I wasn’t sure where to post this…it’s generally a criitique of Enlightened Moderation and contrasting it with what actually happens in Islam..anyway..Mods feel free to move it..
There is consensus in Pakistan that the two role models of enlightened Islam in South Asia were Allama Iqbal and the Quaid-e-Azam. The great Iqbal’s views on Islam were shaped by an in-depth study of the religion, its culture and its history, as well as his knowledge of contemporary Western philosophers and Western culture (during his stay in Europe). Thus, his ideas on Islamic thought was original and he was able to mould Muslim public opinion in India. He articulated khudi to restore the self-belief of the Muslims of the Subcontinent, which had taken a battering under colonial rule and which today remains stunted under the rule of their surrogates. Iqbal’s concept of “spiritual democracy” foresaw the problems facing a Western civilisation based on secularism that destroyed time-tested religious values. In the absence of religious morality the family system in the West is falling apart with serious consequences for its civilization. George W. Bush won the 2004 election primarily by playing upon Middle America’s fear of the erosion of Christian values and its impact on their way of life. History is a testament to the fact of the decline of empires preceded by the collapse of public morality.
The Quaid was also very clear that the path ahead for Muslims did not lie in aping the West, but chalking out our own way in political, economic and social thought. Hence, on July 17, 1947, talking about the type of democratic system Pakistan would follow, he said, “When you talk of democracy I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy 13 centuries ago,” On Oct. 30, 1947, he said that Pakistanis “would take their guidance from the Holy Quran.” On Nov. 8, 1947, in his speech to the State Bank, he urged Pakistani economists to evolve “banking practices compatible with the Islamic ideals of social and economic life” and to "work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice (July 1, 1948). Talking to students of Aligarh University in 1938, he urged them to work for the “emancipation of their women” - but went on to say, “not in the Western sense.”
The enlightened Islam of the Quaid and Allama Iqbal was original and completely different from Gen. Musharraf’s “enlightened moderation,” which was born after Sept. 11, 2001. Gen. Musharraf’s enlightened moderation was not conceived after any in-depth study of either the strengths and weaknesses of the present Islamic civilization or that of the West. It was born out of expediency (what he calls pragmatism), not through any conviction, to cash in on Western prejudices that had stereotyped Islam into some violent, mediaeval, outdated belief system. By making himself into some sort of a Renaissance man and a bulwark against Islamic terrorism, extremism and fundamentalism, he merely capitalised on the post-9/11 opportunity of serving US interests in return for its support to his military dictatorship. Apart from daily sound bites for Westerners about appearing “enlightened” through phoney and superficial Westernisation – e.g., mixed marathons – the regime has done little to promote moderation in society. What is enlightened about making political alliances with the most crooked politicians and implementing the most regressive economic policies that impoverish the poor and further enrich the rich?
Nations are not built on hollow slogans but around credible institutions. In contrast, dictators thrive by creating a perception of their indispensability by destroying democratic institutions and creating an institutional vacuum. In an effort to cling to power, General Musharraf has discredited the judiciary by using it to legitimise military dictatorship through the doctrine of the law of necessity. Once the sole institution responsible for ensuring the rule of law is discredited and made redundant, the country’s potential to travel on the path of freedom and prosperity is destroyed. Moreover, only a strong, credible and independent judiciary guards freedom of expression that leads to an enlightened society.
Winston Churchill’s famous quote about whether or not the judiciary was delivering justice at the time of the impending Nazi invasion of the British Isles should be an eye-opener for the military rulers. Churchill did not expect the judges to ride tanks to defend Britain. He understood that nations are built and defended by the people only when they get justice and feel that they have a stake in the country. How else can one explain the resilience of the British people to withstand the Nazi onslaught, knowing full well that the Nazis were capable of making “Tora Bora” of them – to borrow a contemporary phrase used to justify our shameful capitulation to US pressure and intimidation.
Apart from Burma, Pakistan under General Musharraf is probably the only country in the 21st Century being run by the military. The military has no business to run a country, or to be in business. The growing corporate interests of the higher echelons of the Army have taken alarming proportions, even to the extent of impeding real economic growth that could reduce spiralling poverty. The damage done to a country run by generals without a clear vision of nation building is proportionate to the damage done to an army run by non-commissioned officers.
Our generals’ concept of national security rests purely on military deterrence and macro-economic indicators, without any relevance to the sense of ownership of the people, which only a genuine political process and credible state institutions bring. The lessons of the separation of East Pakistan haunt us today as never before. Despite the unprecedented decade of mega development and far superior governance of the 1960s, a fake political system designed to perpetuate Ayub’s rule led to the dismemberment of the country within three years of his removal from power.
A rudderless leadership with no moral compass suits the neo-con lobby in Washington perfectly, because they can use them to exaggerate the threat of terrorism to ruthlessly pursue their short-term policy agenda of hegemony in the Muslim world. Hence, contrary to its stated policy, there is a growing perception that it is not in the US interest to have democracy in the Islamic world. This perception is strengthened by the long history of the US alliances with dictators that goes back to the days of the Cold War. At that time, the threat of communism was exaggerated by the hawks in successive US administrations to support tin-pot dictators as long as they were prepared to act as a bulwark against communism. Even the apartheid regime was backed because it claimed that the ANC was communist. Millions were killed by the US in defence of the “free world.” Today, almost every Muslim autocrat, dictator or monarch is fighting the US “war against terror,” and all are quite happy to distort intelligence to get US backing for their illegal regimes. The Iraqi exiles were responsible for collaborating with the neo-cons in urging the attack on Iraq, not only claiming that there were WMDs and that Iraq was harbouring terrorists, but also that the liberating US forces would be received in the manner they were received in France when it was liberated from the Nazis.
Because of American backing of unpopular regimes led by dictators, the resentment against the US is growing in Muslim countries. According to Lancet, over a 100,000 people have been killed in Iraq, in the supposed US effort to bring democracy to the country. A moderate Muslim regime has nothing to do with the degree of democracy or openness in the society, but how faithfully it implements US policies irrespective of its cost to the country’s society. Hence, for the US, Islam Karimov, one of the greatest modern-day tyrants, is a moderate because he is willing to pursue the US war on terror and serve other strategic interests, such as allowing US military bases on Uzbek soil.
Similarly, General Musharraf is projected as a moderate leader even though he violates the constitution with impunity by refusing to give up power, uses the army against its own citizens in Waziristan, and violates the fundamental rights of citizens by handing them over to the US without allowing them to prove their innocence in a Pakistani court of law first. And, worst of all, he allows US detention centres in Pakistan, according to Amnesty International, where our citizens are tortured by our agencies at US behest – because US law does not allow such brutality on humans on its own soil and by its citizens.
The supreme irony is that the Musharraf-US alliance is helping to broaden the centre-right political spectrum, as only its leadership speaks out about the people’s fear and distrust of the US agenda, whereas the so-called liberal-secular leadership is tongue-tied when it comes to criticising US policies, convinced that the road to power is via Washington. The ever-growing political influence of the religious right is then used by General Musharraf to induce the fear of a Mullah takeover amongst US policymakers and our Westernised elite. This vicious zero-sum game continues to play out at the cost of building a democratic society that would be the real bulwark against extremism and promote moderation.
Terrorism is an age-old phenomenon and cannot be eliminated by a rampaging conventional army, no matter how powerful. It can only be contained by a strategy of building democratic societies and addressing the root causes of conflict. The democratisation part of this strategy demands a strategic partnership between the West and the people of the Islamic world who basically demand dignity, self-respect, and the same fundamental rights as the ordinary citizen in the West enjoys. However, this partnership can only be forged if the US is prepared to accept and co-exist with democratic regimes in the Islamic world that may or may not support US policies as wholeheartedly as dictators do to remain in power.
Pakistan today, more than at anytime in its history, needs enlightened Islam that upholds the concept of the khudi (dignity and self-respect) of Iqbal, as well as Jinnah’s firm belief in constitutionalism and his absolute and uncompromising conviction in the rule of law, not some phoney doctrine for the perpetuation of military dictatorship.