Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

The Washington Post today carries an article entitled (at least on its homepage) "Pakistani Immigrants Fret Over Fate of Homeland". Not to be outdone, the New York Times has its own article about Pakistan entitled "Al Qaeda Threatens; U.S. Frets". Both articles exhibit the fear and ignorance that has led the United States, over the last half century, to be the prime benefactor of Islamist extremism in the world.

The Washington Post takes a man-on-the-street approach by reporting the views of Pakistani immigrants in the Washington DC area. In a paragraph overflowing with ignorance, the Post captures the essential failure of American foreign policy vis-à-vis Islamist extremism. The Post writes about Pakistani immigrants and of Pakistan:

Although almost all are observant Muslims and many attend mosques, local Pakistanis tend to be moderate and well-integrated into American culture. Now, many say they fear that their once-tolerant native land — founded in 1947 as a Muslim democracy — could become the next victim of the violent militancy that is causing mayhem in many Islamic countries.

The Post seems to imply that somehow it is exceptional to both be moderate and attend mosques at the same time - a prejudice that obscures a more enlightened understanding of the struggles in the Muslim world. Then the Post reveals its ignorance further in the very next sentence. To state that Pakistan was a "once-tolerant native land — founded in 1947 as a Muslim democracy" it to ignore a half century of history. The name of the country, "Pakistan", means "Land of the Pure" - there is nothing tolerant in that formulation. To be "pure" means to be a "Muslim", that is, to be a "Muslim" untainted by cultural or other local "impurities". This is not a theoretical matter. In 1971 the Pakistan military slaughtered, with support from the Nixon administration, up to 3 million Bangladeshis - a spasm of insanity and genocide that was made possible because Bangladeshis were viewed as "impure" and tainted by Hindu and Bengali culture.

The New York Times, meanwhile, explains how Washington is "captivated" by the current Pakistani strongman:

Washington is captivated by General Musharraf because he is a secular moderate, which is not to be confused with a civil libertarian. John D. Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state who until late last year tracked the gathering Qaeda threat as the director of national intelligence, ended a trip to Pakistan a month ago convinced that General Musharraf’s government had, at long last, gotten the message about the tribal areas in the northwest officially known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. [Emphasis added by me.]

Washington is so captivated by the General that they fund him and his military to the tune of $2 billion a year, even though this money has resulted in failure after failure. Banking on Musharraf being a "secular moderate" is naive.

The New York Times continues:

Yet, when asked how the United States would respond if Al Qaeda were to plot a successful attack on the United States from the tribal areas, the answer from one intelligence officials was direct: “We’d go in and flatten it.” [Emphasis added by me.]

I hate to point out the obvious, but Al Qaeda did plot a successful attack on the United States from Pakistan on September 11, 2001. I am quite confident no "flatten"ing has occurred in Pakistan - in spite of the bravado.

Pakistan has been a breeding ground for Islamist extremists since its founding. The Pakistani Constitution itself institutionalizes religious persecution. The primary benefactor of Islamists in Pakistan has been the Pakistan military. The Pakistan military, through the Directorate of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), has consistently stifled democratic opposition in the country while at the same time used Islamist extremists to carry out its domestic and foreign policy goals - the organization and funding of genocidal Islamist extremists in Bangladesh, the funding of Islamists extremists in Kashmir, and the creation and backing of the Taliban are only a few of the extreme examples. Throughout, from the Pakistani dictator Ayub Khan to Islamist General Zia-ul-Haq to Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistan military and the Islamist extremists have co-existed in a symbiotic relationship. The Islamists have acted as a support pillar for the military while the military has generously funded the Islamists and the growth of Islamist thought in Pakistan and beyond. Both groups share a common antipathy toward secular democracies. In this relationship, the Pakistani military is the dominant partner. An Islamist takeover of Pakistan is at best remote and certainly not necessary from the Islamist’s point of view. Islamists do not have to rule Pakistan to wield enormous power - many of their policy objectives are helped along by the Pakistan military, an institution that controls much of Pakistani society and is in no danger of collapsing. In this atmosphere, the occasional flexing of muscle by the military against extremists that go off the reservation is window dressing.

Pakistan was the birthplace of modern Islamist thought. The primary Islamist party in Pakistan, the Jamaat-e-Islami, has been, since its founding, at the forefront of political Islam, or Islamism. It is an ideology that is inconsistent with secular democracy and distinct from Islam, the religion that is practiced by me and more than a billion other adherents. It is also an ideology that cannot win the day in the Muslim world. However, it finds a home within military dictatorships as in Pakistan. The consequences of this coddling of Islamists by the military for Pakistan, South Asia, and now the world have been severe.

Yet, the United States has consistently supported military dictatorships in Pakistan at the expense of political freedom. It has done so while engaged in games of geo-political chicken, sacrificing wisdom for expediency. It has propped up Pakistan’s military dictatorship, and in doing so it has given aid to the very extremists it now hopes to combat. Dealing with Islamist extremism without first addressing its big brother in Pakistan is simply folly. Propping up the Pakistani military regime by sowing fear that Islamists will takeover otherwise is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

Fretting however is not the answer.

I received another email from Rabbi Sue Levy. I wanted once again to share our continuing conversation with the reader. I thank Rabbi Levy for the opportunity to engage her in discussion about Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.

Rabbi Levy’s email is below followed by my response:

Dear Mr. Rahman,

 

It’s obvious to me that no words of mine will persuade you of Shoaib Choudhury’s goodness and that no word’s of your’s will persuade me of the contrary, so we won’t accomplish anything by continuing our conversation about him.

 

I do want to make you aware of one point. The people who support Shoaib come from a broad spectrum of opinion about Israel and everything else. I don’t agree with Sheikh Palazzi in his position about Israel and the Palestinians. In the Jewish community, we have our liberals and our fundamentalists. Those of us who are liberals do not take every word of Torah as God’s revealed word, and we do not operate from an assumption that God gave us the land of Israel. We do believe that it is our homeland, since Jews have been there continuously for more than three thousand years. Having said that, the huge majority of us believe in a two-state solution to the conflict with our Palestinian brothers and sisters, and we believe in peace with justice for all sides.

 

Those among us who are fundamentalists certainly believe that God gave us the Land of Israel, but there is nothing in the Torah which forbids us from sharing what is our’s or even from giving something away that was given to us by God, since the Torah is given to us, ultimately, as a roadmap toward a more peaceful time. There are many maps and many paths, and I hope you will understand that I am making no comparison with a rather dubious political plan by the same name.

 

I am a member of a group called Rabbis for Human Rights. Our work in Israel includes proactive efforts to assist innocent Palestinians who are victimized by our Jewish brothers and sisters. Our members have stood in front of bulldozers in an attempt to keep them from destroying Palestinian homes and have gone into the olive groves with Palestinians to help them harvest their crops safely in place where Israeli "settlers" might have harmed them.

 

All this has become much more difficult since Hamas has come to power. I don’t know any Israeli or any Jew in his or her right mind who would consent to giving an inch of land to someone whose sworn purpose is to destroy you. I would advocate negotiations toward a peaceful settlement, even one that includes making concessions about land for a Palestinian state, if the Palestinians could provide Israel with an honest and sincere bargaining partner. This is not likely to happen while Hamas is in power, and I find that very sad. Would you negotiate with a suicide bomber? Would you negotiate with a government that is using the "peace" process as a way of buying time so that it can strengthen and attack again?

 

I don’t espouse genocide, and to say that all of Shoaib Choudhury’s supports do is neither honest nor fair. It is reasonable to say that there are some Muslims who believe that the Qur’an states that Allah has given the Land of Israel to the Jewish people, and that some of them draw conclusions from that upon which neither you nor I agree. And, it is correct to say that at least one of these people, Imam Palazzi, supports Shoaib Choudhury.

 

Shoaib for his part, has taken no position regarding Israel at all, except that the government of Bangladesh should recognize Israel and establish diplomatic and trade relations with it. His editorial policy is to publish articles by people who express many opinions in the hope that the people of Bangladesh will have the opportunity to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

 

All this is quite apart from any other discussions we have had about him. It is something that I wanted to clarify, while still understanding that we will disagree on many things regarding Choudhury.

 

I’m saddened that you and others find it necessary to hold onto so much bitterness. The divisions in Bangladesh run very deep. A lot of what happens in your home country comes from people who seem to believe that it is still 1971 when, I believe, it would be healthier for Bangladeshis to move on and look to the needs of the future without reliving the past. Shoaib is not my only friend in Bangladesh, but he is the only one who has become a "public figure." In the course of the friendships I have made, I have come to care very much about your homeland, and it is hard for me to watch what people with either greed or grudges or both are doing to each other. I hope for a better time for all of us.

 

Assalamu Alaykum,

 

Sue Levy

Dear Rabbi Levy,

 

Thank you once again for your response.

 

You stated in your email that we will not accomplish anything by continuing our conversation. On the contrary, I think we have accomplished a great deal. We have both expressed our views on the matter in open debate to , I hope, the benefit of the reader. As you will recall, we began this conversation with a request from you that I retract my original post and that I apologize as well. I remain prepared to correct any errors of fact in my original post if I am provided with credible news account to the contrary. I hope you will understand that I will not be persuaded by opinions of Mr. Choudhury’s supporters unless those opinions are backed up by credible news reports.

 

I want to thank you for making it clear that you do not agree with Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi’s views regarding the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. I also applaud your work with Rabbis for Human Rights in your effort to defend the human rights of both Israelis and Palestinians. I firmly believe the only path to peace in Israel and Palestine is through reconciliation and dialogue. I am heartened that you both share those views and champion efforts to make that happen.

 

You said in your email that it was unfair and dishonest to say that all of Mr. Choudhury’s supporters espouse genocide. Specifically, you said the following:

I don’t espouse genocide, and to say that all of Shoaib Choudhury’s supports do is neither honest nor fair. It is reasonable to say that there are some Muslims who believe that the Qur’an states that Allah has given the Land of Israel to the Jewish people, and that some of them draw conclusions from that upon which neither you nor I agree. And, it is correct to say that at least one of these people, Imam Palazzi, supports Shoaib Choudhury.

I want to note that I did not accuse anyone of espousing genocide. I did however say that the Islam-Israel Fellowship, of which Mr. Choudhury and Dr. Benkin are advisory board members and Sheikh Palazzi is the co-founder, espouses the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. To support my statement, I cited some of the many commentaries written by this group and available on their web site. I also did not state, and certainly did not mean to imply, that all of Mr. Choudhury’s supporters espouse ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. If I left you with that impression, I want to clarify that it was not my intention. Specifically, I do not think I ever suggested that you were a member of Islam-Israel Fellowship or that you subscribed to their views about the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

 

I will reiterate what I have said before. Both Mr. Choudhury and Dr. Benkin belong to the Islam-Israel Fellowship, along with Sheikh Palazzi. Many of the contributors on Mr. Choudhury’s Weekly Blitz are members of Islam-Israel Fellowship. Given the extreme views of Islam-Israel Fellowship, to suggest that Mr. Choudhury is somehow unaware of them while choosing to remain on their advisory board once again stretches credulity. I should further note that the one person who seems to be the source of almost all "reporting" on Mr. Choudhury is Dr. Benkin, who is not only associated with Islam-Israel Fellowship, but has written numerous articles expressing views that are consistent with the group.

 

You stated the following in your email:

I’m saddened that you and others find it necessary to hold onto so much bitterness. The divisions in Bangladesh run very deep. A lot of what happens in your home country comes from people who seem to believe that it is still 1971 when, I believe, it would be healthier for Bangladeshis to move on and look to the needs of the future without reliving the past.

I have to confess that your comments both sadden and disturb me a great deal. Bangladeshis are not "reliving the past" by remembering the genocide of 1971. The events of 1971 are a very important part of Bengali national identity and largely define the foundations of Bangladesh today. We are not prepared to "move on" and somehow forget the most concentrated act of genocide in the 20th century, where up to 3 million Bengalis were massacred in the name of religious extremism. Any suggestion to "move on" is an insult to me as a Bengali, to the memory of my parents, to the memory of my relatives who lost their lives, to the hundreds of thousands of women and girls who were raped, to the millions who were slaughtered, and to the Bengalis who survived the horrors and live with the scars today. 1971 is important to Bangladeshis just as the Holocaust is important to the Jews. We remember 1971 so as not to repeat it, in the same way the world remembers the Holocaust so the unimaginable savagery is never visited upon this Earth again.

 

The memory of 1971 is especially important in the post 9/11 world. In 1971 Bangladesh fought for the ideal of a secular state against the tyranny of religious extremism. Bangladesh is proud of its founding as a Muslim majority state with a secular parliamentary democracy. While our fellow Hindu brothers and sisters were being slaughtered by the Pakistani army, Muslims and Hindus in Bangladesh came together to resist the atrocities and ultimately drive the perpetrators out. We stood up in 1971 as one nation united by our common humanity and not divided by the false seduction of religious extremism. The independence of Bangladesh was a triumph of secularism over religious bigotry.

 

Since 1971 there have been extremist forces that have re-entered Bangladesh who continue to try to subvert the secular nature of Bangladeshi society. It is the memory of 1971 that reinvigorates the desire of the Bengali nation to resist all forms of extremism. So, no, we will not "move on" nor will we ever forget.

 

You also stated in your email:

Shoaib is not my only friend in Bangladesh, but he is the only one who has become a "public figure." In the course of the friendships I have made, I have come to care very much about your homeland, and it is hard for me to watch what people with either greed or grudges or both are doing to each other.

With due respect, Rabbi Levy, while I do not question your caring for Bangladesh, I do question your knowledge of the political landscape in Bangladesh. In a post dated January 23, 2007 defending Mr. Choudhury, you wrote the following:

This is taking place against a background of governmental and social instability in Bangladesh. A new interim "caretaker" government has taken control of the country after many weeks of violent demonstrations, strikes and unrest fomented by the Awami League, a coalition of parties which has most recently been in the minority in the Bangladeshi Parliament. These groups represent the radical Islamist faction whose goal it is to see a Taliban-like government take control of the country with the Islamic Shari’ah (religious law) as the law of the land. The interim government is working to meet one of their demands by correcting some large discrepancies in the lists of registered voters. It seems apparent that these radicals will win many more seats in the parliament than they have had before when elections are held in the late spring. It is, indeed, possible that they will win a majority. Al Queda is making incursions into the country, and an international group of journalists has made a statement that Bangladesh is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists who are often imprisoned and sometimes executed. [Emphasis added by me.]

I am concerned that you are propagating patently false information about Bangladesh and those that come to read your posts will, because of the respect they hold for you, believe your words. You asserted in your post that the Awami League represent "the radical Islamist faction" who want to see a "Taliban-like" government and impost "Shari’ah" law in Bangladesh. It might surprise you to learn that the Awami League is the leading secular party in Bangladesh. It was the Awami League that led the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971 under the banner of secular democracy. If the Awami League were to come to power, and they have held power in Bangladesh numerous times before, hell is likely to freeze over before you see a "Taliban-like" government in Bangladesh.

 

The immediate past government in Bangladesh, led by the BNP, had within its ruling coalition, the Jamaat-e-Islami  - the leading Islamist party in Bangladesh. If any party would want to bring "Taliban-like" government to Bangladesh, it would be the Jamaat-e-Islami, not the secular Awami League. Fortunately, though Jamaat-e-Islami, like other small parties in a parliamentary democracy, can form coalitions with the major parties to form a government, they do not have a following large enough to actually control a government in Bangladesh. I will take this opportunity to again point out that Mr. Choudhury, the person you defend, was intimately connected to the Jamaat-e-Islami. Yet, in your post, you state falsely that the Awami League is a "radical Islamist faction", which as should become obvious to you is quite the opposite of the truth.. Once again you do a disservice to the truth and to Bangladesh by propagating false and misleading information.

 

I would like to conclude by asking you to continue to visit my blog and engage me and my readers in open dialogue.

 

Shalom,

 

Mashuqur Rahman

 

[Via Raw Story] President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan claimed on Tuesday that terrorism and extremism had been brought to Pakistan by the West. According to the Daily Times of Pakistan, Musharraf blamed the West for bringing terrorists and extremists to the region and Pakistan as a result of the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan:

President General Pervez Musharraf has blamed the West for breeding terrorism in his country by bringing in thousands of mujahideen to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and then leaving Pakistan alone a decade later to face the armed warriors.

Musharraf told the European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee on Tuesday that Pakistan was not the intolerant, extremist country often portrayed by the West, and terrorism and extremism were not inherent in Pakistani society. “Whatever extremism or terrorism is in Pakistan is a direct fallout of the 26 years of warfare and militancy around us. It gets back to 1979 when the West, the United States and Pakistan waged a war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan,” Musharraf told EU lawmakers.

Musharraf apparently either does not know his history or was deliberately misleading the European Parliament. My guess is that Musharraf is pretty well versed in the history of extremism in Pakistan and was deliberately shifting blame to the West. No military man in Pakistan can ignore the intimate relationship between the Pakistani Army, the Pakistani Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and Islamist extremists in Pakistan - they have a long and troubled history together.

The nation of Pakistan has its roots in a form of Islamic fundamentalism known as Deobandi. The Deobandi movement began as a reformist movement in India against British oppression. Over time, part of the Deobandi movement coalesced around the idea of a Muslim state in the Muslim-majority parts of British India. From that movement, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, translated as "The Land of the Pure",  was born on August 14, 1947. According to journalist Bertil Lintner, the Deobandi movement in Pakistan "through its network of religious schools, or madrassas, developed into a breeding ground for Pakistan-centered Islamic fundamentalism. Over the years, the Deobandi brand of Islam has become almost synonymous with religious extremism and fanaticism." It is in the Deobandi madrassas in Pakistan that the Taliban movement has its beginnings.

Though originally opposed to the creation of Pakistan, the deobandi and Islamist political party in British India, Jamaat-e-Islami, eventually embraced the idea of Pakistan. Their original goal, to form a Islamic state in all of India, now became the creation of a strict Islamic state in Pakistan.  The Jamaat-e-Islami has been a breeding ground for extremism in Pakistan from early in its founding. In 1971, when war broke out between East Pakistan and West Pakistan, the Jamaat-e-Islami branch in East Pakistan joined the fighting on the side of the Pakistani army. The Jamaat-e-Islami were opposed to the secular nationalism of the Bengalis and therefore sided with the Pakistani military to try to preserve an Islamic state. The Jamaat-e-Islami took active part in the genocide of 3 million Bengalis in 1971. Jamaat formed notorious paramilitary units known as al-Badr and al-Shams to hunt down and execute secular Bengali intellectuals - most notably journalists, teachers, students, bureaucrats, scholars, doctors and poets. After the formation of Bangladesh at the end of the war in 1971, the Jamaat leadership in Bangladesh who had orchestrated the killings fled to Pakistan.

Jamaat-e-Islami and other Islamist parties in Pakistan received a significant boost in 1977 when Pakistani strongman General Zia-ul-Haq seized power in a coup d’état. In 1979, Zia-ul-Haq instituted Islamic Sharia law in Pakistan by enforcing what is known as the Hudood Ordinance. Since 1979 the Pakistani military and intelligence services have relied on the Islamist forces in the country for support and legitimacy.

After the Afghan conflict the ISI actively financed and supported both the Taliban and the Kashmiri militants. The Pakistani ISI formed the Islamist terrorist group Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, a militant wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami, to counter groups in Kashmir who are seeking independence. According to GlobalSecurity.org:

Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM) is one of the largest terrorist groups operating in Jammu and Kashmir and stands for the integration of J&K with Pakistan. Since its formation the HuM has also wanted the islamization of Kashmir.

The HM was formed in 1989 in the Kashmir Valley with Master Ahsan Dar as its chief. Dar was later arrested by security forces in mid-December 1993. It was reportedly formed as the militant wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) at the behest of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s external intelligence agency, to counter the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), which had advocated complete independence of the State. Many of the early Hizb cadres were former JKLF members.

…

The HM is closely linked to the Jamaat-e-Islami, both in the Kashmir Valley and in Pakistan. Overseas, it is allegedly backed by Ghulam Nabi Fai’s Kashmir American Council and Ayub Thakur’s World Kashmir Freedom Movement in the USA. The HM had established contacts with Afghan Mujahideen groups such as Hizb-e-Islami, under which some of its cadre is alleged to have received arms training in the early 1990s.

The HM is reported to have a close association with the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence and the United Jehad Council, and other terrorist organizations operating out of Pakistan. Hizb chief Syed Salahuddin also heads the UJC.

The nexus of groups like the Jamaat-e-Islami, the Pakistani military, and the ISI have nurtured and sustained terrorism and extremism in Pakistan since its inception. The 1979 Afghan war simply imported more militants into an already ripe and welcoming breeding ground.

It serves Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani military and the ISI quite well to try to bury the long and sordid history of collusion between the military and the extremists. However, we ignore this nexus at our peril. To a very large extent extremism and terrorism in South and Central Asia has its roots in the Islamist movement in Pakistan. The very enemy we fight, al Qaeda, breathed its first breathe in Pakistan and now finds sanctuary within its borders. While George W Bush keeps his myopic and confused gaze upon Iraq and his Vice President profusely praises Musharraf, the extremism that we are presumably combating continues to thrive in Pakistan.

Five years after 9/11/2001, it is perhaps time to ask the General in Pakistan some tougher questions and expect some more introspection from him.