Laaltain

‘Reconciliation’ By Benazir Bhutto (Excerpt)

31 اگست، 2013

reconciliation

The stakes could not have been high­er. Pak­istan under mil­i­tary dic­ta­tor­ship had become the epi­cen­ter of an inter­na­tion­al ter­ror­ist move­ment that had two pri­ma­ry aims. First, the extrem­ists’ aim to recon­sti­tute the con­cept of the caliphate, a polit­i­cal state encom­pass­ing the great Ummah (Mus­lim com­mu­ni­ty) pop­u­la­tions of the world, unit­ing the Mid­dle East, the Per­sian Gulf states, South Asia, Cen­tral Asia, East Asia, and parts of Africa. And sec­ond, the mil­i­tants’ aim to pro­voke a clash of civ­i­liza­tions between the West and an inter­pre­ta­tion of Islam that rejects plu­ral­ism and moder­ni­ty. The goal — the great hope of the mil­i­tants — is a col­li­sion, an explo­sion between the val­ues of the West and what the extrem­ists claim to be the val­ues of Islam.
With­in the Mus­lim world there has been and con­tin­ues to be an inter­nal rift, an often vio­lent con­fronta­tion among sects, ide­olo­gies, and inter­pre­ta­tions of the mes­sage of Islam. This destruc­tive ten­sion has set broth­er against broth­er, a dead­ly frat­ri­cide that has tor­tured intra-Islam­ic rela­tions for 1,300 years. This sec­tar­i­an con­flict sti­fled the bril­liance of the Mus­lim renais­sance that took place dur­ing the Dark Ages of Europe, when the great uni­ver­si­ties, sci­en­tists, doc­tors, and artists were all Mus­lim. Today that intra-Mus­lim sec­tar­i­an vio­lence is most vis­i­bly man­i­fest in a sense­less, self-defeat­ing sec­tar­i­an civ­il war that is tear­ing mod­ern Iraq apart at its frag­ile seams and exer­cis­ing its bru­tal­i­ty in oth­er parts of the world, espe­cial­ly in parts of Pak­istan.

The hijack­ers of Sep­tem­ber 11 seemed to touch a nerve of Mus­lim impo­tence. The burn­ing and then col­laps­ing tow­ers rep­re­sent­ed, to some, resur­gent Mus­lim pow­er, a per­verse Mus­lim pay­back for the dom­i­na­tion of the West. To oth­ers it was a reli­gious epiphany.

And as the Mus­lim world — where sec­tar­i­an­ism is ram­pant — sim­mers inter­nal­ly, extrem­ists have manip­u­lat­ed Islam­ic dog­ma to jus­ti­fy and ratio­nal­ize a so-called jihad against the West. The attacks on Sep­tem­ber 11, 2001, her­ald­ed the van­guard of the caliphate-inspired dream of bloody con­fronta­tion; the Cru­sades in reverse. And as images of the twin tow­ers burn­ing and then implod­ing were on every tele­vi­sion set in the world, the attack was received in two dis­parate ways in the Mus­lim world. Much, if not most, of the Mus­lim world react­ed with hor­ror, embar­rass­ment, and shame when it became clear that this great­est ter­ror­ist attack in his­to­ry had been car­ried out by Mus­lims in the name of Allah and jihad. Yet there was also anoth­er reac­tion, a trou­bling and dis­qui­et­ing one: Some peo­ple danced in the streets of Pales­tine. Sweets were exchanged by oth­ers in Pak­istan and Bangladesh. Con­dem­na­tions were few in the world’s largest Mus­lim nation, Indone­sia. The hijack­ers of Sep­tem­ber 11 seemed to touch a nerve of Mus­lim impo­tence. The burn­ing and then col­laps­ing tow­ers rep­re­sent­ed, to some, resur­gent Mus­lim pow­er, a per­verse Mus­lim pay­back for the dom­i­na­tion of the West. To oth­ers it was a reli­gious epiphany. And to still oth­ers it com­bined polit­i­cal, cul­tur­al, and reli­gious assertive­ness. A Pew com­par­a­tive study of Mus­lims’ atti­tudes after the attacks found that peo­ple in many Mus­lim coun­tries “think it is good that Amer­i­cans now know what it is like to be vul­ner­a­ble.”

Obvi­ous­ly (and embar­rass­ing­ly), Mus­lim lead­ers, mass­es, and even intel­lec­tu­als are quite com­fort­able crit­i­ciz­ing out­siders for the harm inflict­ed on fel­low Mus­lims, but there is dead­ly silence when they are con­front­ed with Mus­lim-on-Mus­lim vio­lence.

One bil­lion Mus­lims around the world seemed unit­ed in their out­rage at the war in Iraq, damn­ing the deaths of Mus­lims caused by U.S. mil­i­tary inter­ven­tion with­out U.N. approval. But there has been lit­tle if any sim­i­lar out­rage against the sec­tar­i­an civ­il war, which has led to far more casu­al­ties. Obvi­ous­ly (and embar­rass­ing­ly), Mus­lim lead­ers, mass­es, and even intel­lec­tu­als are quite com­fort­able crit­i­ciz­ing out­siders for the harm inflict­ed on fel­low Mus­lims, but there is dead­ly silence when they are con­front­ed with Mus­lim-on-Mus­lim vio­lence. That kind of crit­i­cism is not so polit­i­cal­ly con­ve­nient and cer­tain­ly not polit­i­cal­ly cor­rect. Even regard­ing Dar­fur, where there is an actu­al geno­cide being com­mit­ted against a Mus­lim pop­u­la­tion, there has been a remark­able absence of protests, few objec­tions, and no mas­sive cov­er­age on Arab or South Asian tele­vi­sion.
We are all famil­iar with the data that pour forth from West­ern sur­vey research cen­ters and show an increas­ing con­tempt for and hos­til­i­ty to the West, and par­tic­u­lar­ly the Unit­ed States, in Mus­lim com­mu­ni­ties from Turkey to Pak­istan. The war in Iraq is cit­ed as a rea­son. The sit­u­a­tion in Pales­tine is giv­en as anoth­er rea­son. So-called deca­dent West­ern val­ues are often part of the expla­na­tion. It is so much eas­i­er to blame oth­ers for our prob­lems than to accept respon­si­bil­i­ty our­selves.


First Chap­ter of Bhutto’s recent book, cour­tesy the NYT


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *