The phrase ‘do more’ is not merely a random expression but has a very serious connotation and it seems our masters use this as if they have ‘exclusive territorial copy rights’ with them for indefinite period. We have already paid a very heavy cost in this regard and it appears the ‘compliance mode’ at the helm of affairs is likely to go on. While driving down the urban cities, one unfortunate depiction of our loss is seen in the form of boulevards and crossings being named after ‘Shuhada’s’ (martyrs). This pertinent observation makes me sad as one doesn’t come across that many anywhere in the world.

This loss aside, the compliance to ‘do more’ time and again is hurting our ability to challenge our status quo and to move on with new initiatives on diplomatic front. The voices are curbed and reduced to minimal decibels. We are living in one of the most unfortunate times and the present generation continue to suffer. It’s becoming an era of ‘deception’; we are increasingly becoming unsure of what is reported to us. The news seems to be engineered serving hidden agenda’s of certain inflectional groups and factions. Gone are the days when television was supposedly a source of entertainment and relaxation. We switch on television and are bombarded with news channels fighting in terms of points scoring with tall claims of breaking a news to the public for the first time. And of course the news are disturbing as it is most of the time reporting of loss of precious lives, strikes, injustices, deprivation etc. We are unsure of who is who, serving whose ulterior motives.

It’s a simple profit and loss statement and a no brainer to see loss and gains in this dangerous game. In retrospect, the incidents unfold in front of us in regular intervals and all appears to have some linkages as if it’s a grand plan being executed and we are one of the guinea pigs. It seems that ever since we participated actively as an ally in war against soviets, we are at the mercy of our masters and we blindly take dictation as if there aren’t any options left with us. We went nuclear over a decade ago and west seems to be really active as how to counter and neutralize the nukes. The chain of events are all converging to this ultimate agenda of disarmament.     

One unfortunate bit is the fact that there is no unbiased ‘media’ available to us and especially the Muslim world is totally dependent upon already established news networks who are serving targeted motives. These channels often recruit individuals who are ‘opinion makers’ whereby we all end up discussing what was intentionally injected in bits and pieces.   

However, one refreshing change especially in the younger generations is that overall awareness level is on the rise due to unrest and the general public’s appetite for validating the news via alternative media is increasing. In general a lot of people now do not take any news on its face value and do dig out agenda’s and check the credibility from other available sources. Now we do question controversial individuals and have started linking the dots. Having said that, where are we off to, are we well equipped, what’s our ultimate objective, where should we be heading, what are the caveats all along, are we really sure if we are being guided by the right people even now, are we heading in the right direction and if yes what are the chances of being successful and what are the measures of success? And the list goes on. The idea is not to digress but find common grounds and converge and channelize our efforts in pursuing a ultimate objective.

The dilemma starts when the objectives are not known and thus all good intentions and efforts all along become futile. In my opinion the dilemma of today’s times is that we lack clarity in terms of our objectives. Now where to start and how to come to common grounds and find our list of objectives is a million dollar question? Have we done anything in particular in this regard, the answer unfortunately is in affirmative as we all tend to indulge in lots of lip service without much being achieved at the end of the day. The words need to be translated into actionable points.

We need to look at the facts, use common sense and everything becomes crystal clear. For example, to prove that Osama bin Laden was killed at the compound in Abbottabad,the easiest way is to take the DNA test of the blood on the floor of the compound. What we all know is as follows:

• August 2010: Pakistan shares with US some details about the compound in Abbottabad.US gathers intelligence that the compound is occupied by Osama’s children.
• Jan 27: Raymond Davis, the CIA Station Chief in Pakistan gets an audio file and some pictures of Pak military installations at Tarbela from an informer in Lahore. On the way back he is pursued by two ISI contractors. He realizes that he is being followed and shots both followers in the back. He is arrested by Pakistani police.
• March 16: Raymond Davis is released and he shares the information he had gathered with the CIA.
• March 17: General Kayani starts criticizing drone attacks in public statements
• First Week of April: News started circling that General Petraeus is being transferred to CIA.
• April 5: Obama Administration submits a report to the Congress that Pakistan government has no clear strategy to triumph over militants. This is followed by a concerted international media campaign which puts enormous pressure on Pakistani Military and ISI.
• April 7: Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer and White House advisor writes a report arguing that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are not only a deterrent to India but also to USA.
• April 8: General Kayani meets with Centcom Chief Gen James Mattis.
• April 18: On Pakistan’s Geo TV, Adm. Michael Mullen said Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence “has a longstanding relationship with the Haqqani Network. That doesn’t mean everybody in the ISI, but it’s there.”
• April 20: Adm. Mike Mullen meets with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Khalid Shameem Wynne and General Kayani.
• April 22: News appears that Pakistan has taken back Shamsi Airbase back from CIA, US forces.
• April 26: Washington critically attacks Pakistan Army’s counter-terrorism efforts. April 26: General Petraeus met with General Kayani.
• April 26: Meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (JCSC) is held at Rawalpindi, one week ahead of schedule at the Joint Staff Headquarters
• April 27: Wall Street Journal reports that Pakistan is trying to wean Afghanistan away from the United States and draw it into China’s orbit.
• April 28: Obama signs General Petraeus’ transfer to CIA.
• April 29: Obama signs the orders to attack the Abbottabad compounds.
• April 30: General Kayani gave a veiled threat in his Youm-e-Shuhada address:“Pakistan is a peace-loving country and wants friendly relations with other countries and our every step should move towards prosperity of the people. But we will not compromise our dignity and honor for it”.
• May 1: Four US choppers flew from Afghanistan. Reaching Abbottabad they attacked a secure compound which housed some important Al Qaeda members. A gun battle soon ensued. Within minutes a Pakistani military helicopters flew from Tarbela, reaching the compound in Abbottabad few minutes later. In the meanwhile US forces had torched one of their own choppers. The four choppers (three US and one Pak) took off from the compound and flew to Afghanistan. Incidentally, this time none of them followed a low altitude flight. They were quite visible on Pakistani radars.

 In August 2010 after Pakistani authorities shared intelligence with US about the compound in Abbottabad. US after its own intelligence gathering ascertains that the compound is occupied by Osama’s children. Compound surveillance continues through the next year in anticipation of capturing Osama bin Laden. In January 2011 the young CIA contractor who is give the charge of Pakistan Station Chief works “extra hard” to gather clandestine information related to ISI and Al Qaeda relationship.

The contractor, now infamous as Raymond Davis the “American Rambo” receives a call from one of his assets, early morning on January 27 about a high value target. But the asset refuses to lay out details on phone or to leave the Lahore city, where he had gone underground. Raymond Davis hires a rent a car and drives to Lahore, while his security detail follows him in a bullet proof Land Cruiser.

Raymond Davis is able to lose his Islamabad’s ISI “detail” by leaving in unmarked rent a car. The ISI agents falling for his trap follow the embassy’s Land Cruiser. Raymond Davis arrives at Lahore one hour earlier than his detail and meets with the asset. The asset gives him some pictures of an intelligence building at Tarbela and recording of a phone call. Listening the phone call Raymond Davis realizes the gold mine he had struck and immediately calls his security detail which had also reached Lahore, knowing if ISI reaches him first, he would not leave Lahore alive.

Next hour when the security car catches up with Raymond Davis, the ISI bosses realizes that Raymond Davis had give them a slip earlier in the morning and in the couple of hours he had in Lahore, he might have got some important information. Resultantly, they put two contractors on his tail. Raymond Davis seeing a tail fears the worse and shoots them both in the back, at a traffic stop, without logically realizing that there was no way ISI could have know what he was holding.

His security detail which was close behind rushed to his “rescue” however, by the police had chased and arrested him, while the security Land Cruiser running over pedestrians escapes towards US embassy compound in Islamabad. ISI officers quickly reach the scene and confiscating the memory sticks realize Raymond Davis has unearthed a deep secret which even their immediate bosses didn’t know about.

The sensitivity of information rattles the entire echelons of the ISI and even its own officers are sent under house arrest while the relevant cell steps forward. At that time even some of the top intelligence officers of the secretive ISI outside the relevant cell did not know that Osama bin Laden had died and his body was kept frozen at Tarbela. Young Raymond Davis had unearthed the biggest secret of the century, somehow. But now the Pandora’s Box had been opened. Pak top brass knew it had only a few days or weeks at best to capitalize Raymond Davis’ arrest before US get the Intel.

In the next six weeks Pakistan plugs all leaks related to Osama’s death and makes sure that maximum gains are made for Raymond’s release. However, when Raymond Davis is released on March 16, his debriefing results in a tsunami of US policy, personal agendas and fueling of political rivalries. Everyone in the US chain of command now wanted to use the information to further personal goals from General

Petreaus to President Obama. On March 17, knowing that Pakistan had lost its trump card General Pervaiz Kayani releases a press statement in which he critically criticize drone attacks, first from him. From then on Pak Military raised its stance against drone attacks, fearing that US now might target its nuclear assets. While in USA politics was at its full swing. General Petreaus wanted to get the buckle for Osama bin Laden’s death on his belt for his future political ambitions, while President Obama wanted the credit to help is sliding popularity. While the tussle continued, the other issue still pending was how to confirm Osama’s death.

In the next one month, nearly every week a top US official visited Pakistan, everyone meeting with General Kayani trying to convince him to hand over Osama’s body. While the stance from Pakistan remained, “Osama, Who?” It was a first in the history that so many US top officials had visited and met with a military chief of a foreign country in such a short time. Seeing nothing getting through the top military brass of Pakistan, US started a political and media campaign on the sides to put extra pressure on Pak Military.

Politics within Obama Administration was also at its full swing. Petraeus was pulling all the strings to take the credit, while trying to lay out a plan to get Osama bin Laden’s body out of Pakistan. President Obama on the other hand in one smooth move decided to “promote” Petraeus to the head of the CIA. The news got out in the first week of April that Petraeus was being transferred to the CIA. While at the main front, Obama continued to pressurize General Kayani and General Pasha and one April 5, Obama Administration submitted a report to the Congress that Pakistan government had no clear strategy to triumph over militants. Alongside the report the media campaign against Pak Military and the ISI continued.

The second week of April began with a bang for top Pak Military brass. On April 7, Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer and White House advisor wrote a report arguing that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are not only a deterrent to India but also to USA. The obvious had now become clear that Obama Administration has indirectly sent a clear threat to Pakistan’s nuclear assets. The timing of the report was perfect with Chief Gen James Mattis meeting with General Kayani next day. In the meeting General Mattis asked about Pakistan’s cooperation in capturing Osama bin Laden.

This was ironically one of typical Hollywood thriller scene. Pakistan knew that US knew that Pakistan knows that US knows that Osama is dead. But Pakistan continued the naive game of “Osama Who?” while US continued to play the game that “Osama must be captured”. General Mattis leaves with veiled threats and stresses that Pakistan must do more to against the Al Qaeda and Taliban, or indirectly saying that Osama bin Laden must be handed over.

For the ten days US waits and sees how Pakistan responds to the threats, but Pakistan acts by burying its head in the sand – see no evil, hear no evil. Obama Administration ups the ante and on April 18 on Pakistan’s Geo TV, Adm. Michael Mullen said Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence “has a longstanding relationship with the Haqqani Network. That doesn’t mean everybody in the ISI, but it’s there.” Again, international media had its field day against Pakistan’s ISI and its links with Taliban and the ISI.

After putting pressure on General Kayani, Adm. Mike Mullen meets with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Khalid Shameem Wynne and General Kayani on April 20.Admiral Mullen again demands indirectly that Pakistan needs to help USA in locating Osama bin Laden. Pakistan’s response was again, “Osama, Who?” Admiral Mullen however, left with another threat that if they came to know about Osama bin Laden’s location they would go ahead and take unilateral action. This is the same message which President Obama repeated in his announcement of Osama bin Laden’s death, when he said, “We will take actions in Pakistan, if we knew where he was.”

In response to continued threats from USA Pakistan starts taking back its air bases from US in an attempt to avoid launching of any operation from its own soil. As a result on April 22 the news appears that Pakistan had taken back Shamsi Airbase back from CIA,US forces. While Obama Administration was piling pressure on Pakistan, General Petraeus visited Pakistan on April 26 and met with General Kayani openly asking him to hand over Osama bin Laden, otherwise get ready to face the consequences. Same day Washington also critically attacked Pakistan Army’s counter-terrorism efforts. General Petraeus left with a clear message that unless Pakistan hands over Osama, US forces would be forces to take action over Pakistani soil. Pakistani Military knowing that US knew that Osama bin Laden was dead couldn’t understand Obama Administration’s continued stance on capturing Osama bin Laden. General Petraeus left with the ultimatum that either Pakistan handed over Osama or US would get him.

Same day meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (JCSC) is held at Rawalpindi, one week ahead of schedule at the Joint Staff Headquarters. The top brass discusses the Osama issue and decision is reached to work out the Obama’s strategy leading to continuous threats for capturing Osama bin Laden alive, even after knowing that he was dead. While in Pakistan intelligence community starts using all of its sources to reach to the bottom of US’ demand of capturing Osama bin Laden. On April 28 President Obama signs General Petraeus’ transfer to CIA and next day signs the orders to attack the Abbottabad compounds. Thus Osama bin Laden’s credit is assured to President Obama.

On 29 April after President Obama signed the orders to “bring back” Osama bin Laden, Pakistani security agencies get a report that another order had been signed which had authorized US forces to neutralize Pakistan’s nuclear assets, if needed. The report was nothing short of seeing a death angel for the top Pak Military brass.

Seeing the imminent threat, General Kayani tried his last shot when on 30 April 2011 he clearly stated in his Youm-e-Shuhada address: “Pakistan is a peace-loving country and wants friendly relations with other countries and our every step should move towards prosperity of the people. But we will not compromise our dignity and honor for it”. However, it didn’t stop what was about to come 24 hours later.

As night fell on Sunday, 1 May four choppers from a US Afghan base at a low altitude towards its destination in Abbottabad, to the same compound where Osama’s children were in the hiding. Without any detection courtesy of their latest stealth technology and Pakistan’s outdated technology the choppers continued over the Pakistani territory. Ironically, ten years ago a Pak Air force air commodore had raised concern about the outdated radar technology citing that US or worse India could fly helicopters into the country and take out nuclear installations and in reply he was shown the boot while no upgrades to the systems were made.

Anyway, the four choppers made it to the compound in Abbottabad. It is then that Pak Army was notified that they have a choice. Either face an entire barrage of US choppers attacking Pak nuclear assets or hand over Osama’s body. In the meanwhile the small

gun battle at the Abbottabad compound continued and to give the drama some authenticity the US forces torched one of their own choppers.  Pressed for time a Pakistani helicopter flew from Tarbela carrying dead body of Osama bin Laden which was stored in a cold storage there. While at Abbottabad Pak Army soldiers encircle the entire area around the compound within five minutes of the start of fire fight. The firefight continued for 35 more minutes, waiting for the Pakistani helicopter. Once the Pakistani helicopter reached the compound the three US choppers and the Pakistani helicopter flew towards the Afghan border, this time without the need to fly below the radar detection altitude.

Next day, the world woke up to the news that Osama bin Laden was dead and President Obama had delivered wheat President Bush and Dick Cheney couldn’t. But the Pak Military brass did not wake up, because they never slept the night before. Last night they had woken to the realization that US could fly under the radar and take out Pakistan’s nuclear assets. The problem here is that US has the complete inventory of Pakistan’s nuclear assets along with exact locations. It would be a matter of minutes in a country wide operation to dismantle Pakistan’s nuclear assets.

Osama bin laden killed by US Forces.

This events has opened a whole new Pandora box of questions and serious concerns are raising over the legitimacy of this event. How can you expect from the conspiracy theorist to remain quiet and believe the official version of the story where the story itself is full of loop holes and doubtful areas. Despite the US main stream media version of the story and their operation to kill OBL, serious concerns are being raised on Pakistani Government and especially Pakistani Armed Forces as it seems like US has betrayed us once again or we have compromised our sovereignty … once again.

Before making any decision and building any opinion on the validity of this operation, we need to ponder on following questions individually.

• Why on earth OBL is hiding in Pakistan or had a hideout in Pakistan knowing that Pakistan is US front ally in this war of terrorism against him and Al-Qaeda?
• Why would he choose Abbottabad as his hideout place knowing that this city is associated with Pakistani Armed Forces and the first thing that came into our mind when we think about Abbottabad is Army and Kakool Military Academy.
• Bilal Colony in Abbottabad is the place where this operation took place. This colony as well every other colony in Abbottabad is so well knitted in social gathering culture that it’s almost impossible not to know about you neighborhood. Social interaction with their neighbors on frequent basis is a part of their norm and this tradition is common in every other part of Pakistan. Knowing the fact now that he has been living there for last nine months, it’s impossible for other people living nearby not to see him or recognize him.
• The world’s number one terrorist is getting compromised in one of the most high alert city of Pakistan and our president and Prime minister were not known. Well at least this is their official statement.
• Role of Pakistan’s army in this operation is a big question mark. There is no official statement as yet from Pakistani Army regarding their involvement in the operation.
• OBL Body drowned in sea … why?

The Down Fall:

it’s just a coincidence or isn’t that 1^st May is the same day when Adolf Hitler declared dead some 60 years ago but one can now say that this event of OBL captured or killed was on the table for quite some time now. In 2004 just before the presidential election Sadam Hussain’s got caught in Iraq and pave the way for Bush to continue his regime for the second term. Obama is also thinking on those lines and this event might just pave the way for him to get elected again.

Neo Con Agenda:

The Neo Cons in white house are still following the same agenda of Leo Straus that we need to keep the war threat alive for America and American People. The recent Middle East unrest and US-NATO attack on Libya which will soon overwhelm Syria and Yemen has given Neo Cons another war which is an extension to the same war on terrorism but on different scale. US economy who is at the verge of a historic meltdown can’t afford to keep two war fronts at a same time. They also have to manage the expectation of American people who lost so much during the war in Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of War on Terror.  Even though US have claimed that American has won the war against OBL but this is for certain that they won’t leave Afghanistan and Pakistan just because of the strategic position they have captured in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Position is very important not only to keep Pakistan in constant US control but for the fulfillment of their agenda of encircling China and Russia.

The Aftermath:

In coming days, one can expect to see the reaction from Muslim Militants across the world on Pakistan and America where another episode of suicide bombings will starts across the country. Another small scale attack on US is also expected in coming days which will add fuel to the fire and then serious allegation will be raised against Pakistani Government and Armed Forces that they can’t track down these terrorist in-fact they are hiding in Pakistan and in the vicinity of their political headquarter and military base. Questions will be raise on the capability of Armed Forces over the protection of their nuclear arsenal which can now get into the hands on these terrorists and US while banking on these arguments can react in a very fatal way against Pakistan.

There is no doubt in my mind that critical times are ahead for our country and it is very important for us to understand and analyze these situation without getting under the influence of Pakistani and western media. We need to keep our eyes open and our critical thinking alive. In the end it will be our freewill that will decided our fate.

JAZAKALLAH

We have no doubt that certain members of the Ummah of Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) will be blessed with true dreams and visions which will convey to them information concerning the End-Time advent of Imām al-Mahdi (‘alaihi al-Salām). Readers must know however, that information so obtained cannot be objectively verified, and hence that there is no compulsion on any one to accept such information as truth.

This writer has never attempted to use such information in his analysis of events now mysteriously unfolding in the world, and in the Holy Land in particular. Rather he has continuously striven to grasp the ‘system of meaning’ of the subject of the End Times as derived from data located in the Qur’ān and Ahadīth of Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). He is confident that his students will Insha Allah, continue that effort when he is no longer in this world. His conclusions, based on rational analysis (and intuitive internal insight), must always be qualified with the words Allahu ‘alam (Allah Knows best).

Those who are not convinced by his views expressed in this essay or in other writings and lectures, therefore have every right to withhold acceptance. Those on the other hand who reject his views, cannot be recognised as serious critics who deserve a response, unless and until they offer their own ‘correct’ views that are published under a name by which they can be recognized and held accountable. This writer is confident that a reasoned and respectful scholarly dialogue (in response to this and other essays on the subject) will enrich all those who participate with a greater understanding and insight into the subject Insha Allah.

The subject of the emergence of Imām al-Mahdi has now assumed truly urgent importance in the world of Islam  ̶  Shia as well as Sunni. The misguided followers of the false Prophet of Qadian, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Kazzab, should follow carefully the discussion on this subject so that they may recognize Insha Allah, the falsehood of Mirza’s claims that he was Imām al-Mahdi as well as the Promised Messiah. This subject is of urgent importance since the Anglo-American-Israeli military attack on the Arabs, Pakistan and Iran can be expected at any time now, and we can therefore expect that someone will soon emerge with yet another false claim to be the promised Imām.

We warned in an earlier essay that an Israeli attack on Iran would almost certainly provoke the emergence of a Shia claimant to be the promised Imām. We can expect a Sunni claimant on the other hand, when the attack is launched against the Arabs or Pakistan.

This essay, written in Buenos Aires in Argentina as I make my way to our Second International Islamic Retreat in Cape Town, attempts to explain the subject of the advent of Imām al-Mahdi in its End-Time context and to thus offer a view concerning the time-line for the emergence of the prophesied Imām.

There are some Muslims who, impressed by the views of distinguished scholars such as Ibn Khaldun and Dr Muhammad Iqbal, have rejected belief in the advent of Imām al-Mahdi. Some of them even go on to dismiss our preoccupation with this subject with disdain and with spurious comments.

They should be warned that it is not only false but also sinful to argue that those who strive for a deeper understanding of the subject of the advent of Imām al-Mahdi (‘alaihi al-Salām) are a people who are content to sit waiting with folded arms for the Imām while doing nothing to combat falsehood and oppression in the world.

Our understanding of the ‘system of meaning’ which harmoniously integrates all data from the Qur’ān and Ahadīth pertaining to the End Times, recognizes the return of the true Messiah Jesus the son of the Virgin Mary (peace and blessings of Allah Most High be upon them both) as the Sign of all Signs of the End Times (see ‘An Islamic View of Gog and Magog in the Modern World’); hence the subject of the emergence Imām al-Mahdi must be harmoniously integrated with that momentous return.

It is logically inconsistent that a wise God, whose creation is flawless, should send the true Messiah back to this world before Dajjāl the false Messiah has completed his mission of impersonating the true Messiah. That mission of impersonation would not be complete until he publicly proclaims that he is the promised Messiah. In addition, I believe that no learned Jew would ever respond seriously to any claimant to be the promised Messiah unless that claimant is a Jew, he makes his claim from within the Holy Land (Jerusalem to be specific), and makes his claim while offering overt evidence that he has already established his rule (or has the capacity to do so) over the world in general and in particular over the Arab/Muslim world that surrounds the Holy Land on all sides.  I hold this view since the Jewish scriptures proclaim the advent of a Messiah who will rule the world (eternally) from the throne of David (‘alaihi al-Salām).

I have argued in ‘Jerusalem in the Qur’an’ as well as in other writings, that Dajjāl’s ‘day like a month’ is now coming to an end and that his ‘day like a week’ is about to commence. The evidence which emerges from the ‘system of meaning’ of the subject is that the passage from a ‘day like a month’ to a ‘day like a week’ cannot occur without great wars which will result in the loss of millions of lives. This is what occurred during the passage from a ‘day like a year’ to a ‘day like a month’.

When those wars do break out, and that should sadly be soon, then those who consider this writer to be rightly-guided (or at least not misguided) would understand what is happening in the world and as a consequence should neither be confused nor enter into a state of despair.

They would also consider the following present facts to be pertinent when answering the question which is the topic of this essay:

• Israel has not as yet established her control over the Arab/Muslim world that surrounds the Euro-Jewish State;
• The territory of the State of Israel has not as yet expanded to encompass the frontiers of the Holy Land as (falsely) delineated in the Torah;
• Israel has not as yet replaced USA as the ruling State in the world;
• No Jew has as yet (i.e., in recent times) proclaimed himself to be the Promised Messiah.

The evidence is therefore clear that Imām al-Mahdi cannot emerge at this time. Such would be inconsistent with the ‘system of meaning’ which integrates all End-Time data in a harmonious whole.

Our view, and Allah Knows best, is that the Imām can only emerge at that time when Dajjāl’s ‘day like a week’ has come to an end and he has emerged in human form in our world of space and time. This is so for the following reason:

A Hadīth in the Sahīh of Imām al-Bukhāri informs us that the advent of the Imām will be contemporaneous with the return of Jesus (‘alaihi al-Salaam):

“How will you be (at that time) when the son of Mary descends amongst you and your Imām will (at that time) be from amongst yourselves (i.e., a Muslim).”

(Sahīh Bukhāri)

Those who wish to do so can hold the view that a period for as long as 20 or 30 years can elapse between the advent of the Imām and the return of Jesus (‘alaihi al-Salām). We hold a different view. We believe that the State of Israel – and the Gog and Magog world-order which support that Euro-Jewish State – will respond with desperate speed to the Imām’s appearance in Makkah, and would attempt to eliminate him without delay. If this is true, then as soon as the Imām makes his appearance at the Holy Ka’aba and proclaims himself to be the promised Imām, events can be expected to move rapidly towards a confrontation with those who control power in the world. That confrontation will eventually lead to a personal confrontation between the Imām and Dajjāl as described in the Hadīth in Sahīh Muslim. That in turn, would be the moment when Jesus (‘alaihi al-Salām) will descend from the sky “with the hands resting on the wings of two angels”.

Our conclusion therefore, is that only a brief period of time will elapse between the advent of the Imām and the return of Jesus (‘alaihi al-Salām).

Since we also argue that Jesus (‘alaihi al-Salām) will not return until Dajjāl the false Messiah has completed his mission and publicly claimed to be the Messiah, it follows that the world may have to wait for at least another two or three decades for the blessed Imām to emerge and for events to then rapidly escalate until Jesus (‘alaihi al-Salām) returns, Dajjāl is killed, Gog and Magog are destroyed, and Khilāfah is restored in Jerusalem. And Allah Knows best!

Our gentle readers must strive to remain ever vigilant during the time which remains before the Imām emerges, however long that may be, not to be deceived by the false Imāms who are certain to soon emerge, and who would faithfully follow in the misguided footsteps of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani. I would be surprised if the Israeli Mossad/CIA has not already groomed a suitable candidate.

www.imranhosein.org

Islam continues to be at the center stage of the global community. Yet the Muslim world – nearly 1/5th of the world population – is currently in a dysfunctional state, caught between the modern as well as the mundane aspirations of life on one hand and a disconnect from the past glories and transcending values –beliefs that these people identify with, on the other.

Muslim world would like to progress past its problems without de-linking from Islam. The western countries, currently dominating the world, supposedly prefer that the Muslim world move forward, too, but also de-link itself from Islam except at the personal or spiritual level, and most definitely, not upset the current global status quo.

Western countries are mostly democratic and they claim that they would like to see the spread of democracy around the world. They consider democracy to be an indispensable modern ideal that, they contend, is quite conducive to attaining modern aspirations of life. The current superstructure of the world – defined in terms of the economic, political, military and technological power and the accompanying apparatus – definitely reflects the strength of democracy. Modern superpowers, such as the former Soviet Union, that did not adopt democracy, have collapsed.  Another major power, China, despite some economic success, offers a significantly lower standard of living than any western countries.

Democracy is identified as a cornerstone of western civilization and it is strongly prescribed for the rest of the world and humanity. Indeed, sometimes it is even promoted as a panacea. Discourses involving Islam, Muslim world and democracy are proliferating. But what really is the relationship between Islam and democracy? Are they even compatible?

It seems that there are four major groups with two broad agreements on this issue. The first group from among (often Islamophobic) non-Muslims and the second group from among Muslims (often westophobic) broadly agree – albeit for different reasons – that Islam and democracy are incompatible. The first group believes that Islam is inherently autocratic and it lacks the philosophical and historical basis for nurturing any viable democratic tradition. The second group believes that democracy is a corrupt, manipulated system of the West and theologically it is in their view inherently incompatible with Islam.

The other two groups also have a broad agreement on the opposite side. The first of these two groups include non-Muslims (individuals and institutions) who believe that Islam is quite compatible with democracy and, in the interest of global peace and prosperity the current dysfunctional state ought to be reframed on a democratic foundation. The last group represents Muslims who also concur with their counterparts among non-Muslims. These Muslims do not see any conflict between Islam and democracy. Some would even go further and argue that democracy is integral to the Islamic way of life. Thus, there are clusters of perceptions and misperceptions and this is only a humble and partial attempt to hopefully disentangle some of those.
 

The Mutual Phobia, Distrust and Antagonism

For a host of historical reasons, there is a deep mutual distrust and antagonism that now overshadow the relationship between Islam and the West. Once Islam was a global power and represented a vibrant, dynamic and towering civilization. It led the world in virtually every aspect. The West during that period was in medieval or dark age. The decline of the Muslim world and the rise of the West came about through a sustained and violent confrontation, the legacy of which still weighs heavily on the mutual relationship.

The rise of the west did not merely mean the breakdown of the Muslim world; it also emerged as a process of systematic subjugation of the same. Under the western colonial rule, a systematic campaign was undertaken not only to undermine the military and economic power of the Muslim world, but also its social, cultural and moral foundation. However, it would be unfair to blame the west for much of the problems of the Muslim world, because there were deep-rooted internal problems, the weight of which made the Muslim world very weak and vulnerable internally, and rather predictably, through confrontations with other powers, the Muslim world has crumbled.

If the future of the Muslim world and the West is to be independently changed, then the path unavoidably would be sustained confrontation. However, if the prevailing problems are viewed as mutually interdependent, there is a potential for partnership and collaboration. Religiously speaking, Islam teaches vying with each other in good causes. To each is a goal to which Allah turns him; then strive together (as in a race) towards all that is good. [2/al-Baqarah/148] Islam also exhorts seeking common grounds (for example, between Muslims and Ahl al-Kitab, i.e., the Christians and the Jews). O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you. [3/ale Imran/64]. Conscientious and sensible people, of course, would lean toward an approach based on cooperation and empathy than toward an approach based on needless confrontation.  

Recognizing and understanding the mutual fear, distrust and antagonism are important because there is significant mutual stereotyping. The hatred of the west is matched by many Muslims who contend that anything western is bad or un-Islamic. Similarly stereotypical, the new Western perspective of the clash of civilizations considers Islam as a sustained and powerful threat.

If such perception and approach of the west toward Islam are merely dictated by one-sided interest in maintaining the status quo in terms of the global domination, where the Muslim world is dysfunctional and marginalized, then the clash is inevitable and the problems related to instability, violence, or widespread human deprivations or humiliation are already knocking at the door of the west. The sensible path should be guided by mutual respect and empathy.  

Viewpoint #1: Islam and democracy are incompatible

Non-Muslims who argue that Islam and democracy are incompatible fall in two subcategories. One group feels this way to assert or underscore that democracy is a new, western value and institution. Some also are afraid that a democratic outfit of the Muslim world might undermine the current western domination. After all, these are barbaric and backward people. Modern ideas are unsuitable to them. These people are better suited for autocratic, repressive rules either under current despots or the western puppets. This group of non-Muslims suffers from acute Islamophobia based on their stereotypical understanding of Islam and prejudiced viewpoint of the western interest.  Some non-Muslim scholars such as Samuel Huntington and Bernard Lewis, take a pessimistic scholarly view that historically the Muslim world has been under non-democratic rules for nearly fourteen centuries, going back to the period that ended with the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and thus a democratic culture has not been internally in existence in the Muslim world.  Also, from their perspective, they find little support in the scripture or ideology of Islam as reflected in the Islamic history to be optimistic.

The Muslims who agree with the above group that Islam and democracy are incompatible have a different reason. They basically find any idea or institution of western origin to be unpalatable. But going one step further, they argue that democracy and Islam are fundamentally incompatible because of the difference in the concept of sovereignty. According to them, in Islam sovereignty belongs to God alone. Human beings are mere executors of His Will. On the other hand, in democracy (or, to be precise, secular, western democracy), sovereignty belongs to people, which in the view of these Muslims constitutes shirk or polytheism. Many notable Muslim personalities, including Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi (in his earlier writings), have rejected the secular western democracy, at least at the philosophical level.  According to such perspective, Islam, speaking from the view-point of political philosophy, is the very antithesis of secular Western democracy . . . [Islam] altogether repudiates the philosophy of popular sovereignty and rears its polity on the foundations of the sovereignty of God and the vicegerency (Khilafah) of man.[Political Theory of Islam, in Khurshid Ahmad, ed. Islam: Its Meaning and Message (London: Islamic Council of Europe, 1976), pp. 159-161.]

Unfortunately, even though in his later life his view about the compatibility between Islamic political system and democracy was much more favorable and positive, what Maududi articulated earlier as a philosophical rejection of secular western democracy has been perceived or upheld by many Muslims and non-Muslims as rejection of democracy per se. It is not all too uncommon among Muslims, especially among revivalist Muslims that Khilafat is what defines the Islamic political system, and they are not willing to trade or adjust Khilafat with democracy in any way.

Are Islam and democracy then incompatible? Well, the reality is that they are not. The above view of Muslims are nave and fallacious, and furthermore, to a great extent, shaped by a sort of dogmatic label-orientation.

Viewpoint #2: Islam and democracy are more than compatible!

There are many among non-Muslims (individuals and institutions) who see no conflict between Islam and democracy and they would like to see the Muslim world pursue a path of change and transformation toward democracy.

Robin Wright, a well-known American expert on the Middle East and the Muslim world writes: neither Islam nor its culture is the major obstacle to political modernity. [Islam and Liberal Democracy, Journal of Democracy, 1996, pp. 64-75].

In his magnum opus Asian Drama, Nobel Laureate Gunnar Myrdal identified a set of modernization ideals that included democracy. In regard to religion in general and Islam in particular, he had this to say: The basic doctrine of the old religions in the region Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism are not necessarily inimical to modernization. For example, Islamic, and less explicitly, Buddhist doctrines are advanced to support reforms along the lines of modernization ideals. [p. 78] if democracy is intimately related to egalitarianism, he further comments: Islam and Buddhism can provide support for one of the modernization ideals in particular: egalitarian reforms. [p. 80]

Confronting the view of those who suggest the incompatibility, John O. Voll and John L. Esposito, two bridge-builders between Islam and the West articulate: The Islamic heritage, in fact, contains concepts that provide a foundation for contemporary Muslims to develop authentically Islamic programs of democracy.

In explaining some common western misperception, Graham E. Fuller (former Vice-Chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA) writes: Most western observers tend to look at the phenomenon of political Islam as if it were butterfly in a collection box, captured and skewered for eternity, or as a set of texts unbendingly prescribing a single path. This is why some scholars who examine its core writings proclaim Islam to be incompatible with democracy as if any religion in its origins was about democracy at all. [The Future of Political Islam in Foreign Affairs, Mar-April, 2002; pp. 48-60]

Turning to their own Islamic root and heritage, there are now a growing number of voices among Muslims who are convincingly making the case that Islam and democracy are not just compatible; rather, their association is inevitable, because Islamic political system is based on Shura (mutual consultation). Khaled Abou el-Fadl, Ziauddin Sardar, Rachid Ghannoushi, Hasan Turabi, Khurshid Ahmad, Fathi Osman and most notably, Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, are just to name a few among the contemporary Islamic scholars and intellectuals who are arduously working to move both the Muslim world and the West toward better mutual understanding in regard to the relationship between Islam and democracy .

The hangover from semantics and labels

Democracy can be defined as government by the people; especially, rule of the majority; a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections; the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority; the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges. [Merriam-Webster Dictionary]

The reality is that Islam is not only compatible with the above aspects that define or describe democracy, but also that those aspects are essential to Islam. If we can cut through the labels and semantics, we find that Islamic governance, when distilled from all the extraneous aspects, has at least three core features, based on the Quranic vision and guidance on one hand and the experience under the Prophet (s) and the Rightly Guided Caliphs on the other.  

CONSTITUTIONAL: Islamic government is essentially a “constitutional” government, where constitution represents the agreement of the governed to govern by a defined and agreed upon framework of rights and duties. For Muslims, the source of the constitution is the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and anything deemed relevant, effective, but not inconsistent with Islam. No authority, except the governed, has the right to put away (abrogate) or change such a constitution. Thus, Islamic governance can’t be an autocratic, hereditary or military rule. Such a system of governance is egalitarian in nature, and egalitarianism is one of the hallmarks of Islam. It is also widely acknowledged that the beginning of the Islamic polity in Madinah was based on a constitutional foundation and pluralistic framework involving non-Muslims as well.

PARTICIPATORY: An Islamic political system is participatory. From establishing the institutional structure of governance to operating it, the system is participatory. It means that the leadership and the policies will be conducted on the basis of full, gender-neutral participation of the governed through a popular electoral process. Muslims can use their creativity using the Islamic guidelines and human experience to date to institute, and continuously refine, their processes. This participatory aspect is the Islamic process of Shura (mutual consultation).

ACCOUNTABLE: This is an essential corollary to a constitutional/participatory system. The leadership and the holders of authority are accountable to people within an Islamic framework. Islamic framework here means that all Muslims are accountable to Allah and his divine guidance. But that is more in a theological sense. The practical accountability relates to people. Thus, the Khulafa ar-Rashidoon were both Khalifatur Rasool (representative of the Messenger) as well as Khalifatul Muslimeen (representative of the Muslims).

This point needs further examination because a key and stubborn misperception of Muslims in regard to democracy is based on the notion that in Islam sovereignty belongs to God, while in democracy it belongs to people. This is a naive and erroneous notion or interpretation. God IS the true and ultimate Sovereign, but he has bestowed a level of freedom and responsibility upon the human beings in this world. God has decided not to function as the Sovereign in this world. He has blessed humanity with revelations and his essential guidance. Muslims are to shape and conduct their lives, individually and collectively, according to that guidance. But even though essentially this guidance is based on divine revelation, its interpretation and implementation are human.

Whether people will choose the path to heaven or hell is a human decision. Whether they will choose Islam or another path, it is a human decision. Whether people will choose to organize their lives based on Islam or not is a human decision. Whether Muslims would choose an Islamic form of governance or not is a human decision. It can be argued that for making wrong choices in this world, Muslims might be facing negative consequences in the life hereafter. But, still it is a matter of choice; there is no room for compulsion or imposition.

What happens when the society and leadership faces a conflict? For example, if the majority of the society does not want to uphold Islam, the leadership cannot coerce the society into what it does not want. There is no compulsion or coercion in Islam. Coercion never delivers sustainable results, and the foundation of Islam cannot be based on coercion. God is the sovereign from the viewpoint of Islamic reality, but not from practical standpoint. When our decisions are to be made based on Ijtihad (and we could be wrong), where our constitution and policies would be formulated through human consultation (and we can err), when our judicial system would be guided by the revealed guidance, yet, based on the evidence presented, there would be chance for an innocent to get convicted and a guilty to go free, God is not acting as a sovereign in this world. To think like that is not to show due and full respect to the very freedom and responsibility that God has entrusted us with.

Indeed, thinking like this leaves room for big abuse, as someone or some institution declares that God is the sovereign, and then they impose their own rule or whims in the name of the sovereign. History is full of such abuses, where Shariah has been enforced or allowed for the people, but some powerful or privileged people remained above the Shariah. Even if one person remains above such Shariah, that is not true rule of law or Shariah at all.

Thus, based on the above core features, it is important to recognize that Islam is incompatible with monarchy, military rule, dictatorship, or any other type of authoritarian political system. Islam envisions a constitutional, participatory, and accountable system of governance. This is the Islamic concept of Khilafat. However, we need to be less concerned about terminology, label or semantics than substance.

In its fundamental character based on those core features, there is no conflict between democracy and Islamic political system, except that in an Islamic political system people cannot call themselves Islamic while themselves being in conflict with Islam. That is why Muslims should not shun democracy in a general sense as conflicting with Islam; rather, they should welcome it. , As Dr. Fathi Osman, one of the leading Muslim intellectuals of our time, remarked: democracy is the best application of Shura.”   

This issue of Islam and democracy is important not just for Muslims, but also for the west. As Esposito argues, democracy in the west is arguably not a model of perfection at the end of history; rather, a re-conceptualization of democracy is viewed as a continuous imperative. Since we are not at the end of history and the United States has not yet solved all of the problems of survival in a heterogeneous world, it is as important for us to continually adapt to changing conditions as it is for Muslims. Esposito’s well-articulated views are based on a common-ground-seeking approach, not on a sophomoric us vs. them, or good vs. evil. Rather, Esposito contends, we ALL have something to benefit from each other in light of our human experience.

The challenges ahead

The Muslims who consider Islam and democracy to be incompatible need to discard their biased position based on misperceptions. In addition, those who consider these to be compatible need to jettison their apologetic approach. If Muslims find adequate convergence between Islam and democracy, it is not because some or many scholars Muslims or non-Muslims think so and that they would like us to tread the path of democracy. Rather, Islamic governance a constitutional, participatory and accountable form is essentially based on the consent of the people or those who are governed, and thus democratic. The benefits of accumulated human experience are important to us Muslims as well. However, our interest in Islamic governance, based on peoples consent, is not and should not be because the west wants us to follow them or because we need to modernize ourselves; rather, because we need to cherish and uphold consent-based governance, founded on the core principles and values of Islam.

Muslims must also recognize the historical fact that for nearly fourteen centuries the system of governance, though progressive and dynamic compared to the other contemporary societies and civilizations of the time, has been based not on what is popularly described as Khilafat. Since the time to Muawiya, the Khilafat turned into Mulukiyaah (hereditary monarchy). That was an important turning point, because this replacement of Khilafat with Mulukiyyah was actually a counter-revolution against the revolution of the Prophet Muhammad. The political legacy that followed and on the basis of which has evolved our current dysfunctional state is rooted in that counter-revolution, not the revolution of the Prophet and the legacy of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs. One may find things to disagree about some of the thoughts of Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, but his characterization of this crucial turning point as a counter-revolution is an important contribution toward understanding the hereditary political institutions in the Muslim world that stands in contradiction to the vision and values of the Quran and the legacy and heritage of the Prophet and the Rightly Guided Caliphs.

There is also a constructive role to be played by the non-Muslim world. Whenever Muslims find such convergence with democracy, those among the non-Muslims who care about democracy should desist the characterization that now Muslims are modernizing themselves and deviating from Islam. Such characterization only serves to legitimize and reinforce the radicals and the traditionalists, and their radical/traditional interpretations. Moreover, there is no short-cut to a presumably monolithic, mature democracy. As Graham Fuller writes: Modern liberal governance is more likely to take root through organically evolving liberal Islamist trends at the grassroots level than from imported Western modules of instant democracy. Fuller admonishes his fellow westerners: Non-Muslims should understand that democratic values are latent in Islamic thought if one wants to look for them, and that it would not be more natural and organic for the Muslim world to derive contemporary liberal practices from its own sources than to import them wholesale from foreign cultures.

On another front, a mutual challenge has to be met. Muslims need to converge toward a consensus that they would settle for only constitutional, participatory and accountable form of government (call it democracy or anything you like). Non-Muslims, especially the West, also need to realize that, just like the West or Islam is not monolithic, so is not democracy. If they would like to see a new world where all people seek and value constitutional, participatory and accountable form of governance, then, once again, the substance is what matters, not label or semantics.

Lastly, even though the West regularly sermonizes the rest of the world about the virtue of democracy, the West or the dominant powers of the West fundamentally remains an obstacle against the emergence of democracy in the Muslim world, because the current global domination is more compatible and safer with autocratic or despotic rulers some of which are puppets of the West and some are kept cornered or marginalized by the West. This Western power block is not willing to trust any rise of Islam, even if the Muslims believe in and uphold a constitutional, participatory, and accountable form of government.

Muslims still have a sacred and a historical duty to rise up to a dual challenge. Internally, they must persevere to establish a system of governance that is Islamic (and thus democratic). They must also rise up to challenge the Western hegemony that only sermonizes about democracy, but actually works against any genuine democratic transformation in the Muslim world.

If, in a problem-solving manner and in accordance with the guidance of Islam, Muslims desire to be effective in dealing with the issues that deeply affect them, they need to have the unshakable conviction that despite their current dismal condition, their role is not merely to work out their own problems, but also they do have something valuable to offer to the humanity and the West in balancing the extremities of the modern times. Indeed, the West could not have been what it is today without critical contributions from the Islamic civilization as more than just a bridge-builder. While the West may not readily acknowledge it, Muslims must not forget this historical fact when assessing their present situation and taking stock of their potentials and responsibilities.

While some cant get over their preoccupation with the clash of civilization paradigm, especially in the context of Islam and the West, there are conscientious western scholars who look forward to a new phase of relationship between Islam and the West: If ever the opposition of the great societies of the East and west is to be replaced by cooperation, the mediation of Islam is an indispensable condition.” [H.A.R. Gibb, WHITHER ISLAM, p. 379] Muslims also need to realize their historic responsibility in this regard. 

The whole nation is in mourning as over 150 precious lives were lost in the tragic air crash on Margalla Hills in Islamabad. The plane was merely eight kilometres away from its final destination. The rescue operation, as usual, happened without much management though all the organisations, including the armed forces, took part in recovering the dead bodies in a difficult terrain. We all should acknowledge the good work by our rescuers. However, the National Disaster Management Authority, which has a clear mandate in times of national disasters, was missing all the way. The NDMA is the leading agency at the federal level and it is the executive arm of the National Disaster Management Commission (NDMC), which has been established under the chairmanship of the prime minister as the apex policy-making body in the field of disaster management. This authority should have played a pivotal role in the rescue efforts but the usual chaos and mismanagement were seen at the incident site with literally common men taking part in the operation. In our part of the world, we have a number of these so-called authorities and commissions with fancy vision and mission statements but they usually falter in testing times.

The vision statement of the NDMA reads and I quote: “To achieve sustainable social, economic and environmental development in Pakistan through reducing risks and vulnerabilities, particularly those of the poor and marginalised groups, and by effectively responding to and recovering from all types of disaster events.” The mission statement of the NDMA reads and I quote: “To manage complete spectrum of disasters by adopting a disaster risk reduction perspective in development planning at all levels, and through enhancing institutional capacities for disaster preparedness, response and recovery.” The website of the NDMA is worth reading as it seems to cover a wide spectrum of national disasters but it’s merely lip service in my opinion. I request the honourable prime minister to kindly pay due consideration to such commissions and authorities especially in terms of their effectiveness.

The expansions which followed Christopher Columbus’ s voyage to the Americas resulted in the destruction of great civilizations the Aztec, Inca, and Maya. The Indians of North America suffered a similar fate. Nearly all of God’s creation including land and labour were turned into commodities in the capitalist sense of the word. People were kidnapped, bought, transported and sold. The demographic colour of continents changed with white settlers and black slaves displacing the brown natives in the Americas and the Caribbean.

A world system of unparalleled political, economic and cultural dimension, was created and continually reinforced by new technology. In the industrial age, the expansionist drive moved on to Asia and Africa most of which was colonized. At the start of the 20th century, nearly all of the world’s non-Western peoples were under some form of Western domination, and remain hopelessly trapped in structures of extreme inequality which is not merely economic.

“The conquest of earth, which means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much”, wrote Joseph Conrad in Heart of Darkness, a novel set in Congo which was colonized by Belgium at the turn of the century. Conrad, who sailed up the Congo river in 1890, witnessed the enterprise that cost an estimated ten million lives. He betrays but little empathy for the African victims and none whatsoever for their history or culture. The “heart of darkness” is situated, nevertheless, in Europe not Africa, in London and Brussels, above all, in Kurtz, the legendary agent of the Belgian company “his mother was half English, his father was half French who symbolizes corporate greed, inhumanity in extremis and the quest of redemption in an idea. “All Europe”, wrote Conrad, “contributed to the making of Kurtz.” How could an enlightened civilization engage in so “not a pretty thing”?

Conrad’s answer is implied in the above quotation: do not “look into it too much.” That requires the complicity of intellectuals. From inertia and ignorance no less than active belief in the imperial mission, the intellectuals of the West complied by and large. The fate of the great hemispheric civilizations merited but a rare and eccentric recording. Until very recently, we knew little about the holocaust in the Congo which had gone on right into the twentieth century. We did not hear about the struggles in which civilizations perished and some 200 million people died until a battle occurred in which a Custer was killed or a Gordon was besieged.

The habit of ‘not looking into it too much’ persists. Since the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, not one major work of history, art, or cinema has examined Vietnamese experience of the American intervention. By contrast, America’s experience of Vietnam has yielded a significant body of analysis and narrative. Or take a recent instance: as thieves and killers go, Mobuto, who fell from power recently, a likeness of King Leopold I, was sustained for three decades by Washington and Paris. How much did we know of his doings until the spring of 1997? Excavation of continually suppressed truths remains one of the great intellectual tasks of this our information age, a task rendered enormously difficult as governments and the media corporations democratic and otherwise have gained a certain monopoly over historical truths. They distort and bum them freely. I have just learned that the CIA has destroyed the records of its murderous Third World interventions, including its overthrow in 1953 of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh’s elected government in Iran.

Conrad suggests another mechanism of rescuing imperial conscience: “What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretence but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea something you can set up and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to…” We all know the idea from popularized redemptive phrases White Man’s Burden, La Mission Civilizatrice, Manifest Destiny. Like all mobilizing slogans these were merely the lowest common denominator of the imperial consensus. Notions of racial superiority and divine ordination, the contrast between the West’s higher mission and the native’s humble reality, were not the only ideas that redeemed imperialism. Beginning with Edward Said’s Orientalism, first published in 1979, a significant body of works in criticism, history, and cultural studies have excavated the deep roots and complex structures of imperial ideologies. They took many forms which have penetrated deep in our knowledge system and consciousness both Western and non- Western.

Boundaries were drawn to deny our common humanity. An ideology of difference possessed the empires’ intellectuals and administrators. They had a mania for classifying people and viewed each as a distinct, necessarily divisible entity. Easy intermingling of peoples was regarded as somehow unnatural. Edward Said points to how the English were astonished to find Muslims, Christians and Jews socializing as though they were not different species. So in the novel Tanered, one of Disraeli’s characters quips that ‘Arabs are simply Jews on horseback, and all are orientals at heart.’ The policy of divide and rule flowed easily from this sectarian outlook.

While the menace of miscegenation haunted imperial cultures and barriers of policy and social sanctions were erected to prevent it, complex mechanisms emerged to break the barriers to conquest and domination. There was the notion of mystery, as in the mysterious East, an invitation to exploration. Mysteries, after all, demand solution by enlightened, knowledgeable men. Or the idea of darkness, as in the dark continent to which one should bring light. Or the notion of empty lands which of course needed filling up. Or the veritable literature on identifiable, collective mind the Arab mind, Hindu mind, etc. that is still prevalent. All led to a set of common conclusions: they are not like us. They are different. Hence they can be treated differently, according to standards other than those that apply in civilized places. The outlook was so embedded in civilization that it traversed centuries. One finds strange bedfellows, separated in time and space. ‘We must save Chile from the irresponsibility of its people’, Henry Kissinger was reported to have said while proceeding to destabilize the elected government of Salvadore Allende. A century earlier Karl Marx had written: “They cannot represent themselves. They have to be represented.” Third World dictators give precisely this argument to justify their tyranny. This culture is pervasive, it cuts across continents and penetrates our outlook by a variety of mediums. As I outline this talk in the flight from Islamabad to New York, Pakistan International Airlines shows Star Trek: First Contact. I snip at what looks like a high-tech, outer-space replay of an earlier voyage into an ‘undiscovered’ world. Commander Jean-Luc Picard plays a modern-day Cortes, leading the crew of the newly commissioned Enterprise E to war against the Borg “an insidious race”, informs the PIA flier.

Those “half organic aliens” appear like Indians in the early Westerns mysteriously, ubiquitously and sometimes seductively. Violence flows freely as ‘contact’ is made. Fallen aliens are shot even as they beg for mercy. Captain Jean-Luc Picard and his crew commit quite a holocaust with an insouciance we are expected to appreciate only because they have vanquished an alien race mysterious, dangerous, seductive and, ultimately, vulnerable. The Borgs have no individual identity, only a collective one. Their defeat is deemed final only when their roots are destroyed, when their head which assures life’s motion to the entire race is cut off. An idea redeems this “mission”; once contact has been made the world will change. Promises Captain Picard: “Poverty, disease, and war will end.”

Star Trek is but a crude, popular expression of the culture of imperialism. This culture is not Western any more. Rather, it enjoys hegemony, it has become global. Note an irony: Pakistan International Airlines, which will not serve wine to passengers, happily serves up Captain Picard on its flights.

Satan called a worldwide convention of demons.

In his opening address he said,

“We can’t keep Muslims from going to Mosque.”

“We can’t keep them from reading their Quran and knowing the truth.”

“We can’t even keep them from forming an intimate relationship with their Allah and his messenger Muhammad.”

“Once they gain that connection with Allah, our power over them is broken.”

“So let them go to their Mosques; let them have their covered dish dinners, BUT steal their time, so they don’t have time to develop a relationship with Allah and his messenger Muhammad.”

“This is what I want you to do,” said the devil:

“Distract them from gaining hold of their Allah and maintaining that vital connection throughout their day!”

“How shall we do this?” his demons shouted.

“Keep them busy in the non-essentials of life and invent innumerable schemes to occupy their minds,” he answered.

“Tempt them to spend, spend, spend, and borrow, borrow, borrow.”

“Persuade the wives to go to work for long hours and the husbands to work 6-7 days each week, 10-12 hours a day, so they can afford their empty lifestyles.”

“Keep them from spending time with their children.”

“As their families fragment, soon, their homes will offer no escape from the pressures of work!”

“Over-stimulate their minds so that they cannot hear that still, small voice.”

“Entice them to play the radio or cassette player whenever they drive.” “To keep the TV, VCR, CDs and their PCs going constantly in their home and see to it that every store and restaurant in the world plays music constantly.”

“This will jam their minds and break that union with Allah and his messenger Muhammad.”

“Fill the coffee tables with magazines and newspapers.”

“Pound their minds with the news 24 hours a day.”

“Invade their driving moments with billboards.”

“Flood their mailboxes with junk mail, mail order catalogs, sweepstakes, and every kind of newsletter and promotional offering free products, services and false hopes.”

“Keep skinny, beautiful models on the magazines and TV so their husbands will believe that outward beauty is what’s important, and they’ll become dissatisfied with their wives. “

“Keep the wives too tired to love their husbands at night.”

Give them headaches too!

“If they don’t give their husbands the love they need, they will begin to look elsewhere.”

“That will fragment their families quickly!”

“Give them story books to distract them from teaching their children the real meaning of Salat.”

“Keep them too busy to go out in nature and reflect on Allah’s creation. Send them to amusement parks, sporting events, plays, concerts, and movies instead. “Keep them busy, busy, busy!”

“And when they meet for spiritual fellowship, involve them in gossip and small talk so that they leave with troubled consciences. “

“Crowd their lives with so many good causes they have no time to seek power from Allah.”

“Soon they will be working in their own strength, sacrificing their health and family for the good of the cause.”

“It will work!” “It will work!”

It was quite a plan!

The demons went eagerly to their assignments causing Muslims everywhere to get busier and more rushed, going here and there.

Having little time for their Allah or their families.

Having no time to tell others about the power of Allah and his messenger Muhammad to change lives.

I guess the question is, has the devil been successful in his schemes?

You be the judge!!!!!

Does “BUSY” mean:

B-eing

U-nder

S-atan’s

Y-oke?

Think about it ……………