This article was forwarded by Nasik Elahi. It is a thought-provoking article and commentary on why the efforts to stop terrorism are failing both by the concerned Muslims as well as by the West. The author argues that fear mongering always wins-both by those in West who are creating Isalmphobia and by those who claim that Islam is in danger and propagate Jihad to save Islam and Muslim populace. The author writes about Muslim populace;

“Thus, a global enterprise works to create an Islamic populace, whose members think of themselves as “Muslims” and nothing else, who revel in their supposed victimhood and live perpetually in fear of physical and cultural survival. We look at the rest of the world as an enemy we are at war with, an enemy we must fight and kill―even if it means dying in the process. “Martyrdom”, in fact, is hailed as the highest virtue we can aim for.

Depending on individual factors, Muslims the world over are persuaded by this message to varying degrees. Most of us buy the idea of victimhood; we live in fear, talk to friends, family and children about it (thus spreading the message further), but basically get on with our lives. A few are persuaded enough to join the “war” ourselves.”

Some in the West use the same tool to scare their populace. The author write;

(To be sure, there is a similar Us-Versus-Them communication being propagated in the West by credible “experts” such as social theorists Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, and popular commentators such as Glenn Beck and Daniel Pipes. It is remarkable how much the two opposing sides in this war―Islamists and Islamophobes―agree with each other, and how well they work in tandem, helping each other out by validating each other’s “fear-arousing appeals”.)

The author argues that same time tested method “fear”, as described by Hovland in his 1953 book “Communication and Persuasion” should be used to be successful against terrorism. The Author writes;

To read the complete article click on the Link below:

http://newageislam.com/islam,terrorism-and-jihad/by-saif-shahin,-new-age-islam/why-we-become-terrorists…-and-how-we-can-be-stopped/d/8284

I am not a fan of poetry; I never studied Iqbal thoroughly except whatever I learned during my school years in Pakistan. Recent discussion on allegations against Iqbal of conversion from Qadiyani to Sunni Muslim for personal gain, which I believe are malicious and false, gave me a chance to read more about Iqbal. During this discussion it was repeatedly said by some participants that there is no proof that Iqbal played a role in the concept or creation of Pakistan.

See below two samples of e-mails

Excerpt of e-mail by Mian Aslam  to Salik Sahib.

He (Iqbal) did not conceive Pakistan. In fact he clarified his position to Colonial Masters through personal letters that he did not mean to promote the idea of a separate country for British Indian Muslim subjects.

Excerpt of e-mail by  Wequar Azeem  to Salik Sahib.

“Mian Aslam Saheb is right though about Iqbal’s contribution towards making of Pakistan. He has been glorified for conception of Pakistan without the backing of, in fact contrary to, historical facts.”

During my recent study of Iqbal, I came across historic facts which prove that Iqbal conceived the idea of a separate Muslim State and played a role in supporting the efforts of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Iqbal was the President of Punjab Muslim League when he delivered the famous Presidential address in Allaabad on December 29, 1930 at the 25^th Session of All India Muslim League. In this address he specifically addressed the concept of a separate state for Muslims and mentioned the possible future boundaries of Pakistan. He declared in this address;

“I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India.”

The full text of the speech can be read at Columbia University Website  URL link http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_iqbal_1930.html

The similar excerpts from speech can be found in book ‘Gabriel’s Wing by Schimmel Ann Marie, published 1962, pages 33, 34. Link;

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=goE3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA153&dq=Muhammad+Iqbal+illness#v=onepage&q=Muhammad%20Iqbal%20illness&f=false

The author of this book also writes( page 34) that Iqbal did not judge from a hasty time bound point of view, is clear from a letter written in 1909 to a friend ;

“I have myself been of the view that religious differences disappear from the country, and even now act on this principle in my private life. But now I think that the preservation of their separate national entities is desirable for both the Hindus and Muslims. The vision of a common nationhood for India is a beautiful ideal, and has a poetic appeal, but looking to the present conditions and the unconscious trends of the communities appear incapable of fulfillment”

The above letter was written to a friend Munshi Ghulam Qadir Farrah. The reference to this letter can also be found on Columbia University Website.

The author of the book further writes on page 34; “Iqbal willingly lent Mr. Jinnah his help in consolidating Muslim Party. On March 23, 1940-two years after Iqbal’s death-the creation of independent state of Pakistan was accepted officially as the goal of Muslim League.

In my view, above convincingly proves that Iqbal conceived the idea of a separate Muslim State and was also politically active to support Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Claims that no such record exists does not hold up. If some contrary record exists, please bring forward. Please keep in mind that such record should be according to generally accepted verifiable standards.

Fayyaz A. Sheikh

Internet is full of websites with all kind of true and untrue material, assertions and conspiracy theories. When dealing with facts (not opinions), it is difficult to sort out what is true or false. That is the question and dilemma we, as editors, also face. In my judgment: 

Videos;

1-      In individual or panel discussions, only fact the videos prove is that particular person made particular assertions, but it does not automatically prove that those assertions are true. One still need documented references and cross references to prove that those assertions are true. Presence of a famous personality or personalities does not make the whole discussion kosher. It may elevate the level of discussion, but it still requires the same proof.

2-      Sometime after discussions, some participants retract their statements and some are challenged later with proof, and most of the time these are not included in original videos.

3-      Videos, which lack accepted back up references, cannot support another factual assertion which is also lacking such backup references.

Internet Postings;

Reliable internet postings have the same criteria as mainstream reliable print media. If a view-point is presented as fact, it should be supported by a reliable sources and references. Whether the writer is a rookie or an iconic journalist, the rules and requirements are the same. If someone writes a story and asserts that this story has many versions, but picks one version to write, then he/she has the obligation to explain why this version was chosen-and whether it was corroborated with other sources, otherwise it does not carry the water of being a reliable story.

We received an e-mail about Iqbal’s family tree with the link:

 ‘http://www.kahopakistan.com/pic/images/53261062767383433196.jpg

I think this belongs to the same trash can as any un-supported video or internet posting. The link refers to Kaho Pakistan Website, not to a text-book pdf. Again this posting itself does not prove that it is from a text-book or there is a cover up. It requires more proof to make that leap of faith. If it is from a textbook, it is fabrication and we should write to the author and Department of Education, Pakistan.

When we are challenging a well-documented (by both Eastern and Western Scholars) historic fact, the challenge should be supported by the equally or better documented and well researched document. I do not think un-supported internet videos or internet postings are the answer!

What kind of TFUSA website we should develop for the future? Whether we should have open format with no restrictions on true or untrue postings, and let the readers fight it out while sorting it out, or develop a well-accepted criteria of reliable material postings, so that TFUSA website is perceived as trustworthy and reliable. This is not an easy job for editors who will be making sometime controversial judgment calls. Should the editors nudge the discussion to stay on topic and prevent personal back and forth between participants, or let it go even if it is not contributing to a meaningful discussion?

The Editorial Board and Board of Directors will be deliberating on this in the next few weeks. I think you should weigh in with your opinion, after all TFUSA belongs to all of us.

Fayyaz A. Sheikh

We The Liberals, Confused or Hypocrite?

Recent discussion on alleged conversion of Allama Iqbal from Qadiyani to Sunni Muslim for personal gains,  gave me a pause to reflect on the liberals’ high-minded view of themselves and the their scorn often thrown at the conservatives and orthodox for being close minded and lack of  analytical thinking. Believe or not, I consider myself a liberal. I think when convenient, we liberals also become close minded and ignore independent and rational analysis, because it serves our agenda or ideology. This is true at international, national and local level.

At international level, in Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood won presidential elections fairly. But liberals, who speak very highly of democracy, now are siding with generals to subvert the democratic process. They were protesting the meeting of Hillary Clinton with President Morsi, a democratically elected president. One can understand liberal’s concern of imposition of Sharia,   but as liberal, we should try to prevent it within a democratic process. After all democracy is the highest priority. Now very conveniently we are throwing away this higher goal and are siding with dictators because we lost election and democracy does not serve us well. In a democratic process, voters have the right to have a government of their choosing. Liberals are trying to say that forget about what the majority is saying, only we know what is good for you!  A short sighted and close minded view!

The trouble with us is that we talk a lot, we do not have convictions and we do not put every effort towards achieving the goals. Again this is true at local, national and international level. Muslim Brotherhood won because they were organized, they had convictions and put every effort in convincing the people to vote for them. Liberals did not do any one of that. In order to prevent Sharia becoming a law, in a democratic process, we have to work hard, organize and convince the people to vote for us. But we do not want to do the hard work, so we abandoned democratic principle, and sided with generals. How it will achieve the goal of Democracy?

Mr. Obama, hero of liberals, doubled down on Mr. Bush’s policies both abroad and at home. He did not supported democratic movements where it did not serve America’s interests (Bahrain), and continues to support allied dictators but is calling for democratic change in non-allied regimes. At home, the Gautama Bay is still open, more restrictive clauses have been added to Patriotic act and breach of individual privacy is no longer a concern. The most troubling aspect of all of this is that most of the Democratic Party is dead silent because Mr. Obama is one of their own. If it was a Republican President, the Democrats would have shouted at full throttle.

At a local Muslim community level, most of the Islamic Centers/ Mosques are run and managed by conservatives, and Islamic Centers are the only infrastructure for all the Muslims in this country. If any social change is needed, it has to come from these Islamic Centers. For any successful change to occur, both at local and international level, the conservatives have to be part of the equation and discussion. Excluding them from such equation, does not isolate them, but it isolates us-and that is a self-defeating proposition.

Even though conservatives are in minority, but they still control most of the Islamic Centers. It is because they are very committed and give lot of personal time as compared to liberals. Apart from providing services for religious teachings, on all religious and other occasions, most of them arrive early at Islamic Centers to prepare the place for gathering, arrange for food and then stay late for after cleaning. Very few liberals are willing to devote this much time and effort, but we are very good at criticizing and talking.

On Pakistani Community level, we are analyzing the creation of Pakistan in a hindsight view, sometime fairly in a constructive manner and sometime unfairly. Some of the liberals, who do not agree with the creation of Pakistan, are not afraid to attack the personal lives of the Pakistani Movement Leaders. In the discussion on Iqbal, we disregarded reliable and well documented evidence and found whispers of conspiracy and loose talk trustworthy and presented it as truth, because it served our agenda and ideology. It is ironic that most of the liberals rightfully came to the defense of Abdus Salam, because Qadiyani connection has no relevance, but some liberals are using the same connection to discredit Iqbal.

Before the creation of Pakistan, there were highly respectable and esteemed political and religious leaders giving arguments for and against the creation of Pakistan. There was robust discussion. In my view, it was an honest discussion on both sides. The task of leaders in favor of the creation of the Pakistan was even more difficult because they were facing the opposition from some Muslim as well as Hindu leaders. Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his companions were successful because they were able to overcome this opposition and convince the public that the creation of Pakistan is the best solution. Looking in hindsight, analyzing it and suggesting how to improve the future, is a fair exercise, but character assassination and showing disrespect for the leaders is  destructive and unproductive. We say that we are trying to correct the history because there is a cover up, but very conveniently we muddy the waters of history when the true history is not to our liking.

I think liberals neither show due respect nor give due credit to their worthy opponents. This is a serious mistake. We have to give our due respect and deserved credit to them and try to understand their point of view, otherwise this high-minded approach will lead nowhere.

Fayyaz A. Sheikh