Distorted image of Islam

AMERICAN historian Daniel Pipes, a known ‘neocon’ who has remained associated with President Bush’s administration, is reported to have said at a conference in Rome early this month that “the Islamists are the scions of frustrated civilization which harks back to the achievements of Islam during the first centuries of its existence.”

Another notable American Richard Nixon, the ex-president, has put it differently in his book (‘Seize the Moment’) that “Islam is not only a religion but founder of a major civilization.”

He had, evidently, in mind the contribution of Islam in civilizing mankind rather than merely prescribing rites and rituals, the historical aspect of the Faith — the aspect that has received scant attention by its pontifical class.

It is the uncompromising monotheism of Islam and the Quranic concept of the universal brotherhood of the believers in monotheism “the believers are no else than brothers” — 49:10), that has kept the Islamic civilization alive despite the political and economic domination by the West during the last three centuries.

The institution of Islamic caliphate was based on this very concept of Islamic brotherhood and it had bound together a sprawling commonwealth of Muslim sovereign states — albeit loosely and nominally during the two centuries of decadence preceding its decline. Its shadow fell on a vast area on the three well-populated and developed continents of Europe, Asia and Africa — the continents of America and Australia not being fully developed then.

All sovereign sultanates from Turkestan to Hindustan and Muslim monarchies from Morocco to Malaysia took pride in receiving investiture from the reigning caliph as it conferred religious legitimacy on their right to rule. It lasted for thirteen centuries, from the first quarter of the seventh to the first quarter of the twentieth, or from the election of the first Caliph in 632 A.D. till the abolition of the Caliphate by Ataturk in 1922 A.D. No other international political institution has proved so enduring.

Held together by a common faith and almost identical values and way of life this arrangement had, in its heyday, successfully scotched the narrow parochial tendencies and encouraged unfettered travel and unrestricted trade and offered freedom to the citizens to acquire domicile of any place in this commonwealth.

With decline in religious appeal, the institution could not survive for long; and this conglomeration of sovereign states was, one by one, taken over by the newly emerging colonial powers of western Europe and Russia, which professed Christianity while the disintegrated states of the Caliphate, occupied by the former, had been the stronghold of Islam.

This is the ‘frustrated civilization’ (in Daniel Pipe’s words) of which the present generation of Muslims are ‘scions’, or descendents of the civilization which has past achievements to its credit.

The instance of the dominant Christian powers of today, having extended their whole-hearted support to Israel and their complete unanimity in condoning the Jewish aggression, has brought home to the “Islamists” the truth of the Quranic edict that “they (the Jews and Christians) are friends among themselves (5:51).”

Otherwise, there was no reason for the members of the ‘frustrated civilization’ to stand, allegedly, pitted against the Christian West, after having reconciled themselves gradually, over a period of three centuries, to the domination of the Christian West with silent admiration for the latter’s astounding advancement in physical and biological sciences and peaceful introduction of democratic polity in its own habitat.

The fact, therefore, is that the ongoing conflict between the Palestinians and the Jewish settlers or the Kashmiris and the occupying foreign forces or the Chechens and savage Russian army and, likewise, freedom struggles of Muslim Moros in Philippines or Islamic resistance in southern Thailand are purely political in character bearing no similarity to the faith-based Crusades fought between Christian Europe and Muslim Arabs in the medieval era, which is a forgotten past so far as Muslims are concerned.

But the way America, the sole superpower, currently ruled by orthodox Christians and Jews is siding with the brutal and brutish ruling clique of Israel while the otherwise liberal and unorthodox European states are looking the other way, it is but natural that the Muslims all over the world who have, over the past centuries, considered themselves as one single fraternity, will react, very adversely, to this attitude of the Christian states and the Jews over the Palestinian issue which may actually be a political and tactical problem — the West, needing oil and gas more than others in the world, and the Middle East sitting over most of the precious liquid and vaporous mineral.

The propaganda by the American print media and think-tanks in the US, in the wake of 9/11, that Islam preaches religious intolerance and encourages militant tendencies among its adherents is reprehensible.

The greatest mischief having been done by those who claim to be authority on Islam. They refer to quranic verses such as the one that exhorted the small band of Muslims at the time of the ‘revelation’ to fight the infidels of Makkah in self-defence after they had suffered at their hands for fifteen long years. They tore from the context such verses as “fight them until persecution is no more and religion is for Allah” (2:193).

Unfortunately, our own clerics also share the blame for presenting a grossly distorted image of Islam as a religion that lays greater emphasis on Jihad, or militaristic struggle, than on peaceful, non-violent ways of seeking redress of the wrongs done to the Muslim community. Their notion stems from their approach to understanding the holy text treating every verse thereof as an injunction applicable in all circumstances without regard to the historical background and topical significance of each revelation. The Quranic translation and commentary in most of the languages does contain explanatory notes about the historical context of each revelation — Shan-i-nuzool’, as it is termed by our theologians in Urdu.

The real defence gap

HERE’S a macabre defence quiz for the post-Sept. 11 world: Which kind of attack on the United States is more likely over the next 20 years — a ballistic missile launched from another continent, or a low-flying cruise missile or rocket fired by terrorists from a ship off the U.S. coast?

For me, the answer unfortunately is a no-brainer. The more plausible threat is the short-range cruise missile or rocket attack, not the distant ICBM. The ICBM is the old Cold War paradigm of what could get Americans killed; the short-range threat is an all-too-believable image of what terrorists could do today, using missiles bought on the black market and homemade chemical or biological warheads.

Okay, now let’s test how U.S. defence dollars are actually being spent: For the current fiscal year, Congress has appropriated $9 billion for the Missile Defence Agency to develop an exotic system based on land, at sea, in air and in space that, in theory, will be able to destroy ICBMs with airborne lasers and kinetic “kill vehicles” travelling at more than 7,000 miles per hour. Meanwhile, the amount being spent specifically for homeland defence against a close-in cruise missile or rocket attack is, as near as I can discover, zero.

That mismatch bothers me. We’re spending billions to fight a version of the last war with costly space-based weapons. Meanwhile, we are all but ignoring the real-world weapons that could be used in the next war. I can testify personally to this threat because I was in Kuwait in March 2003 when an Iraqi cruise missile slammed into a shopping centre in the middle of town. It was not detected by radar.

The danger of these short-range missile attacks on the United States was highlighted recently by Dave Kier, a Lockheed Martin vice president who oversees the company’s force-protection projects. You could argue that Lockheed Martin has an interest in sounding the alarm, because it is selling weapons systems that would deal with the threat. But I want to share what Kier said because it describes a problem that, unlike some of the Pentagon’s far-off contingencies, is very much here and now.

Kier starts by noting how vulnerable the United States is to a terrorist attack from offshore. He estimates that 75 per cent of the U.S. population and 80 per cent of its economic wealth are within 200 miles of coastline. The weapons for such an attack are available on the world’s arms bazaars. By Kier’s count, the potential cruise-missile inventory includes about 6,000 Silkworms and 11,000 Seersuckers. Assuming they were fired from less than 120 miles offshore, it would take them just 11 minutes to reach their targets.

Kier calculates that if a missile with a chemical warhead detonated over Washington, there would be thousands of casualties within the first 10 minutes and tens of thousands after an hour; if the missile were armed with a biological warhead, it would cause hundreds of thousands of casualties in the first hour. If the biological weapon were detonated over New York, casualties in the first five hours would be in the millions, he says.

So what would Lockheed Martin planners do to protect against these missile attacks? Kier proposes a detection system he calls a “passive coherent locator,” which is based, believe it or not, on an amplification of existing FM radio signals. He says it would be easy to detect a disturbance in this FM energy field that had the unusual signature of a cruise missile, which is fast but low-flying and therefore doesn’t resemble an aeroplane.

To shoot down the missiles, Kier suggests a combination of existing systems: Aegis missiles from cruisers offshore and Patriot missiles on land. He says a system covering the East Coast, from Washington to Boston, could be in place by 2008 for just over $1 billion.—Dawn/ Washington Post Service

Non-profileration: why be selective?

THE latest diplomatic volte-face by Washington that is now offering Iran a package of incentives including World Trade Organization membership and the sale of spare parts of civilian aircraft engines is a positive gesture. That Tehran has asked for the release of its assets frozen by the US and an end to all hostile acts against it means that it is interested in the overall normalization of its ties with the world power.

Iran’s reluctance to totally halt its nuclear-enrichment activities stems from the fear that in case of sanctions by the West, primarily the US, its nuclear plants will not get the fuel to produce the much-needed electricity. Hence the drive for recycling waste material. So long as it does not produce weapons-grade plutonium, there can be no breach of the non-proliferation treaty.

Article IV of the NPT (the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons) is very clear on the point. “Nothing in this treaty,” it says, “shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the parties to the treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Article I and II of the treaty.” And to make sure that a state is not engaged in the weaponization of nuclear energy, the treaty authorizes the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to enforce compliance with the NPT.

Iran, unlike Israel, has signed the NPT and has allowed the inspection of its facilities by the IAEA. It has even signed the additional protocol allowing snap inspection by the agency’s experts. But the Bush administration had been exercising undue influence on the IAEA to conduct a raid into Iran’s sensitive installations, including those lying beyond its scope. According to American journalist, Seymour Hersh, in an article published in The New Yorker, the US sent about three dozen commandos to Iran some time ago to locate and destroy suspected nuclear and WMD manufacturing sites as a step towards toppling the regime.

The news neither confirmed nor denied by Washington, is corroborated by the disclosure made by Iran’s intelligence minister, Ali Yunessi, about the arrest of 10 spies who were sending information about Iran’s nuclear activities to US. Three of the suspects were working with Iran’s Atomic Energy Commission while the rest of them were working for the CIA and Mossad.

The Iranian intelligence minister went on to say that the intended attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, aimed at toppling the government and inciting the people to revolt, was an act of unabashed terrorism, one similar to the terrorist attack on the US. Does international law permit the US to launch terrorist attacks on other countries but prohibits - in fact penalizes — the same by other states?

George Bush has been trying to get the IAEA and the EU-3 to go beyond the scope of the NPT and the agency’s powers to pry into Iran’s sensitive installations not related to nuclear proliferation. The latest example of such an intrusive act was furnished by the nuclear watchdog’s visit to Parchin, a military site southeast of Tehran, to take soil samples in order to detect whether the spent fuel had been diverted for military purpose.

The inspectors found nothing objectionable. This took place last January. Like his allegations against Iraq that the country had purchased uranium from Niger, George Bush’s accusations against Iran’s nuclear ambitions too have proved false and are unfounded.

The IAEA chief has asked the United States to come up with concrete proof of Iran’s covert bomb making activities instead of indulging in speculation. He advised Washington to join the ongoing EU-Iran dialogue or talk to Tehran directly. In his judgment, the participation of the US in the negotiations was essential to the solution.

ElBaradei dismissed all talk of military action as unhelpful. This sane advice was unpalatable to the Bush administration, which signalled its opposition to ElBaradei’s plan to run for a third term in office during the November elections.

In fact, George Bush was annoyed by ElBaradei’s statement in the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq that it had no nuclear weapons programme. In November, the Iranians agreed with the EU-3 to temporarily suspend their uranium-enrichment programme in return for trade, technology and security guarantees. The EU kept its word by supporting Iran’s admission to the WTO but this was blocked by the US. Iran feels that the EU did not give its full support. The November accord with the EU-3 paved the way for further talks at Brussels in December and in January and February 2005.

The talks, however, hit snags when the EU-3, under US pressure, insisted that Tehran totally disband all uranium-enrichment activities, a demand, which Iran cannot meet in view of its growing energy needs. It argues that during the Shah’s regime, the US had supported the building of 23 atomic power plants in Iran and in 1973, a Stanford University research institute recommended the installation of 20,000 MW atomic plants in Iran by 1994.

Since then, Iran’s population has almost tripled with a corresponding rise in energy consumption. Iran currently meets 40 per cent of its power needs from petroleum and the rest from hydroelectricity. It has been diversifying its sources of energy by using wind power and nuclear energy.

The nuclear energy, though costlier, is cleaner than fossil fuel. In the long run, it will prove to be cost effective, especially in view of the penalty likely to be imposed by the Kyoto Protocol for burning fossil fuel.

Thus Iran has been following the recommendation of the above protocol by changing its energy portfolio to include renewable energy sources. Russia is convinced by these reasons and has therefore concluded an agreement with Tehran to supply fuel to the Bushehr atomic reactor that will start next year. However, Iran cannot depend entirely on the supply of fuel by other powers and has to develop its indigenous fuel works.

So long as it does not produce weapons-grade plutonium, it is within its rights to develop nuclear fuel under the NPT. Unlike Brazil, Iran has always allowed the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities. However, if it has failed to report certain activities to the IAEA, so have South Korea and Egypt.

If the international community wants to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons, it should implement in letter and spirit the provisions of Article VI of the NPT that calls for effective measures to bring about nuclear disarmament as opposed to selective non-proliferation.

Promise of drinking water

PRIME Minister Shaukat Aziz has presented the “priority agenda” of his government in the development sector for next five to 10 years, although the term of his administration is until 2007. The priorities outlined are what the country needs and the people will exert pressure on the government to implement them earnestly.

The water sector is to get under the five-year plan 2005-10 Rs 293 billion. A large water reservoir scheme cannot be completed in two or three years. So the dams initiated now will have to be completed by the next government after allocating larger outlays, particularly when a dam like Bhasha costs Rs. 364 billion, with a foreign exchange outlay of Rs. 114 billion.

Then there is the controversial Kalabagh Dam or its successor with the largest promise of additional water. Such huge projects demanding huge investments cannot be left incomplete and become a national scandal. The donors will never permit such outrageous waste, of which we have a sad history with small abandoned projects. And can the next government refuse to increase the output of electric power to 27,389 MW from by 2010 from the current output of 20,289 MW? This is a moderate increase in output and no government can afford to go slow on that.

Even otherwise, either the country has to get much better quick or far worse economically, politically and socially. There is no place for a standstill, let apart the MMA’s demand for return to old times, ancient values and traditional social patterns. With one third of the people living below the poverty line of a dollar a day, while the population increases by about two per cent annually and conspicuous consumption becoming more aggressive, the country cannot be too slow in making progress in the basic economic sectors.

All that will bring pressure from the donors, particularly the US and its western allies, for continuity of not only the political leadership but also of the economic guidance in Pakistan.

Listing his priorities he had rightly placed drinking water at the top of the agenda followed by irrigation water, electricity, gas, and infrastructure — railways, roads and ports. He has left out communications because of the intense competition in the telecommunications sector — an area where the private sector is playing a major role in bringing down the cost of services.

What he wants is an enabling environment for the private sector to develop, to move fast, and reach the ports quick and export its goods. The 10 or 12 new textile cities should be able to communicate with each other quick, move their goods to each other fast and then out of the country.

When it comes to the private sector he has not presented the line along which it should develop and has come out with an open investment policy and plenty of bank credit easily provided and at low interest rates. Earlier he has said the private sector bank loans of ten billion dollars had been given within 18 months which is a record. Now the State Bank of Pakistan says that unto February bank loans of Rs. 309 billion have been given to the private sector so far this year against Rs. 230.5 billion so far last year.

The government expects the overall monetary expansion this year to rise by 14.5 per cent against the original target of 11.3 per cent in view of the heightened economic activity in the country, including larger exports and the bigger budgets of companies and due to rising inflation. The expansion in the monetary sector so far has been 0.4 per cent which has a 4.1 per cent gap to cover in four months.

The government’s efforts in the socio-economic sector have met with a severe setback in view of the soaring price of land, which in places has risen by as much as ten times, the higher cost of building materials like cement and steel and shortage of skilled workers and their higher wages. As a first step the State Bank has lifted the ceiling of Rs. 10 million from bank loans to the housing sector. That has created another problem: shortage of credit for the housing sector. According to one report housing needs credit worth Rs70 billion but only Rs. four billion is available, leaving a gap of Rs. 64 billion which needs to be filled. In view of the high cost of the plot and construction more bank credit has to be made available to the housing sector.

And the law and Justice Commission of Pakistan presided over by the chief justice of the country and with other important judges as members, has prescribed stringent punishment for land grabbers or Qabza groups of ten years of rigorous imprisonment instead of three to five years. This is an excellent step but what matters is actually punishing the land grabbers and those who possess land illegally and not a more stringent law only on the statute book.

The country is too well known for undelivered judgments or unimplemented judgments because of the laxity of the judicial machinery and gross inefficiency and collusion of the police with the culprits. The judges have shown they mean business; it is for the executive to produce results, and for the legislature to force the executive to act for enforcement of the law. While large figures of loans given to the private sector and more loans proposed for them are being bandied about, an APP report says Rs. 3 billion is to be given as loans by the Khushal Bank to the poor this year which seems to be an apology of a loan in the national context. Surely, the poorest of the poor need far more, certainly after Akram Khatoon, former president of the First Women’s Bank has eulogised the role of women in the micro-credit sector in Pakistan in promoting the education and health of their families.

In fact, President Musharraf should associate himself with the Khushali Bank’s micro loans for the maximum poor and play a more dynamic role and expand it fast. Plenty of external loans will also be available at nominal interest rate because of the rich states’ desire to reduce absolute poverty.

Topping the list of priorities is drinking water. The prime minister has separated that from irrigation water as a mark of concern for the cities, like Karachi agonized by its shortage of safe drinking water. Drinking water has assumed international dimensions particularly in most of the developing countries, because the polluted water supplied there with all its hazards, particularly the many water-borne diseases and rising stomach ailments. Donors are ready to fund projects to increase the supply of drinking water.

It is said that one-third of the diseases of the developing countries can be prevented by supplying safe drinking water as stomach diseases breed many other diseases, including gross malnutrition.

In Pakistan all the governments have promised more water and safe drinking water but failed to deliver beginning with Karachi. So those who can afford it buy bottled water with its promise of purity. But over the years most bottled water tested, save two or three or less, have proved not free from impurities or infections. They were in fact adding to the ailments of their consumers at a high cost.

It is a tragic scene in a city like Karachi. For how many kinds of water should a middle class householder pay for? He has to use a powerful suction pump to draw water from the main line as others are doing the same. It is seldom that some water comes through the pipe. Then he has to use another pump to divert the water to the overhead tank. If he has a small garden he has to buy tanker water.

All this goes on because the rulers and senior officials do not experience such hardships or excess expenditure. If they do not get piped water and in full they are provided with free tanker water — any number of tankers as their status in the official hierarchy demands. But the people are accustomed to the shortage of water and are able to put up with it.

Those who can afford pay Rs. 550 to Rs. 700 for a double tanker. And a lot of middle class people pay much more to buy water than the amount they pay as income tax. And the water tanker contractor hardly pays any income tax. He would rather supply more water to the income tax officer’s house free of cost.

If the bottled water is far from pure, the tanker water can be even more hazardous. If the bottled water is not pure it is bad luck for the consumer, and if the tanker water is more impure it’s miserable.

And that is how a good many persons above the poverty level of a dollar a day live. He could earn one to four dollars a day as well.

So if the prime minister fulfils this promise which to many may seem too elementary, he would have done something which no other prime minister has actually done. They have been tall on promise and short on delivery. But establishing a supply line for safe drinking water may be difficult, but sustaining that is far more vexatious. But the country needs that.

It will be the task of future generations of officials and the public as a whole to sustain the system. That should be the prime task of the local government every where in Pakistan. The country should not be allowed to poison itself in the manner it has been.

Success of the whole priorities agenda should be sought efficiently, economically and devoid of corruption and waste. The projects should be completed in time and other major projects dependent on them should be enabled to take off confidently. Donors who finance such schemes as well as the people would expect that now after decades of frustration and years of desperation.