Junaid Jamshed to ISIS - Islamic Corporatocracy

It is now a fact that Junaid Jamshed is a misogynist. No amount of selfies and hand holding with Hadiqa Kiani can convince us otherwise. The damage has been done and now he need not make a lot of effort to convince us. We have been reading several calls to boycott the self proclaimed mullah of the Tableeghi Jamaat and a progeny of Mullah Tariq Jameel. However, in those calls for boycott, people missed out the larger business interests of these mullahs.

Let me digress here a little. I lived in an average working class neighbourhood of Karachi, not poor, not too rich. Educated, working class people, living in houses built in the good old times of 60s and 70s. It was during the 80s and 90s as most of the older lot was retiring, and their sons transitioning into promising stalwarts of the corporate world; when all changed very rapidly. One can even say it changed as soon as the local mosques turned Deobandi with a Salafi hint. Mind it that a Deobandi might never admit to having a Salafi hint.

The suits, pants and shirts were switched with longer kameez and shorter shalwars. The clean shaved men grew beards without the moustache and suddenly the old used cars were turned into black-shiny corollas and accords. They stopped saying salam to the Shias and Ahmedis in the mohallah and kept upgrading their houses in leaps and bounds. No more incremental house building. The money poured in, the old house was torn and new one built. Where that money came from is a whole different debate, but remember the 80s and 90s reference.

Not just in the neighbourhood, but in the entire block one could bet without a glimpse that inside a shiny black corolla would be a moustache-less bearded mullah wearing his younger brother’s shalwar and older brother’s kameez. Anyway…I digress too much.

Coming back to Mullah Junaid Jamshed of the pop band Vital Signs, his many business interests like JDot, MeatOne, Al Shaheer Corporation Ltd, and celebrity business partners Inzamamul Haq, Saeed Anwar, and Muhammad Yousaf, we need to understand the idea of mullah corporatism. It is obviously a fraternity. So there is no room for women except when invisible in a burqa and niqab...or when helping in damage control stunts via music programmes. 

This corporatism or coporativism is the foundation of Islamic Corporatocracy. From Islamic finance and banking ideas to ‘halal certification’, it is all about increasing the coffers of this pop mullah generation. There’s another side to these pop mullahs.

The rogue or let’s say 'astray' of these pop mullahs wreck havoc in parts of the world under the banners of al Qaeda, Isis, Daesh, al Shabab, etc. Their militancy is replete with certain killing techniques, psychological manoeuvres, and media campaigns. Perhaps next they will apply for patenting certain decapitating techniques and women sex-slave finance and liquidity procedures as purely ‘Isis style’.

So for these pop mullahs on both sides, women can either be slaves or consumers of their designer goods.

Though on surface both these sides show differences in opinion, style, and even ‘a bit’ of ideology, their main aim is the same, increasing the influence of Islam by hook or by crook. In that, their misogyny, hatred for minorities, attire, and even language remains the same.

http://pakteahouse.net/2015/08/11/junaid-jamshed-to-isis-islamic-corporatocracy/

Where life is not sacred

Pakistan has lost more than 80,000 people in the war against terror. The country’s top intelligence agencies and the security establishment along with the Saudi-CIA coalition are to be blamed for this. Their not so savvy strategic maneuvers have failed and rather resulted in creating the monsters that now kill left, right and centre. But killings do not have an effect on this region as much as the thought of glory does.

You can sell the idea of ‘glory in death’ to the people of this region very easily since they grow up on the Greek Hero cult. From teaching children how those who are killed in battle are never really dead to conditioning women into believing they will have a better life in hereafter if they forget they are alive human beings, we thrive on the death of humans, their dreams, aspirations, and thinking ability. Our politics too is played on dead bodies. A better political party has more ‘martyrs’ and not many good living politicians. We have replaced the Greek hero with the word ‘shaheed’ (martyr).

Death is the other name of our religion. If you are Muslim, you must decide which kind to get the permission to live and then die to get access to the royal suite. If you are not Muslim, forget your basic human right to live, let alone live with dignity. It all boils down to living as a Muslim and dying while trying to make sure others are Muslim too.

This is the reason why, even though thousands of people are dead in this country, and many continue to lose their lives on a daily basis, we are not bothered. Those who die are either the bad people like Shias, Ahmedis, Christians, or Hindus, or the good people like Deobandis, Salafis, and other Sunnis. The bad people are of course dispensable being sub-human and the good people are the exalted ones, the eternal ones, the immortal shaheeds.

Lack of respect for the existence of life on earth and desire for the never-seen, never-proven next life is responsible for chaos in most of the countries where the religion of peace is sacrosanct, and Pakistan is no exception. It is why millions of people flee from the regions where this religion is sponsored by the state. But it seems that the roundness of earth is catching up with this escape route as well.

Fighters of the religion of martyrdom are now making life unsacred even in the bowels of secure zones. They are leaving no place to run. Their desire for glorious death is all consuming. From 80,000 Pakistanis, to 250,000 Syrians, their appetite for blood is insatiable. They want to kill, and will continue to kill unless those who follow the same death cult, do not start loving life on this planet.

For that, we need a rigorous rehabilitation process, since abandoning the drug of glory will not come easy.

As a starter, instead of cherry picking, they need to stop reading the parts in their book that sanction death to the infidels, maybe the need is to even eliminate such writings, or add them to the list of redundant verses. Their barbaric literalism needs to be caricatured perhaps a lot more than it is done now. Hopefully though not at the cost of a few more lives in places like the ******* ***** office.

Does the state sponsor takfiris?

I quote from my previous blog I wrote about Sabeen Mehmud.

In Pakistan, bad is on loop. You get done with the death anniversary of someone or some incident every month, and a new tragedy is added to the mourning list.

So, this time it is the killing of 47, nay 43 Ismailis. Since killings are merely a number for us now. Yesterday (May 13, 2015) six gunmen surrounded a bus carrying Ismaili Shias in the biggest city of Pakistan, Karachi. At least 43 people were shot dead including women and children. Their crime? They were Muslims of a different kind who do not believe in violent Jihad. They preach peace and tolerance and interpret Jihad as the spiritual striving to attain nearness to God (minus violence unless their imam calls for it and that too not for imperialism). Life is sad and getting sadder with time. Sorry for the rant. But I just saw a few pictures of the bus filled with blood.

Can we say none of this would have happened if there were no rogue elements in our security agencies and our society? Will we continue to remain blind to the problems within our system and blame everything on US, India, and Israel? Those three countries are not responsible for mosques that preach intolerance and violence, nor are they responsible for the public rallies and 'ijtemas' that banned militant organisations hold in cities or anywhere else. These are matters for the state to resolve, not for foreign countries to decide. Has the state banned websites spreading hatred against minorities? Did the state take any measures against religious seminaries that train militants and suicide bombers? Has the state decided to shut down mosques where extremists congregate, hide and hoard arms and ammunition? Or these are matters for RAW to resolve and take action on?

The fact of the matter is that our state is part of the problem. Otherwise the expenditure of more than 3.5 percent of the GDP on military would have shown some results. Unless, that money is spent on creating more monsters to target those 'unseen' hands of US, India, and Israel, or to give a helping hand to Sunni extremists funded by Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and their likes. Here's a flyer found at the massacre site: 

Leaflet left at the crime scene

The flyers (in English and Urdu) found at the crime scene, declare the Ismailis as Rawafidhs (an Arabic word that means "rejecters", and is used by extremist Sunnis to refer to Shia Muslims for their denial of the first three Khulafa-e-Rashideen's right to the Caliphate). Despite these flyers, an alternate discourse is being spread by the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat (ASWJ) along with the state sponsored, ISPR dominated media. This discourse is interesting and part of the huge puzzle called Pakistani politics.

AWSJ condemned the attack on Ismailis by the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM). Yes, ASWJ, that thrives in propagating violence against minority groups, especially Shias, is condemning the violence against the peace loving Ismailis. On some level it might even sound ironic, as ASWJ is known to be associated with Sipah-e-Sahaba, a banned anti-Shia, terrorist organisation. But knowing how much the establishment recently tried to bring Taliban Khan in power and how they failed, it is not a wonder...

 

Disenfranchising the power of temptation

I never understood this idea of 'temptation', it's so full of crap and one sided. It simply translates to a woman being a living temptation in the society. A society which wants to regulate everything when it concerns women, from the way we dress, to the way we talk, live, walk, sit, etc, etc. It begins with 'good girls' do not speak too much, give their opinions too much, wear short clothes, make their own decisions or worse of all demand to be treated equal to men and have sex.

In case you do not agree with this conditioning, you will be told that living as you please is a temptation for men. If you speak too much, a man might be tempted to shut you up by force. If you are too opinionated and wear short clothes, men might be tempted to think of you as an open minded whore, and end up raping you. And if you demand justice, remember it was you who tempted, and your value is half that of a male witness [Not just in Islam. Conviction rate of rapists in USA is a mere 6%], so the man will get away with a pat on the shoulder, because after all, it was your fault.

In short, your choices are, being a good girl and getting married, or, being the bad girl who is treated like a whore. If you are a 'good girl', people have authority over you to treat you like cattle, cover you up in layers of clothes and present you in a marriage market, where the highest bidder will get rights to plunder your body as he pleases. By the way, in more than 35 countries, marital rape is not considered a criminal offence. There are verses in the Quran that tell a man he can sow his seed in a woman as he pleases. [2:223 security reasons]

Point here being, "As the Man pleases". It begins and ends with pleasing men and is never about a woman's own choice. While we all live in a world full of temptations, and temptations could be of many kinds, when it comes to religion, it seems that the only temptation are us women. Even the way we breath can be termed a temptation by men. Christians have a little bit better in their Bible in the form of conjugal sexual rights. As long as your rapist is your spouse, its legal honey, bear with it:

Religion talks about us women along with cattle, land and possessions [3:14]:

It seems that while the 'good girl' has the chances of getting raped by her spouse, the 'bad girl' is not safe either. The only difference is that the 'good girls' chances of getting raped are limited to one guy only, while the 'bad girls' can get it from anybody around them. Co-workers, random dudes roaming the street, boyfriends, even fathers. Actually, in my opinion this whole good and bad girl conundrum is just humbug. It is about men; when they want to be appeased, sated sexually is when they can decide about whether you are a good girl, or a bad one. Either way, we are temptress since Eve's time, who dared to pick the forbidden apple, and man has yet not forgiven us.

Here's what a sermon website has to say about temptation:

1. Temptation is a process.
2. Temptation comes from the enemy.
3. Temptation comes in beautiful packages.
4. Temptation hits us where we are weak.
5. Temptation blinds us from reality.
6. Temptation builds us up before knocking us down.
7. Temptation plays on our emotions.
8. Temptation, when given into, separates us from God.
9. Temptation, when given into, makes us its slave.
10.Temptation has a way of escape.

[Source: http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/the-power-of-temptation-mark-roper-sermon-on-temptation-resisting-114513.asp]

Baba

We only knew him as Baba. He was my paternal grandmother's house help. A World War I and II veteran, who lost his family in India to a plague in the 1930s, came to Pakistan in 1947, and met my grandmother in 1950. (I'll have to confirm the dates with my mother - it was the year my uncle was born and my grandmother, who was a school teacher had to rejoin her job after maternity leave)

When he knocked on the door, he looked very frail, so Ammajee tried to offer him food. But he refused. His self respect was great and he felt insulted by her 'charitable' offer. Instead, he asked her for work. My grandmother needed a nanny and a house help, so she asked Baba if he can cook. He responded in affirmative to cooking, cleaning and taking care of a newborn. Hence, he was hired.

His life, from what I have heard revolved around my uncle, whom he took care of for 16 years. One day, Baba disappeared and nobody was able to trace him. My grandparents lived in Jacoblines Quarters - one of the many areas inhabited by Urdu speaking migrants, apart from Martin Quarters, Jahangir Road Quarters, Abyssinia Lines and other neighbourhoods in the old city. In the 70s my grandparents resettled and later the quarters were demolished to make way for family residential apartments, measuring merely 45 square yards.

My mother tells me that one day, while my father was passing through the area, he found Baba living in a hut near some rubble. He had broken his leg, and had taken to begging. He also was suffering from some memory loss and chanted 'Allah hoo' almost all the time. My father brought him home, where his condition, despite visits to doctors deteriorated, and he continued to beg in our neighbourhood.

I remember as a kid, many people told my parents to hand him over to Edhi, since he was not even a relative, but a ‘mere old servant’, who begged and made everyone feel ashamed. However, my parents persevered. He stayed with us, despite his cursing and hurling insults at my mother and aunt for not giving preference to ‘boys’, for not taking enough care of children, and for not getting him the desired ‘tambaakoo wala paan’ in 25 paisas. He loved paan, apart from begging to save for his ‘funeral’.

Often, his demands were to buy him two Zahoor Rajajani Tambakoo Paans in 50 paisas. Even though, we told him countless of times that Baba, a paan costs 75 paisas now, and not 25. Since he never listened, we always used to cover up for the missing money. Baba loved feeding us kids ‘nihari roti’ with the money he begged. And of course, we loved eating it with him too - despite our runny noses and hiccups.

Baba was an era, almost a century, who left us when he was 95 years old. That was the first time when I found his last rites had to be performed in a different way. My chacha went to a Sunni maulvi to find out if he could be taken care of at an Imambargah, since we were not keen on sending him to Edhi. At that time, Sunni mosques were not equipped to deal with dead bodies. This was early 90s. He was a Hanafi Sunni, who had no trouble eating niaz, nazar or giving fateha. He had already bought a white shroud from begged money, which he had, a few months ago given to my mother with instructions for his burial.

Baba wished to be buried the Sunni way, and his grave was to be left un-cemented. With permission from a relevant Sunni maulvi, Baba was bathed and shrouded at an Imambargah, amid a mixed Shia and Sunni funerary gathering. He was buried the Sunni way, with the help of the Sunni side in our family. Nobody had a problem with the way it happened. Nobody had trouble setting foot in the Imambargah at that time, and nobody asked if he was a Deobandi, Ahle Hadees, Barelvi or Wahabi. We were tolerant then!

Battle of ‘brands’ FEMEN vs Islam

FEMEN, created in 2008 by two Ukrainians, fights fire with fire. These ‘topless activists’ march in protests against harassment, capitalism, corruption, income inequality, sex tourism, Berlusconi, sex religious institutions, international marriage agencies and other national and international issues. On an intellectual level, I find their method appealing, for it is like droning extremists out of their rat holes. However, when it comes to reality and the natural fluidity of society and the myriad individuals that make it, it becomes a problem. Just like droning the shit out of the tribal areas has not changed things much in the bigger perspective, getting naked in a society that has a thriving porn industry, worth anywhere from $2.6 billion to $3.9 billion, seems like reinforcing the idea ‘ naked women sell’.

How different is the presence of a women in a shaving cream ad, compared to FEMEN’s ‘naked brand’ protest against, let’s say, ‘Islam’. FEMEN’s topless protests around the world against sexism and other social issues seem redundant on a certain level. For the ones who would mostly agree with their methodology are the ones who are already convinced, in short, they are preaching to the choir. The ones who are not convinced will either fume with hatred and come up with things like the Muslimah Pride did, or only drool at the white, painted, erotic bodies with censored nipples (whence comes the reinforcement that women are nothing but mere pieces of flesh and bone for the consumption of ‘mostly’ men’s sexual desires).

Is liberation of women limited to displaying naked bodies? Does this make the primitive woman or an indigenous topless woman in Africa or the Amazon more liberated?

Inna Shevchenko, leader of FEMEN, makes a statement in Paris
September 18, 2012. Reuters

Here’s a quote from Ayesha Sultana’s blog:

Commodification and Sexualisation

This brings us all to question what exactly are the values of FEMEN? Do they really value equity? If they really value equity, why are men so non-existent in their “nude” protests?

If they really value equity, why they have been seen picking and choosing what kind of body do they want for their nude protests? Does this not all add up to commodification and sexualisation of a woman's body in general?!?

Do their values evolve around invading space and hijacking voices of marginalized community or telling their members to “Go Rape Yourself”?

From within the Pakistani context, where ‘feminism’ is more of a class backed idea, the whole debate between Muslims and FEMEN, and their supporters has created a schism. Ideas range from being labelled “idiotic for not supporting FEMEN to being a Muslim apologist, and being an Islamophobe to being a white trash cock-sucker”. Trouble is the incapability to see grey in the whole debate, and resort to a black and white approach. FEMEN's assumption of being on a higher moral ground is worthy of contempt, just like a Hijabi woman’s assumption that by not wearing a hijab, a woman ends up acquiring loose morals is. Thing is, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, patriarchy, capitalism, theocracy, secularism, communism, socialism, all can be disrespected as ideologies, and so can be FEMEN as an idea.

Both groups that are at loggerheads, FEMEN and Muslim Women Pride, are focusing on their ‘brands’ far more compared to individuals. Many organisations, groups or even in some cases lone activists forget 'individuals'. If FEMEN wants to 'help' women, be them Muslim or slaves in some obscure country, there are better ways of going about it. If Muslimah Pride wants to portray themselves as not being oppressed or being responsible for ‘oppression’, being less 'defensive' and 'flaunting' of 'hijab' might be a start.

What is currently happening is FEMEN is further ‘victimizing’ the ‘oppressed’ Muslim women with their ‘naked brand' ideology. The whole 'naked protest' does not work for everything, it has become more like a marketing gimmick, 'branding' the idea of liberation for women via ‘nudity’, and in the wake of that, alienating the 'ones who you are supposedly HELPING'.

Why ‘branding’ is a problem? Because once something is ‘branded’, it becomes unalterable. It exists for the sake of existence. For some it may be to garner support for a cause, but that seems more a manifestation of having been indoctrinated with capitalism or for that matter, religion, Islam, to be specific. The Hijab too is 'branding a woman as pious', therefore the woman who does not wear it has loose morals.

On a personal note: We all need to work on things that actually make a difference in the lives of people, instead of just resorting to so much verbosity online. Or, err naked protests. What really is the point of all this? I disagree with how FEMEN protests, I also disagree with MuslimahPride, it is as simple as that. However, how much difference does all this make on the ground?

I left religion because I could not be one of the sheep, ever since; I have not been able to fit in one group for a long time. I didn't leave religion to get sucked up into the quagmire of nuanced bullshit that only looks at one side of the coin. Be it naked protests for anything and everything under the sun, or Hijabi protests appealing to some non-existent ‘better-self’.

Pakistani ‘inquisition’ aka blasphemy law

The chapter about witch-hunting and the inquisition in Christianity is not looked upon in a favourable light, and currently Pakistan is going through the same because of the blasphemy law. Around 1400 years after Christianity's inception, Christians established the Roman Inquisition, which was responsible for persecuting individuals for a variety of crimes related to heresy, witchcraft, sorcery, immorality, sodomy, blasphemy as well as censorship of printed literature systematically. They indulged in witch-hunts on a grand scale, punishing, even killing thousands of individuals, especially women until the late 1700s. Several other such tribunals, like the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, commonly known as the Spanish Inquisition was also established to maintain and ensure the orthodoxy of those who converted from Judaism and Islam to Christianity. These measures were undertaken to promote only one brand of Christianity, which ensured a bigger clientele for the Catholic Church while maintaining a constant flow of funds. If one compares that era with current day Islam, there is not much of a difference.

Since the ancient Greco-Romans to the Roman Catholic Church, inquisitions have been used by the State and people themselves to sort out personal vendettas, settle property feuds, and for censorship. Countless people have settled their scores under these laws and practices. The blasphemy law in Pakistan is just like a witch-hunt on many levels, starting with vigilantes, moral panic, mass hysteria and lynching. In more than 90 percent cases, the true reason for persecution under all of these allegations has hardly ever been religion itself. The easiest excuse is religion, since instigating blind rage and hatred is easy when religion is involved. Therefore, mob reactions can be ignited by merely pointing a finger at someone who owns a prime piece of land, has intentions to marry your daughter, has had one better over you or simply because you do not like them.

The inquisition gave the Church limitless power to expand its jurisdiction and to control and confiscate property at will. Decrees were announced accusing a person of heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft or whatever took their fancy, automatically allowing ownership of property to the Church. It seems the military dictator Ziaul Haq was inspired by the expansionism of the Catholic Church and therefore added Article 295-c and b which further marginalised the minorities in the country. This also gave the state a right to purge any and every thing, written or otherwise, which was deemed dangerous or perhaps in reality too enlightening for the masses.

For the past 34 years the Pakistani society has evolved within the parameters set by Zia’s regime. At least two generations were brainwashed into accepting the mutilated laws as the final words of God himself. The brutal murder of the unarmed governor of Punjab Salman Taseer for speaking out against the victimisation of a Christian Woman, imprisonment of a 17 year old student, lynching of a woman by a mob, implicating a child with downs syndrome in a 'false blasphemy' case and countless other such acts are a testament to Zia’s legacy embalmed in writing within the laws of Pakistan.

People commit horrific crimes and disrespect laws created for their protection just because of the frenzied way they have been made to understand religion. It is time to educate and spread awareness among the charged and constantly bifurcating society. The people together need to delve down into the history of blasphemy collectively and decide for themselves whether the laws should stay or not. For this, they need to be more open minded and clearly differentiate religious practice from suppressing human rights, to purging intellectual or economic growth. Otherwise 1400 AH will remain filled with tragedy, death and disease, just as the 14th century was for the Europeans.

Condemn 'magar pyar se'

Came across an interesting post recently made by a lady who had a problem with criticizing the Salafi mindset. The point of contention was the use of the word 'fuck' for people who have no compulsion killing, beating, lynching someone from another sect, religion, faith etc. Apparently, murdering people under 'Takfir' is condemnable but condemning that mindset directly can hurt the sentiments of the murderers therefore one must be very cautious. Here's a 'screenshot' of the screenshot which was taken from my twitter account:

Caption reads: This is who we are? So full of hate? None of us are better than the other... How can we say that the people who murder Shias are wrong, when we ourselves never seem to show respect for the other sect! The people who kill shias are from among us... and all of us seem to have these prejudices..

It seems that the 'Salafi mindset' is being equated to a general comment on the 'Salafis'. Also, condemning a mindset is equivalent to murdering people. I guess lack of education and awareness can definitely be blamed for this unreasonable reverence and misplaced sense of morality. The same excuse has been used by many Muslims all around the world when it comes to drawing cartoons of religious personalities or boldly criticizing some practices of the religion of peace. 

As a friend of mine said, "Let's kill all the bastards they say. Hitler was great they say. Let's praise God they say. He who sent us to this world. To tamper with the sexuality of little children they say. To tamper with their brains they say. To conceive heaven and the virgins therein. To love thy neighbour but only if it not be a jew, a christian, a shia, an ahmedi, an atheist....."

I say, "Condemn, magar pyar se..." ;)

Interesting debate on Hijab

Blasphemy their's and ours

Today's news highlight is the five year sentence awarded to an Atheist in Indonesia, who committed blasphemy just by stating god does not exist. Indonesia is currently facing rising extremism in religious sentiments and therefore perhaps moving towards what Pakistan already is. A hot bed for the parasite called extremism. If saying god does not exist equates blasphemy, does saying only Jesus can be the savior be blasphemy as well? After all Muslims do not consider Jesus to be the savior, neither do the Jews, buddhists, Hindus, or for that matter any of the non-Christians believe that. So how can it become blasphemy if an atheist denies god's existence? All religions consider their sceipture and doctrine to be divine; their prophet, messiah to be the true one; their god or gods the true ones. In that all religions are blasphemous towards each other. Therefore, if there are rules against blasphemy they should also be used against all religious people in a non-descriminatory manner. Muslims should not be allowed to praise Allah as their true god on Facebook, since it is blasphemos to non-Muslims. Christians should not be allowed to post.....

An extract from the article published on e-paa.org: https://e-paa.org/articles/blasphemy-theirs-and-ours

Religion of peace, indeed!

Despite being thousands of miles away and being an atheist neither do I feel less guilty about the atrocities Muslims hand out to others in the name of religion nor can I detach myself from my mixed identity. Every other day something crops up to make me question the validity of the claim “Islam is the religion of peace.” I found no peace from it, and unfortunately, even though I am an apostate my name is still Muslim and hence the attached strings.

What is there to convince me about Islam being peaceful? The brutalities committed during the Gojra incident in Pakistan? Or the desecration of a museum church site in Macedonia by Albanian Muslims? Or the thought that my best friend’s brother was killed by a Shiite mob in Iraq, just because he was Christian and worked with the US army? Or better still, her disabled brother-in-law who was shot in the shoulder while he helplessly watched his cousin bleed to death? He was attacked after 2005 in Iraq by a mob of Muslim men shouting Allah-O-Akbar and death to the infidels. Interestingly, these Muslims (or as my friend said Shiite) people who attacked the Christians, were the ones who had been bemoaning about Saddam’s brutality.

My dear friend from Iraq, explained how things worsened for her and her family after 2005. It is important for one to remember she is an orthodox Christian and lived in Iraq all her life. But although she is as much an Iraqi as the next Mohammad Ali Basri, she is not welcome in her own country. Just like Asia bibi who not being a Muslim is being persecuted in Pakistan. Lest also not forget the Jews who were forced to leave Pakistan during the 1980’s.

In light of this hypocrisy, I find that the recent awakening of the Arab world will not have much affect against monarchy and dictatorial regimes. For many it may be wonderful and positive, for me it is nothing but opportunism. A mirage - that will evaporate soon enough. I perhaps am just a pessimist, who considers it a lost cause for Muslims to be awakened in reality and enlightened humanly.

Islam is still a religion of peace, indeed!

Drawing parallels between dogmas

Recently while going over an exchange of comments between communists and some capitalist, several times I came across sentences like, “Stalin was not a communist. You cannot blame the theory for the crimes committed by the people who followed it. Everything negative circulating about the communist atrocities were the USA’s propaganda against communism in general, and communist regimes, especially the Soviet Union.”

I found this very interesting, as it reminded me of the debates between seculars and Muslims, or the non-Muslims/apostates and fanatic Muslims. If the debate is about the current suicide bombings, it would go something like, “A suicide bomber is not a true Muslim. You cannot say Islam is bad just because some Muslims are blowing themselves up to kill others. It is only anti-Islam propaganda by the Zionists and their partners in crime the US of A to malign the holy wars.”

These comments have me in stitches, and I am amazed at the similarities among both the clans. Muslims propose Khilafat to be the way to provide justice; while a Communist propagates communism would provide justice and make earth heaven.

Perhaps, this was the reason why ZA Bhutto became very famous in Pakistan. Another parallel that can be drawn here would be Stalin’s anti-Semitism and Bhutto’s anti-Ahmadism. He used the already present fanatic streak in the general Muslims to unite them against a common enemy, namely the Qadyanis as had already been demonized by the evil Moudoodi.

Moreover, despite that we give all credit of Islamisation to General Ziaul Haq with support from the CIA, we should not forget that the concept of Islamic Socialism was coined by the famous orator Bhutto.

And it does make sense how easy it must have been, looking at the fact that both these ideologies make people delusional by talking about absolute justice.

Best religion without a consolidated following

A very sorry excuse given by Muslims for the atrocities they commit, in defense of their religion which allows them to commit such crimes in the first place, is what a fellow said after being unable to respond to an argument any further, “Coz u link acts of followers and human beings as what the religion dictates.”

He of course meant to say that what certain individuals belonging to a certain sect do, is not the true portrayal of Islam. It is an interesting u-turn taken by the followers of any philosophy, be it Christians, Muslims or whoever. It is a sort of feigned or at times real detachment from a certain segment of people, who are actually using a part of religion that should probably be left out to adapt with current times or a situation or vice versa.

Take for example Jihad - which these days entails suicide bombings. Now committing suicide is a crime, but getting killed in a holy war is glorious, and a person is titled a Shaheed. A Shaheed enters Heaven and gets to play with 72 virgins. Since times have changed and so has warfare changed, weapons are different, 1,400 years ago it was about swords and shields and now it is about guns and bombs. So, getting killed in a holy war remains glorious, only the weaponry is different.

People would argue, (of course the ones who are in favour of religions) that Islam does not sanction suicide, but they do not mention the Shaheed side of the things. If one is killed in a holy war, no matter how perceived it is, the fact of the matter remains, one is not committing a suicide, but giving ones life for a righteous cause. If Islam had not been so devious and conniving, and of course did not use bribes (like the 72 virgins), people would not have been willing to blow themselves up every day.

So saying that it is only the followers who choose to act this way and the religion had nothing to do with it, does not make sense. It is like someone said we are all the time picking and choosing between the right kinds of Islam followers. Who exactly is the right kind anyway? Who are the ones who actually represent Islam? The Shia, Sunni, Ahle Hadith, Barailvi? If there are none, it means the claims made by Muslims regarding Islam being best and forever were false, after all how is it possible that the best religion to be there ever, does not have even a single consolidated following?