Pakistan’s third Afghan war

WITH American air strikes going on since Sunday night, Pakistan is about to enter its third war in Afghanistan. The first began soon after the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. It lasted for ten years and finished when the Soviet troops vacated Afghanistan. The second began soon after the Soviet departure and lasted until September 11, 2001 with the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Pakistan paid a very high price for its involvement in the first two wars. Will the third Afghan war produce happier results?

Pakistan stands today at the same place it did in 1979 — on the eve of the first war — ready to fight for the West in return for the West’s help to improve its own situation. But the task this time is much more difficult. The first two wars in Afghanistan have transformed Pakistani society and its economy and politics. They also produced a great deal of scepticism about any association with the United States which will have to be countered by Washington with a credible promise of a long-term commitment to help on a number of fronts.

As Robert Oakley, a former US ambassador to Pakistan, says in a recent newspaper article, “The primary and possibly decisive battle in Afghanistan and Pakistan has already begun without a shot as yet fired. It will be protracted, nasty and confusing, as much political and psychological as military, perhaps more so...It is also extremely important that Pakistan, the vital base of operations, be reinforced in its capability to meet challenges at home.”

How can Pakistan be reinforced economically, politically and socially? How can it develop a society, an economy, and a political system that will help its people realize their full potential? How should it begin to take care of the increasing number of poor living in the country? How should it educate and train its citizens so that they become an asset for the economy and society rather than a burden for both? How should Pakistan create an environment that can handle people’s frustrations and not turn them into potential martyrs willing to lay down their lives for the causes they don’t fully understand?

These and many other questions like them are being asked these days by people in countless TV programmes and in columns of newspapers and magazines. They are being raised not just for Pakistan but also for the entire Islamic world. Many answers have been provided. One set came from Martin Wolf, an influential columnist who writes for The Financial Times. His article appeared under the provocative title of “The economic failure of Islam” and drew the simplistic conclusion that religion had kept the Muslim countries economically and socially backward.

“Why do they hate us so much?” Wolf asked in his article. The “they” in his question are terrorists who took so many lives in their attacks on New York and Washington. According to him, most people have provided two answers to this question: “the terrorists’ actions can be explained in terms of the poverty that afflicts their societies and the West’s policies. Poverty fuels desperation; our policies stoke humiliation. The answer is to end the poverty and change the policies”. But Wolf dismissed this explanation as naive. He argued that the real problem is that the Muslim countries have failed economically.

Wolf offered a copious amount of data in support of his hypothesis. “The humiliation and rage [of the terrorist groups] are the result of long-term historic failure, not of recent events. We are eating the fruit of three centuries of bitterness between a dominant West and an enfeebled Islamic world.”

The article inevitably drew a number of responses. According to one, “the suggestion that Islam does not make it incumbent to establish a law-governed state is a blistering error and gross mutation of truth...There are numerous reasons for the economic decline of [the Muslim world]; not least the ignorance, arrogance and political cunning with which the colonizers conducted their daily business of resource extraction, while clipping the wings of free trade in their Muslim colonies”

But before dismissing as highly biased the type of analysis being offered by people such as Martin Wolf, let us first look at the numbers and see what they suggest. In 2000, the average income in the advanced countries was $27,450, with the US per capita income estimated at $34,260. Against this the average income of the historic belt of Islamic countries that stretches from Morocco to Bangladesh was only $3,700.

An average western citizen, in other words, was more than seven times richer than an average citizen of the Islamic world. The gap was even wider between the people in the Islamic world and the United States. While India falls within this belt and has a large population of Muslims, it too has done better than its Islamic neighbours. India’s standard of living is now one and a half times as high as that of Pakistan and considerably more than that of Bangladesh.

Averages don’t tell the entire story, however. There is considerable income disparity in the Muslim world. There are a few very rich people but there are millions of very poor people. Gini coefficient, a generally accepted measure of inequality in which high numbers stand for uneven distribution, ranges between 41.5 for Turkey and 28.9 for Egypt. Pakistan, with 31.2, is in between these two extremes. Another telling indicator of unequal distribution of incomes is the ratio of the shares of income that accrue to the top 10 and bottom 10 per cent of the population. Again, Turkey at 14 has the highest ratio among the large countries of the Muslim world. This means that the share of income claimed by the rich — the top 10 per cent of the population — is fourteen times that going to the poor. For Egypt the ratio is 5.7; for Pakistan, 6.7. For most of the European countries the ratios are between 6.2 and 7.2

In terms of social indicators — the levels of literacy; enrolment rates for boys and girls (in particular for girls); the rates of infant, child and maternal mortality; access to clean water and sewerage facilities — the Muslim world has done poorly compared to the western world. Muslim economies have few modern sectors. Consequently, with populations increasing much more rapidly — another characteristic of the Muslim world — new entrants to the workforce have access mostly to low-paid jobs in backward sectors.

All these numbers raise the obvious question. Why has the Muslim belt done so poorly in terms of economic growth, income distribution, social development and economic modernization? Why, at this time, the economic and social prospects of the Muslim countries seem less inviting than those of the countries in the West? Even when we compare Muslim countries with other parts of the developing world, why do the statistics point to relative backwardness in the case of the former?

There is not much point in denying the logic suggested by these numbers. There is no doubt that the Muslim world has done less well in modernizing its economy and its society. It is also struggling to create a political system that will be responsive to the wishes and aspirations of the people. Malaysia is the only country with a Muslim majority that has succeeded in significantly improving the economic welfare of its population. The oil exporting countries of the Middle East have also improved the standard of living of their citizens but in their case resources came from natural wealth rather than the enterprise of their people. So, one again, the question: Why has the Muslim world done so poorly economically?

One explanation is that the Muslim world may have pursued economic policies that did not support rapid economic development. Economists now accept that economic and political freedoms are of critical importance for promoting economic growth and modernization. Without them, economies can’t prosper. In these areas, the Muslim world has done less well. According to World Audit’s index of economic freedom, Kuwait at 42nd and Morocco at 48th were the highest-ranking Muslim countries out of 155 for which data were presented. Of the eight most politically repressive regimes in the world, six were from Muslim countries — Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Sudan. According to the well-known Freedom House evaluation of political liberty, just five Muslim countries — Bangladesh, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, and Turkey — were judged to be partly free.

But should this relative economic backwardness and the inability to modernize be laid at the door of Islam? After all, a thousand years ago the same religion produced some of the most advanced societies the world then knew. To hold a particular religion or a particular set of beliefs responsible for economic backwardness is exceedingly naive. It is as wrong to lay the blame on Islam for the economic backwardness of a number of Muslim countries as it was to claim that the remarkable performance of a group of East Asian nations was because of the pursuit of something called “Asian values.” That claim was met with a lot of ridicule in the West. The same kind of ridicule needs to be heaped on the alleged association of Islam with economic backwardness.

Having said that, the question posed above still deserves an answer. We need to look at our situation carefully in order to understand fully the set of circumstances that have contributed to the lack of economic and social progress of the Muslim world. Could this be the consequence of the way this part of the Muslim world was colonized? This was suggested by one of the many responses to the article by Martin Wolf. Or is it because even with the end of the colonial era, the modernization of several Muslim countries has been inhibited by the way the West continues to interact with them?

After all, a number of Muslim countries have rich sources of energy on which the West becomes increasingly dependent as it continues to exhaust its own supply. It is easier to retain access to these resources when they are managed by the regimes highly dependent on the West for their survival. Democracy in many parts of the Islamic world may turn out to be an inconvenience for the West. Or, again, is the relative backwardness of the Muslim world the result of the tribal culture that continues to dominate most of these societies?

The real problem in many countries of the Islamic world is that groups within their societies oppose modernization not because it is against their religion but because it is against their interests. This is the story of Pakistan where a few well-entrenched interests have fought hard to keep the country institutionally, socially and politically backward. On the eve of Pakistan’s third Afghan war we have a unique opportunity to finally sideline these groups.

What about our own backyard?

NOW that we are a full member of the grand anti-terrorist coalition, it is important more than ever to be fully and constantly vigilant about extremists in our own home. As things have turned out, containing extremism has become absolutely the highest priority for this country. Failure to do the needful, and to do it firmly and fully, may cost us wholly unaffordable and also perhaps irreparable damage and loss.

No useful purpose would now be served by harping on the historically correct but worn-out theme that this is a problem that was, in the first place, created by the United States’ own war in Afghanistan. Yes, it was. Does it mean that we should let this canker eat into our vitals simply because we insist that it is America’s and not our creation?

Whether they have the courage to admit it or not, the creators of this pernicious and self-defeating brand of extremism are now forced to see what an egregious folly it was. What we have here is poetic justice. “This even-handed justice commends the ingredients of our poisoned chalice to our own lips,” said the English bard more than five centuries ago. Now Dr Jekyll is dealing with Mr Hyde, the doctor has on his hands the disease he created.

So, the United States has formally declared war on extremism at its most extreme, that is terror. That being the world commitment, must we fight this battle abroad and continue to play host to terror at home? This situation only adds to the moral as well as realistic imperative to act against domestic extremism in a relentlessly affirmative way. For doing this we need mince no words, offer no apologies to anyone at home or abroad. This must be our sovereign decision and it ought to be taken now.

No doubt, the present government has been sensitive to the existence of a strong streak of extremism and the risks it posed to the country. Interior Minister Moinuddin Haider is on record recognizing this menace in its various forms and manifestations. He has also made promises to bring all extremist sectarian activity — in deeni madaris, religious seminaries and other centres of congregation — within the discipline of law. However, somewhere down the road he always goes astray, or encounters resistance to which he succumbs. His good judgment remains unsupported by the will to act.

The most powerful citadels of extremism are firmly established in the institutions named ‘deeni madaris’ — religious schools.

The adjective ‘religious’ lends these schools a dignity and sanctity that their character and product wholly negate. Time and again, the government has admitted that these schools need to be brought in line with the normal education network.

He has also said that provocative sermons in mosques and fund collecting for militant organizations need to be monitored. Here, again, words have not been followed up by any action at all.

It should be noted that these steps are now integral to the strategy of the United States in its declared “war on terrorism” in which we are on its side. Can our strategy be different while playing a role in that all-out campaign?

Our failure so far to act to contain extremism and to beat it points to some formidable lobbies within the obscure corridors of the present state power structure. Once again we find ourselves thrown back to the origins of extremism and the genesis of the Taliban culture. Its foundations were laid by most powerful forces. The remnants of those forces remain a recalcitrant reality.

This factor suited the sails of the United States in hounding the Soviets out of Afghanistan. For military dictator Ziaul Haq in Pakistan, then in real danger of drowning, it was the straw that would give him ten years in absolute power. He felt strong enough to forget the promise to hand over to an elected government in 90 days. The imperatives of democracy, freedom and civilization were conspicuous by their absence in the original Afghan scenario.

Later governments in Pakistan used the extremist element, artificially spawned in aid of the United States, as their vanguard and commandos. Benazir Bhutto’s interior minister Naseerullah Babar was the Taliban’s first patron saint. Benazir promoted Fazlur Rahman, the Taliban generalissimo, and planted him at the top of her foreign office. She was quite at peace with his jurisdiction that cut across the frontiers.

For the last two years this government has opted for the line of least resistance. Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar has been persistently supporting the Taliban in Kabul, his excuse being that the Taliban “control 90 per cent of the country.” Kabul has persistently treated Islamabad with cold disrespect and studied scorn.

A telling example of the Taliban arrogance was the outright rejection of Islamabad’s advice against destruction of three thousand years old Buddha carvings on mountainsides overlooking the historic routes and passes. Foreign Minister Sattar took the slight in the stride. At least twice, Pakistan mission in Kabul was attacked. Islamabad did not react with so much as a whimper.

With a lifetime of diplomatic experience, Abdul Sattar has remained unable to see that a government that is not able to feed its people, and is not able or willing to arrange for the return and rehabilitation of millions of its uprooted destitute people is not in control of anything, let alone a country.

On the issue of trade and the concessions that Pakistan had extended to the Taliban, they have always insisted on their pound of flesh, regardless of the blood loss to Pakistan. Thanks to Kabul, Pakistan now has an established drug culture. It is awash with illicit weapons. Smuggling from Afghanistan across the border has been to the detriment of this country’s economy. But Islamabad has been kind to a fault. And what a fault, indeed!

Our affair with the Taliban has been causing very heavy strains on our relations with two of our best friends, China and Iran. The people of Pakistan appreciate the patience with which these two have borne with our mindless and unabashed gallivanting with the Taliban. While this irrational and insultingly one-sided romance has gone on for years, the extremists have prospered, expanded their power and intimidated this country (and its government) into meek obeisance. Like its predecessors, this government too developed cold feet whenever it came to dealing with the Taliban terror, whether in Kabul or at home.

Can we afford to remain evasive or submissive to this aberration at home? Have we not seen terrorists in our midst, killing and getting away with their crimes? Do we not have extremists who openly declare themselves ‘armies’ (Sipah), ‘brigades’(Jaish), ‘army on the move’ (Lashkar), ‘Tehriks’ and ‘Harakats’ (militant movements), and so on. Only two of the tens of such terror operators have been given a mild rap on the knuckles. Many remain unleashed.

Estimates vary, but it is not unsafe to put the number of these entities above eighty. Imagine the entity that calls itself Milli Yekjehti Conference (National Unifying Conference) has a dozen different units, all unwilling to unify into one. Yekjehti means knit/merge/weld into a unit. The dozen in this MYC caboodle would rather dwell apart.

In this Islamic republic Islam has more than eighty different, irreconcilable, warring factions, many of them armed and given to using them recklessly against one another. Put all this in the background of the fact that Islam is a religion that is committed to Oneness: One God, One Prophet (PBUH), One Book and One Ummah (family). In this Islamic republic alone religious extremism has turned the message of unity into a cruel joke.

Add to this the message of total peace. Islam means peace. When Muslims meet they promise peace, Assalam! It is not unoften in Pakistan today that one Muslim plunges a dozen bullets into another Muslim, when he is supposed to be promising complete peace, and nothing but peace.

We are now committed to fighting terrorism abroad. What about the same fight at home?

An April Fool hijacking: ALL OVER THE PLACE

I WAS very happy to see a front-page PIA advertisement. There was something reassuring about it, a return to normality, business as usual. Of course it isn’t business as usual but we cannot disrupt our lives, waiting for the other shoe to fall.

Events since September 11 have touched the lives of people living all over the world and there seems to be a collective anxiety about whether we will ever get back to the routine of our lives, humdrum and prosaic as these lives might have been but which now seem so attractive.

Much of the nervousness has been created by the foreign electronic media which is camped in such large numbers in Islamabad and which conjure up a vision of circling vultures.

If one went by what is being put out by television networks, the picture one would get is that of Pakistan in turmoil, on the verge of a civil war. The coverage is unsympathetic and whatever Pakistan says and does is taken with a pinch of salt.

No one doubts that difficult days lie ahead but there needs to be some understanding of the fact that it is geography that has put Pakistan in the hot seat and Pakistan needs to tread softly.

This same geography has lumbered Pakistan with a hostile neighbour who is sparing no effort to exploit the present world crisis for its own agenda, which is to discredit the uprising of the Kashmiri people by blurring the line between a struggle for self-determination and terrorism.

There was, first of all, a suicide car-bomb attack on the state assembly building in Srinagar. There are certain intriguing aspects of this car-bombing. There were no legislators present in the building. It was claimed that a militant group Jaishe Mohammad had owned up to being responsible through a statement read out over the telephone by a spokesman to local Srinagar newspapers. Jaishe Mohammad denied any responsibility.

Pakistan condemned the car-bombing and called it particularly reprehensible and aimed at maligning “the legitimate struggle of the Kashmiri people for their right to self-determination.” Here I feel that Pakistan missed an opportunity. It should have demanded that the car-bomb attack be investigated by a team of United Nations monitors as India had accused Pakistan of aiding and abetting the perpetrators. I doubt that India would have permitted such an independent, international investigation but the refusal would have forced India to dismount from its high horse.

Then there was the “hijacking” staged it would seem by Inspector Clousseau, the bungling detective of the Pink Panther film series. It had all the ingredients of an April Fool prank except that it went horribly wrong and the joke was on the prankster/pranksters. This “hijacking” has been ridiculed enough and the Indian authorities are still wiping the egg on their face and there is nothing more that I can say.

But there is a dangerous element. Does the Indian left-hand know what the right-hand is doing? The Indian prime minister has expressed his displeasure but needs to be concerned about the “rogue” elements in his ranks who may be trying to take India along to the brink of some misadventure against Pakistan, the assumption being that world public opinion is gullible.

There is an American Indian (Red Indian) saying: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” It is not only the Indian government that has looked foolish but all those, including foreign media, who took the “hijacking” seriously. The Indians are not helping the war against terrorism by creating diversions, by trying to distract world opinion away from state terrorism. And there is no better example of state terrorism than what the Indian Army and para-military forces are doing in Occupied Kashmir.

I have been reading Stanley Wolpert’s book Gandhi’s Passion. I suggest that the members of the Indian government read it as well particularly Mahatama Gandhi’s views on Kashmir and the exchange of some bitter correspondence between him and Nehru. There were no doubts in Gandhi’s mind that no one had any right to determine the future of Kashmir except the Kashmiri people. Nehru not only disagreed with his ‘Bapu’ but was downright belligerent.

With prescience, Gandhi had warned him that his (Nehru’s) aggressiveness policies would lead to an unresolved dispute that would poison relations between India and Pakistan and prove costly to both the countries. Gandhi’s was not only a moral stand but a practical one. No government could rule against the wishes of the people except by force. Reading between the lines, I got the impression that Vallabhai Patel was then in agreement with Gandhi.

Vallabhai Patel, in any case, was at such serious logger-heads with Nehru that he was barely on speaking terms with him and was threatening to resign. Stanley Wolpert, an eminent historian, is clearly of the opinion that Gandhi was right and Nehru was wrong. I don’t expect the present Indian government to be sympathetic to Gandhi’s views. After all, it was a member of the RSS, a fundamentalist Hindu political party, Godse, who assassinated Gandhi and who remained unrepentant even as he was climbing the steps of the gallows. The RSS was the fountain-head of the present BJP.

So long as Kashmir remains a flashpoint, there will never be peace in the region and if there is no peace in the region, the war against terrorism will not be wholly won.

There has been much grieving for those who died in the terror attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Some tears too should be shed for the innocent men, women and children of Kashmir who are killed daily and who are being treated as enemies in their own homeland, to be hunted down.

America: a superpower no more

WHEN I boarded the Midwest Express plane to Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001 at 8:00 am (Central Time), I had no idea that the definition of power on planet earth would be re-written within the hour. I read the paper, enjoyed a nice breakfast, and felt quite secure. Why not? I was a citizen of the “world’s last remaining superpower.”

This “superpower” was pouring into its “defence” budget some thirty million dollars an hour, nine thousand dollars a second to keep me safe. As we neared Washington, the pilot announced that the Washington airport was closed and we would be heading back to Milwaukee. Within minutes he reported that the airport in Milwaukee was also closed and we were to land at the closest airport, Columbus, Ohio.

Cell phones and television at the Columbus airport told us the news, that our superpower status was a myth. In a superpower, the president would not have to hide out in Louisiana and Nebraska because of “credible evidence” that he could not return to the Capital; the congress would not be running from the Capitol Building; schools and businesses throughout a superpower could not be forced shut; I would not suddenly be looking up into a sky where no airplane could dare fly. These were the facts of this new world order. The Defence Department could not defend us—or its main temple, the Pentagon — from a hatred and a mode of power that we had never before known.

It was not Pearl Harbour revisited. The bombers had left no return address. The instinct to retaliate with bombing is an anachronism. Fewer than twenty men had brought us to our national knees and raised the biggest question facing us in the twenty-first century, posed by a little girl and reported in the press: “Why are they killing themselves and killing all those people?”

The government’s answer was that we are good and love freedom and these people are bad and hate it. That vapid answer came from an arrogant national culture that has lost its talent for healthy guilt. The hatred that could so easily paralyze our nation has a history, and as Teilhard de Chardin said, “nothing is intelligible outside of its history.”

Why do the deprived of the world hate us so?

To give an honest answer to the little girl’s question, to start some meaningful reflection and move out of the morass of American jingoism, I look to some thoughtful witnesses and diagnosticians of humankind. The first is J. Glenn Gray, an intelligence officer with the army in World War II. In his book “The Warriors”, Gray wrote: “If guilt is not experienced deeply enough to cut into us, our future may well be lost.”

Next, Robert Heilbroner, the political economist, who peeked behind the veils of our self-image and concluded: “There is a barbarism hidden beneath the superficial amenities of life.” Close to Heilbroner is Abraham Heschel, the Jewish theologian. He cited “the secret obscenity, the unnoticed malignancy of established patterns of indifference.”

Gerd Theissen, the biblical scholar, joins the chorus. He noted the century long quest for ‘the missing link’ between apes and ‘true humanity’. Call off the search, he said. The missing link is us. True humanity could not do what we have done to one another and to this generous host of an earth.

Frances Moor Lappe is our next witness: “Historically people have tried to deny their own culpability for mass human suffering by assigning responsibility to external forces beyond their control.”

And next I dare turn towords I wrote in 1993: “The absence of pity is the root of all evil.” I continued: “Can we sit now in our First World comfort at a table with a view of the golf course, and ignore starvation in the Third World and joblessness and homelessness in our cities? The prophets of Israel would answer ‘no.’ In Jeremiah’s words, there is no hiding from the effects of guilt and morally malignant neglect: ‘Do you think that you can be exempt? No, you cannot be exempt.’ (Jer. 25) Injustice will come home to roost, whether in wars of redistibution (the most likely military threat of the future), or in crime and terrorism, or in far-reaching economic shock waves. The planet will not forever endure our insults. If the prophets’ law is correct — and the facts of history endorse it — we will not be exempt.”

And finally, Count Cavour of Italy said that if we did for ourselves what we allow our country to do in our name, we would be jailed and hung as scoundrels.

These were not the voices heard in The National Cathedral on September 14. Jeremiah was not invited to say to the leaders of “the most powerful nation in the world:” “Acknowedge your guilt!” (Jer. 3:12)

Affluence and comfort dull the optic nerve. The poor world sees us differently. Draw a circle and cut me out of it and I will see sharply what goes on there. The attackers pinpointed the reasons for their outrage. They struck at what they saw as the twin towers of our indifference and at our haughty military heart. They see our nation as an arrogant, spoiled five hundred pound gorilla that pollutes and then scorns treaties to end pollution, that was built on slavery and practises racism and yet shuns the United Nations conference on racism in Durban, South Africa. They noticed that the genocide of black people in Rwanda did not stir us to action. They believe we would have acted differently if Swedes or Irish were having their throats cut. Those outside the affluent circle are stunned at our ability to lock into caricatures of others.

We don’t say that Timothy McVeigh represents Irish Catholics but the Taliban and bin Laden somehow symbolize Islam. When they see us getting ready to repeat the Soviet madness in Afghanistan, a writer from that land agrees that bin Laden is properly compared to Adolph Hitler and the Taliban are well compared to Nazis, but the people of Afghanistan, with a huge proportion of widowed women are best compared to the Jews in concentration camps. They would love to be free of that tyranny. Those outside our world hate us for ignoring this and threatening slaughter, to be masked as “collateral damage.”

Very relevant to September 11, many Muslims see us as incapable of an even-handed policy in the Middle East, a policy that would defend with equal vigour and equal financial aid, the existence of a safe and secure Israeli state and an equally safe and secure Palestinian state, each with territorial integrity. There is no other solution, but those who hate us see that our leaders do not know that.

The Muslim world has a nation-transcending unity that we little understand. The Ummah, the community of believing Muslims melts borders between races and nations. That is why so many African Americans were drawn to Islam. All Muslims feel the pain of the reported half million innocent children dead in Iraq because of our sanctions. I see it as the surest principle in all of ethics that “what is good for kids is good and what is bad for kids is ungodly.”

They grieve over those children — sacrificed to what end? — as we grieve over our dead in New York and Washington. They marvel at our ability to kill as many as a quarter million young Iraqi soldiers in the Gulf War — young people like the students I teach at Marquette University — while leaving our announced target in control. (Surely “the mob” would have been more kind and effective. If Saddam were the problem, they would have “whacked” him rather than slaughtering his children.)

Our hubris shines through our imperfectly disguised attitudes toward Islam, attitudes that befoul our policies in the Middle East. It is asked: “How can we deal with these people?” As professor Huston Smith wrote: “During Europe’s Dark Ages, Muslim philosophers and scientists kept the lamp of learning bright, ready to spark the western mind when it roused from its long sleep.”

Muslims like Avicenna taught medicine to the backward Europeans. Arab states like Jordan and Egypt have shown the possibility of peaceful progress in the Middle East. These are not savages who can be calmed only by occupation. The solution is much simpler and it is found in the prophets of Israel. As Isaiah saw it, it is only if you plant justice that you will have peace. (Isa. 32) And occupation of another people is not justice.

The problem goes beyond Islam. The poor of the world see an absence of pity in our economic policies. As many as 1.3 billion are in absolute poverty, 70% of those being women. And poverty kills. Forty million people die yearly from hunger and hunger-related causes. This is like 320 jumbo jets planes crashing every day with half the passengers being children, as Clive Ponting points out in his monumental book “A Green History of the World”.

The religions of the world need to rise to the occasion as they have not done so far. Religion is a powerful motivator. John Henry Cardinal Newman said that people will die for a dogma but will not stir for a conclusion. Nothing so stirs the will as the tincture of the sacred. Religions so far in this exploding crisis have mainly fulfilled their Prozac function of soothing the pain. This is good and all religions are into the purveying of comfort and hope. But the challenge of prophetic religion in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and increasingly in “engaged” Buddhism and Hinduism is to “speak truth to power,” to “conscientize” power, and to discomfort power. This they have not done.

The writer is a professor as Marquette University, Milwaukee, USA