in order to prevent the dissolution of the state (Bangladesh just got independence in 1971, not even genocide could prevent that) focused on the only thing that Pakistanis have in common (after the last 'infidels' were driven out or marginalized): Islam. The different forms of local cultures, Sufi-influenced Sindh, Shia-influenced Punjabi culture, the tribal honour customs of the Pushtuns, all was to be replaced with a "purified" Pakistan state-serving-islam that they were breeding in the madrassas all over the country.
Thus the current reluctance of the Pakistani military to seriously fight the Islamists, because they are largely their own creatures. As long as they ran amok in Kashmir (mainly attacking Kashmiri Muslims who had a more tolerant form of Islam - read Rushdies "Shalimar the Clown") or Afghanistan, they did the dirty work for the Pakistani ruling class. Many of those now speculate that they still can "use" those nutbags, to quell opposition and stay in power thanks to the arbitrary nature of Sharia. How this works one can already see in Afghanistan, the accusation of "blasphemy" against Pervez Kambaksh was mainly due to his brother as a journalist trying to uncover shady deals between the Kabul governement and an Afghan drug-lord.

My summary: Pakistan is broken beyond repair. Let's see that it's inevitable collapse and break up (like the Soviet-Union) does not lead to a global (nuclear?) catastrophe and make sure the successive republics (Sindustan, Punjab, Baluchistan, Pashtunistan and maybe Kashmir) will be more or less free and secular.

I'm pretty sure our inept governments will mess it up anyway, but maybe some education about the poison that are "state-religions" by Humanist organisations will help.

Other Comments by Mel Olontha

23. Comment #375069 by PERSON on May 11, 2009 at 12:57 am

"My summary: Pakistan is broken beyond repair."
Not yet. At least, I can't see how you get from the first part (which is mostly about the events of some time ago) to that conclusion.

"I'm pretty sure our inept governments will mess it up anyway, but maybe some education about the poison that are "state-religions" by Humanist organisations will help."
Governments don't exist to be competent. They exist to carry out the will of the people under duress. If they aren't under enough pressure, that is either the fault of the people or those who provide them with information. Blaming the government in a democracy is a cop-out in most cases.

Other Comments by PERSON

24. Comment #375132 by Mel Olontha on May 11, 2009 at 4:51 am

>Not yet. At least, I can't see how you get from the first part (which is mostly about the events of some time ago) to that conclusion.

Sure, I added those as backgroundinfo to the posted article that describes the current situation. I was simply stating my opinion, that is in short:
Pakistan was founded as an "islamic" country, just as the Soviet Union was founded as a Communist country. There is nothing that keeps this state together than a thin corrupt military caste and it's islamic state-ideology and militarist symbolism (like the pathetic praise and invocation and fetishism of the "islamic bomb"). I further think that large parts of the Pakistani "middle class" are still deluding themselves that islamic fascism will bring them 'stability'. If it was not for the USA their representatives would have already capitulated before the Taliban. But by fighting those now they now fight against the logic of "Pakistan" itself.

>Governments don't exist to be competent. They exist to carry out the will of the people under duress. If they aren't under enough pressure, that is either the fault of the people or those who provide them with information. Blaming the government in a democracy is a cop-out in most cases.

I completely agree with you here. And I was not "blaming" but rather trying to be realistic. The breakup of the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia was not accompanied by useful assistance, especially because "the West" did not have a strategy at all, thus it lead into great humanitarian disasters. I doubt that there is one now.

Btw, I'm open to suggestions, until now I saw this in more fatalistic fashion but do you have any ideas?

Other Comments by Mel Olontha

Reload Comments | Back to Top