08-02-2007, 08:14 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Gen 'Ataturk' Musharraf </b>
Pioneer.com
Prafull Goradia
If Pervez Musharraf survives politically after the Lal Majid episode, it will mark the retreat of Islamism in Pakistan and subsequently in the sub-continent
The storming of Lal Masjid in Islamabad and ridding it of radical Islamists is a major turning point in the history of South Asia. If Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf survives in power, it would mark the beginning of the retreat of Islamism in Pakistan and perhaps in India and Bangladesh.
The General began his national career as the head of the ISI and tried to throw out India from Kargil. It was a start behoving a dedicated leader of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. His turning away from Islamism commenced on the morrow of 9/11 when he told his people that Pakistan was not a thekedar (contractor) of Islam. Moreover, their identity was Pakistani, not Muslim.
The terrorist bomb blasts in London two years ago were another widening of the breach between Gen Musharraf and Islamism. He soundly condemned the terrorists and expressed shame that they were of Pakistani origin. Very few Muslim leaders had at the time condemned the dastardly acts.
Lal Masjid is the third step in the divorce of the General from Islamism. By symbolically challenging the mullahs, he has implicitly declared that enough is enough and that the spheres of the sultan and the mullah are separate. Islam does not look back when its follower turns his back on the faith, which includes the unity of the state and religion. Once a murtadd (apostate), always a murtadd.
The career of Kemal Ataturk is a shining example of this phenomenon. He began life as a loyal officer of the Ottoman Army, rose to be a General and fought for the Caliph's Turkey against Christian Greek invaders and defeated them in the battle of Sarkarya in 1921.
As described by Bernard Lewis, the distinguished American authority on Islam, the Kemalist movement began as one to free Islamic lands and peoples from infidels. He was, however, a modernist who dreamt of converting Turkey into a republic, a concept which was an anathema to conservative Muslims. He, therefore, had to abolish the Caliphate which meant the final separation of the temporal from the spiritual. He allowed the masjids to hold prayers, although the imams were to speak in Turkish and not Arabic. He was not against Islam. But he was a nationalist.
From this moderation, he had to drift away to eventually describe the Caliphate as "the tumour of the middle ages". On the fourth anniversary of the Grand National Assembly, the Ataturk declared: "It had become necessary to liberate Islam from being a tool of polities." He went on to abolish the shari'ah and replaced it with a civil code based on the Swiss model. The wearing of the fez, as well as the hijab, was forbidden. In 1928, the Arabic alphabets were replaced with Roman as the script of the Turkish language. Turkey was to become a fully European country despite only three per cent of its territory being on the western side of the Straits of Bosporus.
Kemal Pasha had, in a matter of eight years, turned from a moderate Muslim to being virtually an anti-Islamist. Islam is a pure religion which offers itself to no compromise.
<b>The Muslim is either a momin, a faithful, or he is a murtadd. That is the fate that awaits Gen Musharraf after Lal Masjid. He has violated the Pakistan Constitution whereby sovereignty belongs to Allah. Article 2 states that Islam shall be the state religion of Pakistan and the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in Holy Quran and Sunnah shall be the supreme law. Before he goes any further with reform, he might have to redraw the Constitution</b>.
Even if Gen Musharraf does not introduce a new document, he could have a go at the ulema, say by abolishing polygamy and making divorce as easy or as difficult equally for men and women. In one stroke he would gain the support of the more modern among the Pakistanis as well as most women.
<b>If the General gets away with such reforms, he might replace the shari'ah with a civil code, as Ataturk did</b>. The provocation to the Islamists would be such as to provoke a counter-attack which, in turn, would give him the opportunity to fight and hopefully to defeat them. No doubt, the resulting bloodshed would not be insignificant.
The Army can broadly be taken as a class that would support this secularisation and there would be the elite, the media, the judiciary and the Governments of Russia, China as well as the US which would support any change that is anti-fundamentalist. India should also favour a more modern Pakistan which, in turn, would weaken the hardline ulema in India.
<b>All in all, the dice is loaded in favour of Gen Musharraf</b>. No doubt, the supreme pre-condition would be his ability to survive an environment which does not put a high premium on avoiding bloodshed
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com
Prafull Goradia
If Pervez Musharraf survives politically after the Lal Majid episode, it will mark the retreat of Islamism in Pakistan and subsequently in the sub-continent
The storming of Lal Masjid in Islamabad and ridding it of radical Islamists is a major turning point in the history of South Asia. If Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf survives in power, it would mark the beginning of the retreat of Islamism in Pakistan and perhaps in India and Bangladesh.
The General began his national career as the head of the ISI and tried to throw out India from Kargil. It was a start behoving a dedicated leader of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. His turning away from Islamism commenced on the morrow of 9/11 when he told his people that Pakistan was not a thekedar (contractor) of Islam. Moreover, their identity was Pakistani, not Muslim.
The terrorist bomb blasts in London two years ago were another widening of the breach between Gen Musharraf and Islamism. He soundly condemned the terrorists and expressed shame that they were of Pakistani origin. Very few Muslim leaders had at the time condemned the dastardly acts.
Lal Masjid is the third step in the divorce of the General from Islamism. By symbolically challenging the mullahs, he has implicitly declared that enough is enough and that the spheres of the sultan and the mullah are separate. Islam does not look back when its follower turns his back on the faith, which includes the unity of the state and religion. Once a murtadd (apostate), always a murtadd.
The career of Kemal Ataturk is a shining example of this phenomenon. He began life as a loyal officer of the Ottoman Army, rose to be a General and fought for the Caliph's Turkey against Christian Greek invaders and defeated them in the battle of Sarkarya in 1921.
As described by Bernard Lewis, the distinguished American authority on Islam, the Kemalist movement began as one to free Islamic lands and peoples from infidels. He was, however, a modernist who dreamt of converting Turkey into a republic, a concept which was an anathema to conservative Muslims. He, therefore, had to abolish the Caliphate which meant the final separation of the temporal from the spiritual. He allowed the masjids to hold prayers, although the imams were to speak in Turkish and not Arabic. He was not against Islam. But he was a nationalist.
From this moderation, he had to drift away to eventually describe the Caliphate as "the tumour of the middle ages". On the fourth anniversary of the Grand National Assembly, the Ataturk declared: "It had become necessary to liberate Islam from being a tool of polities." He went on to abolish the shari'ah and replaced it with a civil code based on the Swiss model. The wearing of the fez, as well as the hijab, was forbidden. In 1928, the Arabic alphabets were replaced with Roman as the script of the Turkish language. Turkey was to become a fully European country despite only three per cent of its territory being on the western side of the Straits of Bosporus.
Kemal Pasha had, in a matter of eight years, turned from a moderate Muslim to being virtually an anti-Islamist. Islam is a pure religion which offers itself to no compromise.
<b>The Muslim is either a momin, a faithful, or he is a murtadd. That is the fate that awaits Gen Musharraf after Lal Masjid. He has violated the Pakistan Constitution whereby sovereignty belongs to Allah. Article 2 states that Islam shall be the state religion of Pakistan and the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in Holy Quran and Sunnah shall be the supreme law. Before he goes any further with reform, he might have to redraw the Constitution</b>.
Even if Gen Musharraf does not introduce a new document, he could have a go at the ulema, say by abolishing polygamy and making divorce as easy or as difficult equally for men and women. In one stroke he would gain the support of the more modern among the Pakistanis as well as most women.
<b>If the General gets away with such reforms, he might replace the shari'ah with a civil code, as Ataturk did</b>. The provocation to the Islamists would be such as to provoke a counter-attack which, in turn, would give him the opportunity to fight and hopefully to defeat them. No doubt, the resulting bloodshed would not be insignificant.
The Army can broadly be taken as a class that would support this secularisation and there would be the elite, the media, the judiciary and the Governments of Russia, China as well as the US which would support any change that is anti-fundamentalist. India should also favour a more modern Pakistan which, in turn, would weaken the hardline ulema in India.
<b>All in all, the dice is loaded in favour of Gen Musharraf</b>. No doubt, the supreme pre-condition would be his ability to survive an environment which does not put a high premium on avoiding bloodshed
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->