ACCORDING to some highly regarded scholars, there is a mighty clash between Islam and the West going on right before our eyes. It is believed that the clash is not a recent phenomenon, for it could be said to have been formalized in the year 1095 when Pope Urban II launched the first Crusade, and that it did not end when the eighth and the last Crusade ended in 1271.

The clash continued intermittently in the following centuries, but lost its focused fervour as a result of the more pressing preoccupations of the Christian powers, such as 400-year long quest for empires, always violent and often brutal, all over the world, the Hundred Years’ War, the Thirty Years’ War, the War of Jenkins’ Ear (clipped by Spaniards, not Arabs), the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and, of course, the cold war that twice brought the world on the verge of extinction. Samuel Huntington, the discoverer of the clash of civilizations, insists, however, that ‘Islam has bloody borders.’

Having said that, let me add that Huntington is not guilty of falsehood so much as of propagating a vicious half-truth. The whole truth is that both Muslims and Christians have fought more wars, killed more people, and caused more destruction than any other people in history, and that the Christians have proved more efficient and inventive in disposing of fellow human beings.

Now, after more than 700 years, there has begun, it is believed, another phase of direct and focused clash between the Muslim and the Christian peoples. Much has been written and spoken on the subject, especially since 1993, but despite enormous academic labour and media attention, there is no agreement on the precise nature and the cause of conflict. The ambiguities, evasiveness and dissimulations persist. No wonder, then, that the debate on the subject, in whatever way formulated, is now a muddle wrapped in confusion, for it is woven around categories (fundamentalists, militants, jihadis, terrorists) that conjure up shadowy figures, epitomized in the person of Osama bin Laden, brooding over the world they would rather destroy. The debate is, thus, concluded before it is begun.

One of the reasons why there is so much of theoretical confusion on the subject is the way the problem or the issue is formulated. ‘Islam and the West’, and other similar formulations, for example, imply that the clash is between the Islamic ideology (supposedly orthodox, militant, anti-West and intolerant) and the West that is supposed to be a distinct civilization representing the values of democracy, human rights, liberal moral code, tolerance and free-market economy. The clash is, thus, between two ideologies and, hence, global and eternal, unless one of the two ideologies fades away.

This view, despite much scholarly advocacy, remains clouded by dissimulation as it ignores or trivializes some very significant facts of the recent history that are still fresh in the minds of the people across the world. To mention only one such fact, all through the cold war there existed a strong bond between the Muslim nations and their orthodox religious parties, and the West, on the basis of ideological affinity, supported, promoted and accepted by western scholars.

There were, of course, some Muslim countries (Egypt, Iraq, Syria) that were anti-West, but they were the ones which were also secular states, and known for their persecution of the religious parties. This fact alone should be good enough reason to reject the thesis that the Islamic ideology, even as interpreted by the orthodox ulema, is inherently and irrevocably hostile to the West.

Some western scholars have put in enormous effort to ferret out verses, incidents, opinions and fatwas to prove that according to the Islamic faith, those who are not for Islam are against it, and should be put to the sword, whereafter they would for ever burn in hell. Here is an interesting thought for such scholars. According to verse 62 of Sura al-Baqarah “those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”

This verse has been a subject of much comment by Muslim theologians, but none more interesting or instructive (for Muslims and non-Muslims alike) than the one by Maulana Maudoodi, who was an ultra-orthodox scholar. According to him, the purpose of this verse was to refute the arrogant claim of the Jews that salvation has been promised for them alone.

The second flaw in the formulation ‘Islam and the West’ is that it implies that the conflict is with the West as a whole, not just with some western nations. The world of Islam as a whole is supposed to be arrayed against whole of the western-Christian world. This enables the authors of such formulations to globalize the conflict. But is there, in fact, a global conflict going on? All that we have to do to answer this question is to identify those conflicts that have agitated the minds of the people in the Muslim world, and see whether they add up to a clash with the entire western world.

The major areas of conflict, on-going or recently concluded, are well-known and well-documented. Excluding minor irritants, these are: the Middle East, Kashmir, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya. Looking at these conflicts in the context of ‘Islam and the West’, it is quite obvious that in four of the five areas of conflict (Kashmir, Chechnya, Bosnia and Kosovo) the fury of the alleged Islamic wrath is not directed against the West.

In fact, in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya (before 9/11), the West was supportive of the Muslim communities that were fighting for their right of self-determination which is a secular, even western, concept. The same is true of Kashmir where, again, the question is one of the right of self-determination, not of the establishment of an orthodox Islamic state. Thus, in four out of five major areas of conflict in the Muslim world, the West is not the target, nor Islamic orthodoxy the motivation.

This brings the focus on the Middle East. Now, how much of the West and how much of Islam is involved in the Middle East? First, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Here the Palestinian militancy is directed, primarily, against the Israelis, who have occupied their lands and, next, against the US for having defended and supported the Israeli excesses. So the conflict is about land, and is between the Palestinians (both Muslim and Christian) and Israelis. The rest of the Muslim world, and the rest of the West, is not directly involved in the conflict, but some countries do support, or have sympathy for, one of the two parties on the basis of cultural or political affiliations, with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Such being the fact, it is hard to see a mighty clash between Islam and the West going on in Judaea.

Finally the second level of conflict in the Middle East, that is, the conflict between the Arab aspirations and the US policies in the wider context of the Middle East. The present discontent among the Arabs dates from the Gulf War that led to the stationing of American, and some British, ground, air and naval forces in the Gulf states. The war itself had nothing to do with Islam or the West. Iraq, a Muslim country, attacked and occupied Kuwait, another Muslim country, and was forced to withdraw by the coalition consisting of a number of western and Muslim countries, acting under the aegis of the United Nations. The US military played a major role in the conduct of war itself. This, in brief, is what happened. One can sniff about long and hard all over the Iraqi-Kuwaiti-Saudi battlefields without ever being refreshed by a single whiff of an ideological scent of any kind. There is, however, the aroma of oil all over the place.

Thus, what appears to be a clash between Islam and the West is confined to the Middle East, and arises out of Israeli occupation of the Palestinian lands, and the commercially strategic interest of the West in the Middle eastern oil. When President Nixon invited the foreign ministers of 13 industrialized countries to an emergency conference in February 1974 after the Arab oil embargo, Kissinger opened the discussion with the warning of a ‘collapse of the world economy’ unless collective measures were taken. Although no collective measures were taken, and the world economy did not collapse, it was a big crisis for the West. But that kind of crisis is not possible anymore.

The support for Israel as a western outpost, and control over the Middle Eastern oil, did make sense during the cold war when the power and influence of the Soviet Union could have seeped into the Middle Eastern politics. But today Israel, with an arsenal of about 200 nuclear warheads, cannot be threatened by its neighbours, and the Middle Eastern oil cannot go anywhere but to the buyers. Why should, then, the Israeli excesses be supported, condoned or overlooked by the West? And why play with the Arab sentiments by stationing US military forces in the Gulf states when its lethal and global reach cannot be defied?

But, our western friends may ask, how about those angry, suicidal fanatics who would not stop short of blowing up planes, demolishing buildings and killing innocent people? Well, they are being pursued and disowned, now that their potential for mindless destruction has so rudely impacted our consciousness. Pursue them by all means but also pursue the cause of a just world order, for injustice breeds that all-consuming passion to get even in death, if not in life.

Email: tvo@isb.comsats.net.pk

A REPORT from Peshawar says that second-hand woollen clothes markets sprang up all over the city in the beginning of November and are now doing flourishing business. This could also be said about Rawalpindi-Islamabad and Lahore and Quetta, in fact about all towns and cities in those parts of Pakistan where the cold season makes itself felt.

These markets, named Landas after Lahore’s famous Landa Bazaar, fill a great need of the so-called respectable middle class and the poorer sections of society. And since a majority of the stuff comes from America, one can say that this form of US aid is the most useful for the country as it reaches the lowest levels of hard-pressed population. The best thing about it is that President Pervez Musharraf doesn’t have to thank President George Bush for it.

The Landa is a boon for the low-paid government servant, provided he feels no shame in going there and trying on a pullover or coat (or even a pair of trousers) in public. I claim to be the oldest acknowledging patron of second-hand clothes, having bought my first piece in 1951. Please note the word “acknowledging,” for there are many who buy there but are chary of admitting it. It is for such people that a hawker in Lahore’s Landa was once heard shouting, “Come on, take away these beautiful sweaters that your uncle has sent from Canada!”

The Landa has always been a popular subject for jokes about its safed-posh patrons and their complexes. But these jokes are not always a matter of fun for those involved. Take the case of my friend Amjad Husain of Lahore and what he went through some forty years ago. He was given an ultimatum by his wife when, in a weak moment, he invested in a second-hand tweed coat. She thundered, “Either this coat will remain in this house or I.”

For a moment Amjad Husain wavered between the merits of the coat and those of his wife but then the thought of having to look after five small children decided the matter, and the coat was given away to a passing beggar. Later, he vividly described this momentous event in his collection of light essays. While everybody laughed at his humour, nobody perceived the stark reality behind the surrender to social taboos.

The stark reality lay in the fact that a white collar middle class working man was obliged to buy a warm coat from the Landa because he simply couldn’t afford to get a new one stitched at twenty times its cost. It was also a middle class reality that the coat was not allowed to remain in the house. As for the cost, look at my experience. My only tweed coat wouldn’t button up so I gave it to a leaner brother-in-law. Since I have no qualms on the subject, I went to the Sunday Bazaar two months ago and purchased a fine piece for 110 rupees, after I was told that a new tweed coat would mean spending at least 4,000 rupees.

The Landa syndrome is symbolic of our ability or inability to face reality and opt for the sensible way to cope with the problem of high prices of woollen clothes. It’s as simple as that. But it’s not so simple to brush false prestige aside. People of my class find it harrowing to go to the Landa and try on something that takes their fancy, and with a crowd looking on. Although none in the crowd is bothered since they are all there for the same purpose.

But things are changing. Not so long ago if I bought a second-hand item from the Landa and was obsessed by the thought of friendly censure or public ridicule, I would give it out that the piece had been sent by that fictitious uncle in Canada. Now, it is the in thing for rich and fashionable ladies to make prize bargains in the Landa and then show them off. A young lady I know, who rides alternately in a Land Cruiser and a Mercedes, felt frustrated when she couldn’t make a sensational discovery from the Landa. So she passed off an expensive brand-new foreign-made cardigan as a second-hand purchase. The reaction among her friends was stunning and her day was made.

Except in Lower Sindh, winter clothes are a heavy drain every year on almost everyone’s budget in Pakistan. This can be drastically cut down if the people concerned can overcome the complex of social stigma attached to second-hand things worn previously by “dead white men.” The poor have no inhibition on this score, so this is essentially a problem of the respectable middle class.

Let us look at it this way. Whether the previous owner is dead or alive, whether he was white or black or yellow, and whether it was John F. Kennedy or plain Joe Smith, what does it matter? And where is the stigma? We have no hesitation in putting on clothes handed down by our elders, so why quibble at wearing a coat discarded by a blue-blooded American who no longer needs it? Every day those of us who can’t afford to buy new necessities of life buy them second-hand. These may be a house or a car, furniture or an electrical appliance. And nobody gives a deprecatory thought to taking a second-hand wife either, as long as she is good-looking.

On the intellectual plane, being rather short on original ideas, we constantly depend on second-hand theories, used up ideologies and defunct ideas — all borrowed from the West or the East where they may be old hat now and nobody bothers to own them. So what’s wrong with using second-hand clothes? At least they look new after being dry-cleaned. Often our complexes do not allow us to save where we can save money. With us ostentation is not a habit; it’s an addiction. I have a theory. If you are not able to find customers for a particular item in your shop, just double its price and stick a fancy label on it. It will go in minutes. The rich do not want to buy things at prices that the common man pays. Hence the tremendous sales at boutiques where the displayed price is ten times the cost.

So let us come down to earth and face reality. I don’t mean to say that the entire problem hinges on second-hand clothing. But they are a symbol and a test. How many of us can pass that test?

INDIA continues to blow hot and cold over its differences with Pakistan. Discussing the situation in the subcontinent with the Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi’s special envoy, Dr Salem bin Amer, the other day, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee said that there could not be any military solution to the problems between India and Pakistan.

However, addressing the National Cadet Corps at a function in New Delhi on Sunday the struck a belligerent note, accusing Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism in the occupied part of Kashmir and warned that his government would not hesitate about giving “a befitting reply”

Mr Vajpayee’s home minister, Lal Krishna Advani, sounded even more menacing. In a TV interview he argued that though war could not be a solution in the on-going situation it “may become inevitable.” He regretted India having “missed” the chance of settling all its differences after its victory in the 1971 war. He ruled out the prospects of any summit-level talks with Pakistan, saying that there was no point for the two countries to resume a dialogue at this stage.

In a public speech last week Advani strongly argued that the separation of Kashmir from India, by a plebiscite or otherwise, would have a “domino-like effect” and lead to the break-up of India. He described the disputed state as a symbol of India’s national unity, mistakenly seen by the western nations as “an issue of discord” between the two countries.

The UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, who was recently on a visit to the region and held discussions with the Indian and Pakistani leaders obviously felt deeply concerned over the stand-off and called for “a sustained dialogue” between the two countries not only to resolve the current crisis but also to ensure that the region would remain free of tensions over the longer term. He also offered his good offices for restarting a dialogue between the two countries.

While India has remained unmoved by the appeals for a resumption of talks between the Indian and Pakistani leaders, President Pervez Musharraf has refused to be deterred by New Delhi’s continuing negative stance. Addressing the senior armed forces officers at Rawalpindi on Friday, he stressed that he saw no reason for India to continue to escalate tensions on the border. Maintaining that peace was in the greater interest of both Pakistan and India, he made it clear that Pakistan would not be overawed by India’s show of force (the test-firing of the Agni missile) and had the capability and the resolve to thwart any threat to its security integrity.

He felt confident that Pakistan could inflict “unacceptable damage” on anyone bent on causing trouble for it. Gen Pervez Musharraf is also maintaining telephonic contact with the world leaders to keep them informed of the steps taken by his government to de-escalate the situation despite India’s warlike posture.

President Musharraf has consistently maintained that the present stand-off between India and Pakistan, triggered by a terrorist attack on India’s parliament building in New Delhi last month, could still be resolved by a peaceful dialogue. He has condemned the attack in the strongest possible terms, maintaining, of course, that no party or group in Pakistan could be held responsible for it except on the basis of hard evidence proving such an involvement.

However, for reasons of internal peace and security Gen. Pervez Musharraf has been concerned about the militancy and extremism of certain religious groups reputed to be involved in terrorist activity both within and outside the country. To put a stop to all this he has imposed a ban on several religious extremist groups and detained their leaders. He has also ordered the arrest of some 2,000 activists associated with these groups. The measures have been seen as constructive by most major powers but unfortunately so far there has been no positive reaction from the Indian side.

The bulk of the Indian armed forces continue to be massed on the border with Pakistan and on the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir. The Indian leaders have convinced themselves that the measures taken by Pakistan lack credibility as there has been no easing of the unrest in occupied Kashmir. Self-deceiving though it is, their convenient assumption is that the unrest in Kashmir is entirely the handiwork of Pakistan and not an indigenous armed struggle against occupation which has been going on the over 12 years. The plain truth is that Pakistan is not — and never was — in a position to switch on or off the Kashmiris’ armed struggle for self-determination.

The Indian leaders do not seem to realize the boldness of mind and initiative shown by President Pervez Musharraf in moving so strong and decisively against half a dozen of militant religious groups. The strength in terms of public support of these groups may be limited but the reach of their field cadres who resort to violence on the slightest pretext is quite sizable.

Civil society in Pakistan has for many years been riven by religious bigotry and violence — a far cry from Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnha’s vision of a Muslim homeland which he founded in 1947. He wanted Pakistan to be a modern, progressive, welfare state guided by the social, economic and cultural values of Islam. However, the leaders who came to the top after Jinnah’s death in 1948 allowed the nation to be steered away from the course set by the founder.

Effective power ultimately passed into the hands of civil and military bureaucracy, with the Muslim League party which spearheaded the struggle for Pakistan under Jinnah’s leadership was too weak and faction-ridden to resist the authoritarian and deviationist trends characterizing governance at the national and provincial levels.

In 1977 when the then army chief and a religious zealot, Gen Zia-ul-Haq, came to power by dislodging the government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in a coup, he capitalized on the opportunity to undermine the secular ideals of the founder of Pakistan and turned Pakistan into a near-theocracy. In his strategy for governance, he adopted a policy of harsh repression. When Gen zia eventually restored a distorted version of it, he made sure that the obscurantist measures adopted by him remained in place.

The Indian leadership must realize that this is the sort of Pakistan which Gen Pervez Musharraf inherited when he took over. As his recent interview to Newsweek makes it clear, the general is trying hard to restore Pakistan to the ideals and principles set forth by the Father of the Nation.