May 17th, 2009 by admin
by D. L. Adams
The violent conflict between orthodox and non-orthodox Islam that is ongoing in Pakistan is instructive. If the purpose of Islam is to live life according to the Koran, Sunna, and Hadith, and follow the perfect example of Mohammed, why do hundreds of thousands flee the Taliban, instead of embracing them as they advance on the capitol?
According to M. A. Khan, author of Islamic Jihad, the Talibanization of Pakistan is nothing less then the fulfillment of the founders’ vision of that country. Khan suggests that the failure of Pakistan’s government and conquest of the Taliban are essentially “inescapable”.
“Pakistan” means “land of the pure”. In Islam, non-Muslims are filthy, impure (Quran 9:28). So the name “Pakistan” was carefully chosen to make it exclusively an abode of a pure people, Muslims—completely disconnected from the filthy non-Muslims. And Jinnah’s tool to create this pure, organically Islamic, state was “Jihad” or holy war: he tried to emulate Prophet Muhammad’s model of Jihad that he had applied to create the first Islamic State in Arabia by slaughter, expulsion, enslavement and forced conversion of the infidels en masse. (M. A. Khan, Talibanization of Pakistan: Realizing the Dreams of Founding Fathers, Islam-Watch.org)
Khan, one of the top scholars of Islamic history and jihad explains that the purpose of Pakistan was to be a “pure” Islamic state. The purpose of the Taliban is to be the purest Islamic movement. It seems a perfect fit; a purist Islamist movement is significantly challenging the non-purist Pakistani government for supremacy.
The recent treachery of the cancellation of the Swat Valley peace agreement after the Taliban was granted ownership of that region and the right to implement Sharia law is easily understood in the context of Islamic history and from the actions of Mohammed himself.
In Islam, if Mohammed “did it”, because Mohammed is the perfect example for all humans to follow, then it is “good” and something that should be emulated; it’s ok for you to do it, too (if you’re a Muslim – in fact, Mohammed is your model). If Mohammed breached a treaty, then so can you, and that is exactly what the Taliban did after they got what they wanted in Swat. When Islam is strong, it is to be unrelenting and unforgiving; treaties are a means to an end, and the end is not peace. the “end” is the total supremacy of Islam. Khan shows that Pakistan is now fulfilling its original purposes.
Pakistanis have been fooled for too long by Jinnah [Muhammad Ali Jinnah, one of the "founding fathers" of Pakistan] to begin with, depriving them of a truly Islamic state. Thanks to the Taliban, they are about to realize their ‘dream state’, for which they relentlessly fought and sacrificed immensely. On this, the words of Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the ever-honest leader of Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, is most instructive:
“Complete Islamisation of Pakistan has been the genuine and long-standing demand of the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis. Not only that, it is also the appropriate answer to the lurking fears of Talibanisation, growing rapidly with every passing day, as a natural response to the suppression of this public demand at the state level.” (M. A. Khan, Talibanisation of Pakistan: Realizing the Dreams of Founding Fathers, Islam-Watch.org)
If, as Khan suggests, the current rise of the Taliban in Pakistan is the fulfillment of the original concept of the kind of Islamic state that Pakistan was always meant to be – why then are so many thousands of Pakistanis fleeing the Taliban? The answer is that though Islamic doctrine is a monolith, the implementation of it is not.
Speaking to thousands of followers in an address aired live from Swat on national news channels, cleric Sufi Mohammed bluntly defied the constitution and federal judiciary, saying he would not allow any appeals to state courts under the system of sharia, or Islamic law, that will prevail there as a result of the peace accord signed by the president Tuesday.
“The Koran says that supporting an infidel system is a great sin,” Mohammed said, referring to Pakistan’s modern democratic institutions. He declared that in Swat, home to 1.5 million people, all “un-Islamic laws and customs will be abolished,” and he suggested that the official imprimatur on the agreement would pave the way for sharia to be installed in other areas. (Washington Post, 4/20/2009)
It is clear that though the doctrine of Islam commands adherence to Sharia and the law of Allah and Mohammed as forwarded to all the world by jihad; not all Muslims embrace this idea. Because they do not embrace this idea, they are considered something less than Muslim by orthodox absolutist Muslims like the Taliban.
It would be wrong to think that all Muslims adhere to the ideology of jihad for, in fact, many Muslims reject it. Some have fallen victim to it, as is the case in Algeria, where jihadists carry out violence against moderates in an attempt to enforce Shari’a (Islamic law). There are many other Muslims around the world fighting for values of freedom.(Bat Ya’or)
The brutality of life under the Taliban was clear to the world, prior to the American invasion of that country in 2001. The Taliban are the strictest adherents to Sharia and insist on a literal interpretation of the commands of Allah and the doctrine of Islam. This is orthodoxy, but it is also moderation (this is duality, fundamental to Islamic doctrinal logic) as implementation of Sharia and the rule of Allah is commanded in the doctrine.
The Koran is clear on these points.
“We bring misfortune to mankind in turns so that Allah can discern who are the true believers, and so that We may select martyrs from among you.” Koran, 3:140
“If you follow the unbelievers, they will cause you to reject the faith and lead you to eternal damnation.” Koran, 3:149
“Anyone who opposes the Messenger after having received Our guidance and follows a path other than that of the true believer will be left to their own devices. We will lead them into Hell, an evil home.” Koran, 4:115
Muslims who are not as exacting in their implementation of Koranic law are not considered proper Muslims by the Taliban. Therefore, the Taliban can make war upon them to bring them into alignment with the way of Islam as it is written in the Koran, Sira, and Hadith.
In fact, people under the Taliban who are outside of the doctrine of Islam often face the death penalty. The brutality of the Taliban has made the world cringe since their activities in Afghanistan became widely known prior to 9/11. Cruelty is an ongoing theme in the Islamic world. This is the way of Mohammed, if Mohammed was cruel, then so can Muslims be cruel as Mohammed is the perfect example of humanity for all Muslims to follow. This is particularly seen often with torture and beheading cases across the Islamic world. The recent case of the torture video that shows a UAE prince brutally torturing a man (a fellow Muslim) is only the most current in this nauseating, anti-human theme of cruelty that runs throughout Islamic history and current practices.
Daniel Pipes, noted authority on Islamic and Middle East politics and culture wrote recently on this case,
That cruelty, usually at a remove from outsiders, became cinematically vivid on April 22, 2009, when ABC News aired a tape of a prince from the United Arab Emirates sadistically torturing an Afghan merchant he accused of dishonesty. No less instructive were the passive reactions of his government and of American officials. The story reveals much and is worth pondering. (The Culture of Cruelty, Daniel Pipes, May 15, 2009)
When put in context of Pakistan and the cruelty of the Taliban against their fellow Muslims, the UAE torture tape is illustrative. It does not matter that the torture victim in the tape is a fellow Muslim, just as it does not matter in Swat, or anywhere in Pakistan that a victim of Taliban brutality is a fellow Muslim. Islam is a brutal ideology to both believers and non-believers.
Cruelty is at the foundation of Islamic doctrine. Mohammed tortured people, so the UAE prince feels it’s alright to torture. This is the way of Mohammed, the perfect example for all Muslims to follow.
“Muhammed therefore ordered his fellow Zabeer Bin Awwam to torture Kinanah until he confessed. He burned Kinanah’s chest and body until he fell unconscious. When Kinanah woke up, Muhammed ordered another follower called Muhammed Bin Mosalamh to torture Kinanah and eventually behead him. (Bukhari,6947; quoted in Living by the Point of My Spear” by Zaki Ameen, p116)
Islam is totalitarianism. When Islam is implemented according to the doctrine it is a system of cruelty and injustice that is rarely if ever surpassed for brutality. Those unfortunate enough to live under Sharia know its cruelties and savageries. We see the Taliban and their cruelty, and its defense in Islamic doctrine. The United States drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan just for this brutality and savagery as well as their support of the terrorists/jihadists who attacked the US on 9/11. We are not the only ones who watch the Taliban with growing concern.
Those whose fate it will be to live under Taliban orthodoxy flee in the hundreds of thousands to escape a form of civilization whose cruetly and violence is mandated in the doctrine of Islam. The fact that the civilization they flee is their own, is cause for deep reflection in the Muslim world, and a cause for hope in the west. The New York Times puts the number of those fleeing the Taliban at 1.3 million. The high cost of jihad has been documented.The cruelty of Islam comes directly from the doctrine. The brutality of its followers can be seen daily.
Mr. John David Lewis, in a lecture presented at the Ayn Rand Institute’s OCON conference “The Jihad Against the West,” in Boston, MA, on October 21, 2006 states the case quite clearly. He explains why political Islam is inherently contrary to freedom and the rights of individuals, and why everything in the world is subsumed to the purposes of jihad and the spread of this cruel ideology as described in the doctrine of Islam. This is why the people of Pakistan flee the Taliban.
A government that turns its force against its own citizens, especially to impose an ideological doctrine on them, subordinates the rights of individuals to the demands of the State. This is statism—the elevation of the State over the individual, and the inversion of the very purpose of government. Statism is the greatest killer in history—dwarfing all attacks by criminals—precisely because it is motivated by some form of mystical political ideology. Because statists claim an authority that is above the rights of man—whether the Fuehrer’s master race, the communists’ dialectic, or the theocrat’s God—they do not recognize the principle of individual rights or the self-ownership of men on earth; rather, they claim the right to rule men, and to kill with impunity anyone who disobeys the ideology or regime.
…The all-encompassing, totalitarian nature of Islamic Law—its claims to divine origin, its commitment to uphold “Allah’s” will, and its ultimate goal of making everyone on earth submit to it—leaves no room for individual rights or freedom. This code is barbaric and tribal, frozen in time for over a thousand years, not open to rational scrutiny but only to unquestioned obedience (as the Indonesian cleric emphasized). To impose this primitive code by force is to inject religion into every aspect of human thought and action—which is the ultimate goal of Islamic Totalitarianism. (Source)
If Muslims reject Talibanism and flee from them, preferring not to live under their rule, what then does this mean about the nature of Islam itself? Hundreds of thousands of people are running from the Taliban but the Taliban promises a true implementation of the commands of Allah and Mohammed. Wouldn’t most if not all Muslims want to live in this way, live according to the foundational concepts of Islam and the commands of Allah and Mohammed? Apparently, the answer is “No”.
The Taliban is extraordinarily unattractive because of their rigidity, brutality, and totalitarian absolutism. There are fewer less attractive political groups in the world today. But the Taliban are Islamic foundationalists, they implement what they are told to implement according to the doctrine of Islam. The knock on the door by the Taliban, is similar to the knock on the door of the Gestapo. Brutality and barbarism are the same throughout time; a total disregard for morality, ethics, and a total devaluation of others, particularly those who do not follow the ideology of the oppressor.
The pounding on the door became louder, and we heard male voices shouting something in a language I did not understand. As we started toward the door its latch shattered and it swung open; soldiers rushed in with rifles and fixed bayonets extended before them.
-When God Looked the Other Way
An Odyssey of War, Exile, and Redemption
Pakistan, May, 2009:
Suddenly she heard shots, and the screaming grew louder: “Long live Taliban! Death to infidels!”
The men forced their way into her house, hurled loose tiles and a glass at her and fired a shot. She fainted.
-GoogleNews, Pakistan’s religious minorities report violence
The rise of the Taliban in Pakistan may indeed be the fulfillment of the original concepts of Pakistan the “state” as envisaged by its founders as M. A. Khan stated above. But perhaps there is something else going on in Pakistan. Perhaps the rejection of the Taliban by so much of Pakistan’s population is a wider rejection of the brutality of the doctrine of Islam itself by Muslims.
The conflict in Pakistan may actually be cause for hope in these dark times of global jihad and cruelty. If the thousands of people fleeing from Taliban brutality have rejected what the Taliban stand for, haven’t they also rejected the cruel nature of the doctrine of Islam itself? Events in Pakistan are a cause for soul-searching in the Muslim world and a time for awareness of an existential danger in the kafir (unbeliever) world.
Shortly before his death, Robert E. Lee wrote to a friend,
“It is history that teaches us to hope.”
Lee himself repudiated one of the foundational components of the Confederacy for which he fought when he wrote,
“So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished.”
In that case, the society that perpetuated slavery (the society that Lee fought for) was destroyed and overturned, and those who supported it often came to very different realizations after the war than could have been expected from them during the war itself. Lee’s rejection of slavery and embrace of the union after the Civil War in the United States gives us hope generations later that those who fight and kill for an idea can change.
The rejection of the Taliban is a rejection of the fundamentals of Islamic doctrine, its cruelty, its barbarity and absolutism. We do not know for certain why so many have fled the Taliban, but it is easy to venture a guess.
Most people, Muslim or kafir, prefer not to live under totalitarianism if they can avoid it. So, they run, and fight.
If Lee is right perhaps this is a moment of hope. There is little in the history of jihad that provides any cause for hope for kafirs; the death toll from jihad is in the hundreds of millions. Rarely have we seen a rejection of Islam from Muslims as wide spread as the rejection of the Taliban by so many Pakistanis, the pure Islamic state. Perhaps the cycles of history are turning, and Lee’s idea is again in force and this is the moment where those after us will say, “This was an important moment when we had cause to hope.”
We are not all ignorant of the purposes and history of political Islam. Our greatest weapon is understanding why Islam does what it does. And when we understand, we can and must reject it.