Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- For my first three days in Pakistan, no conversation could go more than a few minutes without a reference to the crisis at the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) compound. I had landed in Islamabad on July 8, and by then it seemed clear that government forces would eventually storm the mosque and the attached women's seminary to end the confrontation with fundamentalist clerics and their supporters.
The final assault was finally unleashed as two companions and I drove to Lahore as part of a lecture tour. During several hours of intense discussion in the car, they gave me background and details that explained the real tragedy of the conflict.
When the news of the final assault came via cell phone we all fell silent, and we all quietly cried -- for those killed and for opportunities lost, out of our grief and from our fear.
In the Western news media and even much of the Pakistani press, the story was framed as crazed radical Islamist forces challenging relatively restrained government forces. Indeed, the two brothers who ran the mosque preached an interpretation of Islam that was mostly reactionary and sometimes violent. None of us in the car -- two Muslims and one Christian, all progressive in theological and political thought -- supported such views.
But there was more to the story. Farid Esack, one of the world's foremost progressive Muslim theologians who was in Pakistan to teach and lecture, and Junaid Ahmad, a Pakistani-American activist and law student directing the lecture series, both pointed out that key social/economic aspects of the story were being overlooked.
In addition to calls for shariah law under a fundamentalist Islamic state, Lal Masjid imams Abdur Rashid Ghazi and Mohammed Abdul Aziz critiqued the corruption of Pakistani political, military and economic elites, highlighting the living conditions of the millions of Pakistanis living in poverty. As in most Third-World societies, the inequality gap here has widened in recent years, as those who find their place in the U.S.-dominated neoliberal economic project prosper while most ordinary people suffer, especially the poor.
"We can reject the jihadist and patriarchal aspects and still recognize that there is in this fundamentalist philosophy a call for social justice, a challenge to the power-seeking and greed of elites," said Esack, the author of Qur'an: Liberation and Pluralism. "When I spoke with Ghazi, it was clear that was an important part of his thinking, and it's equally clear that the appeal of this theology is magnified by the lack of meaningful calls for justice from other sectors of society."
Esack, who teaches at Harvard Divinity School and is a former national commissioner for gender equality in South Africa, had been visiting the mosque regularly and speaking to Ghazi and others inside until government forces sealed the area a few days earlier. A native of South Africa who was active in the struggle against apartheid, Esack spent much of his childhood in Pakistan at a madarasa, where he was a classmate of Aziz. Contrary to the media image of Ghazi, the cleric had a broader agenda and wanted to learn more about how an Islamic state could be structured to ensure economic equality, Esack said.
"My vision of an inclusive polity influenced by progressive Islamic values is very different than Ghazi's, of course, but his theology should not be reduced to a caricature, as it so often was, especially in the West," Esack said.
Ahmad emphasized that another crucial part of the story involved economics, specifically land. Press reports focused on the provocative activities of students and supporters of Lal Masjid members threatening video store owners, raiding brothels and clashing with police, but an underlying cause of the conflict was the existence of "unauthorized" mosques. Many of these mosques and madrasas had been built without permits on unused public land in Islamabad. As the city has grown more crowded and developers eyed that real estate for commercial building, the government took the risky step of destroying some of those mosques (though the many non-religious, profit-generating projects also built without permits remain undisturbed). Clerics protested, adding to the intensity of the Lal Masjid conflict.
Esack and Ahmad agreed that another aspect of the crisis mostly ignored in the press was the fact that the events played out in Islamabad, home to the more secular/liberal and privileged elements of the society. While those liberals might ignore such movements and conflicts in the outer provinces, many found it offensive that such an embarrassing incident could happen in the capital, where the world eventually would pay attention.
"We hear about how this is bad for the image of Pakistan, with no comment about the lives of ordinary Pakistanis and the substance of what the country is about," Ahmad said. "Instead of talking about these fundamental questions of justice, many people wanted to see the incident ended to avoid further tarnishing of the country's image. It's like the obsession the United States has with simply changing its image in the Muslim world rather than recognizing the injustice of its policies."
In the construction of that image, the stories of the reality of the lives of people at Lal Masjid are typically untold. As the crisis unfolded and some of the madrasa students left the compound, the government gave them some money and told them to go home.
"The problem is, many had no homes to go to," Ahmad said. "Whatever the reactionary theology of Lal Masjid, it provided a place for many who were dispossessed or from poor families. If the economy ignores people and the state provides nothing, where will they go?"
My trip to Pakistan had been set months in advance; my presence there during this crisis was coincidence. Throughout my stay, as I listened to the discussion about the conflict, I realized how much less I could have understood the events if I had been in the United States, even though I would have been reading the international press on the web. The complexity of such stories so rarely makes it into print, and the humanity of the people demonized drops out all too easily.
As we drove in silence, I thought of how easy it is from positions of safety and comfort to denounce fundamentalism, how often I have done just that. But who are we targeting when we make such statements? I have no trouble denouncing the bin Ladens and al-Zawahiris, or the Bushs and Robertsons, and critiquing their twisted worldview. But what of the ordinary people struggling against the elites who ignore the cries of the suffering? When those people take up a fundamentalist theology that we Western left/progressives reject, must we not highlight the inequality we also say we oppose?
Esack said some have asked him what he hoped to gain by going to Lal Masjid and talking with someone like Ghazi, but he has no doubts about the value and appropriateness of his visits there.
"When we abandon engagement and dialogue with those who hold these beliefs, we are abandoning hope. My goal is not to wall myself off from other Muslims, but to search for authentic connections, even across these gaps. Is that not how we can heal the world, and ourselves?" he said. "It is precisely when we start to think of some of us as 'chosen' and others as 'frozen' that we happily become willing to defrost them with our bombs."
That moment in the car, as we absorbed the news that the troops had cleared the mosque and that Ghazi and dozens of others were dead, I felt angry at people like Ghazi and at the same time a deep sorrow for his death. I felt a much deeper rage at Pakistan's military president, Pervez Musharraf, and the U.S. leaders who support him. And I felt a kind of fear for the Muslim fundamentalism that unleashes such violent forces, which always reminds me of the equally frightening Christian fundamentalist theology circulating in the United States.
I bounced between a deep sense of despair and an equally deep sense of hope. Once the confrontation was set in motion, perhaps the people inside the mosque and the soldiers killed were doomed. But in the car in that moment, I could feel hope that the work of people like Esack and Ahmad was setting in motion other forces. Mostly I was grateful to be in their company to share the grief. In such moments, that connection is perhaps the most human and the most hopeful of endeavors.
Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center . His latest book is Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity (South End Press, 2007). Jensen is also the author of The Heart of Whiteness: Race, Racism, and White Privilege and Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (both from City Lights Books); and Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang). He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu and his articles can be found online at http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/index.html.
24 Comments so far
Show AllAardvark, With all due respect, if you think that Islamic shariah abandons the muslim women rights to get education and breath freely, you are dead wrong because its the islamic shariah that gives equal rights to men and women.
Coming to your question, "Look at other places where shariah has been implemented - does it increase social justice? Does it improve the lot of women?
There is not one muslim country in this world today which is actually following the shariah and for this reason, the rich are getting richer and the poor are falling under misery and social injustice. In other words, the shariah calls for equal distributation of gains or wealth in the society and not one person would be poor if it is properly implemented, which is unfortunately not the case these days.
About the education that hundreds of innocent girls were getting at the Red Mosque in Pakistan, let me tell you for a fact that preliminary quranic education is the best form of education because it teaches you moral standards, how to best live a life, serve and love one another. People in the western countries dont seem to know about this because they get brain-washed every now and then from the media. The terms islamic-fascist and islamic-terrorism are merely coined by our corrupted leaders to put hatred amongst ourselves.
With all respect, but I don't agree with you Aardvark about your conclusion about even your intepretation of that sentence. What it says to my mind is that according to Esack and by extension Jensen, there is even a common ground between "progressives" and religious fundamentalists in the rejection of the injustices that the system as it is, seems unable to even mildly correct. More conclusions from that I don't think you can draw.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that anybody who's even remotely sane could never propose to make common cause with fundamentalist religious movements.
That is something entirely different from trying to understand why religious fundamentalism of all sorts has such tremendous succes in the world today. And perhaps why it will continue to grow and have more horrible consequenses than perhaps we can even imagine if the root causes are not adressed.
As we can see now everywhere the world is heading to more fundamentalism. As one can learn from history or from just observing the presence, nothing reinforces and spreads fundamentalist religious ideas more than suppressing them violently.
"We can reject the jihadist and patriarchal aspects and still recognize that there is in this fundamentalist philosophy a call for social justice, a challenge to the power-seeking and greed of elites," said Esack
This is apologetics, and blindness. The "jihadist and patriachal aspects" are central to the fundimentalist belief.
Obei Wan - I "understand" the situation - I've lived in third world countries awash in elite greed. What I am suggesting is that making common cause with fundimentalists is at best a "deal with the devil" that will result in the cure being worse than the illness. Would the women of Pakistan be better served under a corrupt Musharraf regime, or under a strict shariah state such as the Taliban had in Afghanistan? Those who think they can make common cause with the fundimentalists and then find compromise will be sorely mistaken.
This is an important piece for many reasons, not least of which is that it highlights the connections between fundamentalism and social critique.
I used to work with a very Christian right Bush conservative. In arguing with this person, I often pointed out the connections between my leftist values and those of the Christian right: a rejection of a value system based on profit above all else, rejection of empty materialism, an underlying concern for human life and suffering. Of course, her solution was the adoption of a faith-based inflexible, hierarchical system of morality that emphasized obedience to patriarchal authority. My "progressive" solution calls for social structures that foster equality, that provide a basic level of security and opportunity for all, and a culture that embraces diversity and offers constant challenge to notions of "one truth for all."
Although there is a real antagonism between fundamentalism and liberalism (the humane aspects of the latter, anyway), it's good to remind ourselves that both worldviews seek to resolve some of the same failures of Western modernity.
The problem with you not getting the apologism, Aardvark, is because it isn't there. What's more of value than apologetics or condemnation of persons is the effort to understand the why of situations. You might want to read it again with another pair of spectacles.
The bottom line is that they were fundimentalists calling for a "return" to shariah. Look at other places where shariah has been implemented - does it increase social justice? Does it improve the lot of women?
I don't "get" the apologism for Ghazi and his followers, unless it is under the rubric of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." As corrupt as Pakistan is, would you rather see a regime that forbids the education of women, as the Taliban did?
powerslave2,
"I am glad I am not gay and Iranian or Saudi Arabian."
If you don't say anything, people may think you're stupid; but if you open your mouth, you remove all doubt. Truer words were never spoken in this case.
I'm sure those people you mentioned are definitely glad that you're not one of them either. But, just to let people on this site know that it's not your ass that's doing your talking, could you please explain exactly what you have against being an Iranian. Also let us know in the scheme of subhuman scum, where do you belong. Thank you.
"As it is, a bunch of homophobic, sexist evildoers are dead. And the world is no worse off for it."
Will you say the same thing if someone bombs the White House?
I think part of the problem with people who share your worldview is that you guys don't like to look at the root causes of things.
Yes, radical Islamic terrorism is a bad thing. I get angry at people who kill in the name of any religion. People like that always end up hurting the wrong people, the innocents. They greatly tarnish their own culture and religion by committing such atrocities.
But at the same time, labeling them merely as "evil" and wanting to "kill 'em all" just perpetuates a circle of violence. They attack us, we attack them, it goes on and on.
And no one likes to look at our foreign policies and chessgames either. THAT's why THEY hate US.
"I forgot, sorry, it is OK to be homophobic, sexist, even cut off your women's genitals. Just as long as you are a member of the religion of peace, and make real clear that you hate Bush and America, all is forgiven. I am glad I am not gay and Iranian or Saudi Arabian. For that matter, I am glad I am not female and any of the above."
I doubt there are many people if anyone on the left who feels that it is ok for anyone to hate gays or women, straight people or men.
I've said this about people on the left who incessantly bash America, and I will say the same to those who lambastes Islamic nations.
There is no nation that has no underbelly.
America is sexist too. Women still make 70 cents for every male dollar. We're still debating whether or not women should be allowed to have abortions or use birth control! And let's not forget how many men assault their wives and girlfriends in this country. Look up some stats. Ask all the women you know whether or not they carry mace.
As far as gays go, would you want to be gay in the USA?
BTW, I for one am glad powerslave posts here. Preaching to the choir is getting old. People like him need to be on this site more than anyone. So let's stop with the baiting and jabs and stereotyping.
I forgot, sorry, it is OK to be homophobic, sexist, even cut off your women's genitals. Just as long as you are a member of the religion of peace, and make real clear that you hate Bush and America, all is forgiven. I am glad I am not gay and Iranian or Saudi Arabian. For that matter, I am glad I am not female and any of the above.
Robert Jensen is like a younger version of Howard Zen and Noam Chomsky. The world is far better off with those great souls than it'd be without them. More power to them!
you just have to ignore his (ps2) rants ... he is screaming to get out of the kkkloset ...
OMG, what nadir won't these stooges from the Heritage Foundation stoop too for a $5 gift certificate to Winn Dixie and points toward a purchase at Walmart?
Now Powerslave2 is telling us that he is happy for the deaths at the Red Mosque because they were sexist and homophobic! As if the Branch Davidians were feminists and supported same-sex marriage. Nice try.
PS2 - you probably missed out on John Donne in home-schooling, but, you would be well to heed his words" "... any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind."
Also, and I realize that the Heritage Foundation pays by the word, so facts are not important, but please, document your idiotic assertions.
Finally, if polishing off people because they are sexist and homphobic, how would you feel about a bolt of thunder taking out Bob Jones University?
If the Pakistani equivalent of the ATF had passed up on a chance to arrest the head Iman of the Red Mosque while he was joggins because it would be more fun for "Cops" to film them busting up the place, then I would compare what happened to the slaughter of innocents by Reichfuhrer Reno at Waco. If dozens of babies had been burned alive in the Red Mosque, I would compare it to Waco. As it is, a bunch of homophobic, sexist evildoers are dead. And the world is no worse off for it.
There is an old commentary on the drowning of Pharaoh's army:
When the Red Sea closed in and Pharaoh and his host were drowned, the hevenly choir began to sing praises of the Name -- but the the Voice commanded "Silence! A hundred thousand of my creatures have just been destroyed, is this a time for singing?"
The point is, rejoice not at the death of even your worst enemy.
John Earls,
I agree. People around the world noted the US response to people and movements that were anti-imperialist or that attempted to implement social justice with overtly socialist or communist labels. As revealed in later released transcripts of meetings regarding the Vietnam War, one of the main goals of the US government in the war was to serve as a warning to people in Southeast Asia and elsewhere that any socialist or communist takeover of the national government would likely lead to annihilation by US airpower. So as people around the world began to understand that, other types of anti-imperialist and social justice political groups organized, often with a religious flavor. The US government even aided and abetted the religious groups, such as al Qaida and other related entities in Afghanistan and Pakistan, believing them to be much less of a threat to US corporate world hegemony than socialist or communist groups.
Robert Jensen's account is very important and should be widely disseminated. Since the 90's overt repression and continuous media propaganda have nearly eliminated the secular left political groups which largely channeled these longings for social justice among the people. Now it seems that the religious formations that give voice to these longings are taking their role. As to fundamentalism remember that some left groups became just as destructive of human life as any religious group: Pol Pot in Cambodia and Sendero Luminoso in Peru.
"Islamo-fascists"?? Where did that idiotic term come from? Whoever came up with it knows nothing about either Islam or fascism; and anyone who uses it (including Slave to the Powerful there) betrays their ignorance as well as their fealty to the insane korporatist/theocratic worldview which is afflicting the world so sorely.
This article makes exactly the opposite point: We should ignore religious trappings (which always change depending upon economic conditions) and concentrate on the substance of the positions. And the substance here, as usual, has to do with the said economic conditions. Buying into the war pigs' "matrix" of "Islamo-fascism" is to forfeit any chance to do anything real to make things better.
Want to reduce terrorism? Want to promote peace? Then promote economic wellbeing amongst the poor and disadvantaged. Schools and hospitals, not bombs and guns, and you'll see REAL improvement instead of continuing death, destruction and misery.
But of course the RepubliKKKan running dogs of the kapitalist-fascists (the REAL fascists, that is) make money on the mayhem, so that's why it continues...
Give the powerslave a break .. he is trying real hard to pull his head out of his a~!@#. He does surface occasionally though ...
A group of fundamentalists fought with soldiers of a dictator who is a lackey of America. I feel more sorry for the soldiers for they had no choice. The fundamentalists, whether Islamic or American, who want to impose their ideology on other people deserve the same fate as those in the mosque. Theirs was not a call for social justice but for Sharia law and limitation of women's freedom. Pakistanis in general did not support those in the mosque.
Mr. Jensen - thank you for this background information and insight. It is easy to denounce fundamentalists, whether they are Xians, Jews or Muslims, and it is even easier to overlook the social critique that may be embedded within the literalist theology. While the "Red Mosque" story was getting its 5 minute spin on US news - even NPR, I kept thinking there was something missing.
Powerslave2 - I realize you have to post crap on Common Dreams, because that's how you get your paycheck from the Heritage Foundation, but really, only an idiot would make or think a comment like yours. Were you celebrating when 400+ Jesus-Fascists were deep fried in Waco, TX? Oh, I forgot, they weren't Muslims, so maybe their lives had value to you.
Powerslave, are you, like so many other fascist USAns, proud of your stupidity?
The true tragedy is that the real fascists in the whitehouse and their slaves are alive and kicking.
Booze never made anyone any brighter and neither does watching TV news.
Thank you Robert - I am one of those who tend to immediately denounce the fundamentlists , but you have given me something to think about. I completely agree with Esack about "engagement and dialogue". Wish all our leaders would have that policy.