Nauman's Blog - The Ironies of Politics

In Defense of Tariq Ali

2008-11-30T04:05:00.003-05:00

An op-ed piece was recently published in the Hamilton Spectator about the author, Tariq Ali who gave a talk at the University of Toronto. I attended the event. The writer of the article, Tahir Aslam Gora, wrote against Tariq Ali and made a number of accusations against the political left. Being an admirer of Tariq Ali as well as a leftist, I wrote a reply to him and I am posting that here too. The original article can be read at the this link:

http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/472990

Here is my reply:

A reply to “Of Muslim leftists and liberalism”

Mr. Gora,

Your article shows a clear misunderstanding and with all due respect, a lack of reading of Tariq Ali’s work. Most of the claims you have made against him would be clarified if you read his book The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads, and Modernity (Verso, 2002) [henceforth referred to as CF]

A confession: I am a long time admirer of Tariq Ali as a writer, political activist, and leftist. His ideas have always been very inspiring to me and I consider myself a leftist.

You first of all refer to Tariq Ali as a “progressive Muslim”. This is not true. Mr. Ali is for sure progressive but is not a Muslim. The first chapter of the book I mentioned above has the title "An Atheist Childhood" and clarifies this point in a memorable way: “I never really believed in God.” (CF, p. 15)

I attended the event you refer to of Mr. Ali’s recent visit to Toronto on November 14th and he did not praise the Taliban or Hezbollah. As for the Taliban, he said (and I’m paraphrasing) that they are the only ones fighting the Americans in Afghanistan and this is causing spillage of the war into Pakistan. I’m sure you will agree that these are true facts. They do not imply that he is praising the Taliban. He has never made a secret of the fact that in his opinion, the American and NATO forces should leave Afghanistan. The occupation of Afghanistan should end. But you take this to mistakenly think that he agrees with the Taliban’s political and religious agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth. He has said: “I opposed this latest Afghan war. I do not accept the right of big powers to change governments as and when it affects their interests. But I did not shed any tears for the Taliban as they shaved their beards and ran back home.” (CF, p. 304)

Mr. Ali pointed out that a great majority of Lebanese people, Muslims and Christians, praised the Hezbollah leadership because they were able to drive Israel out of Lebanon in the year 2000. This is also a true fact and again does not mean that Mr. Ali agrees or endorses the political and religious agenda of Hezbollah.

You have said that Mr. Ali “never utters a word in favour of Kurds”. He has indeed spoken and written about their history and their plight and has pointed out the injustices committed by the Iraqi, Turkish and Iranian governments against the Kurds. But when the Kurdish nationalists collaborated with the Americans during the occupation of Iraq in 2003, he also spoke against that action. A detailed article by Mr. Ali on the topic of the Kurds that was originally published in the London Review of Books can be read here:

http://www.tariqali.org/LRBdiary2.html

I will be honest with you. I was genuinely happy to not see Tarek Fatah at the event in Toronto. His version of “progressive” politics is one I don’t agree with. But here is not the place to go into the details of that. He says in your article that Mr. Ali has made common cause with the Islamists. Well, let’s see what Mr. Ali has to say: “What do the Islamists offer? A route to a past which, mercifully for the people of the seventh century, never existed. If the ‘Emirate of Afghanistan’ is the model for what they want to impose on the world then the bulk of Muslims would rise up in arms against them. Don’t imagine that either Osama or Mullah Omar represent the future of Islam. It would be a major disaster for the culture we both share if that turned out to be the case.” (CF, p. 304)

You mention that the left has often targeted four writers: Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Taslima Nasreen, and Irshad Manji. The left speaks against them for one simple reason; these authors openly support imperialist interventions in the rest of the world. Salman Rushdie is a brilliant novelist and once long ago was a supporter of leftist causes. He wrote The Jaguar Smile: A Nicaraguan Journey in support of the Nicaraguan people’s rise against the American intervention in that country but has since changed sides. He supported the American bombing of Yugoslavia as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and even spoke with some sympathy for General Musharraf of Pakistan. Tariq Ali wrote the play Iranian Nights in support of Salman Rushdie in 1989 during the height of the Satanic Verses affair. But since Rushdie changed his mind and has shown open support for American wars, so Tariq Ali has spoken against him. As for Irshad Manji, after penning the poorly written The Trouble with Islam, I doubt she has anything else to write about. She too openly supports imperialism and is an avid defender of Israeli crimes in the Occupied Territories. She is nothing more than a Zionist sympathizer who happens to be Muslim. And it might interest you to know that she considers Israel to be a bigger supporter of multiculturalism than Canada because in Israel, according to her, the road signs are written in both Hebrew and Arabic while in Canada, only some cities have signs in both English and French. What can one say to such childish logic which I heard at her talk in 2004 at Dalhousie University. In short, her only claim to fame is that she speaks against Islam while supporting American and Israeli imperialism. And for this reason, Mr. Ali spoke against her too. What’s wrong with that?

Lastly you accuse Tariq Ali of anti-Americanism. This false accusation has gotten so old it’s not even funny. All major leftist authors like Tariq Ali, Noam Chomsky, and the late Edward Said have always been accused of this sin which they have never committed. My reply to it is clear and simple and even I’ve gotten tired of repeating it: speaking against the domestic and foreign policies of the American government does not imply a hatred of America. Just like speaking against the Harper government’s involvement in Afghanistan does not make me anti-Canadian. You who claim to be “liberated enough to support the true values of liberalism” should know that.

Regards,

Nauman Mir
Toronto, Ontario

Haifa

2008-03-21T00:56:00.003-04:00

Nauman Mir

HAIFA

“I only wish she could have been here today.” Huda’s voice was filled with melancholy.
“I know sweetie,” Haifa replied. “My mom wanted to come over so much but of course, he didn’t let her.” The green grass heaved in the summer wind. French words mingled with English ones as hundreds of graduates posed for family photos with the Victorian and gothic university architecture in the background. Dark gowns fluttered as different coloured velvet hoods reflected in the sunshine. They both walked silently hand in hand as they saw Ayesha approaching in the distance.

Five years earlier

“As I said, it is forbidden.”
“Why? I want to know the reason.”
“Our respected scholars consider it a minor form of sodomy. It’s an act that equates us with the beasts.”
“But won’t you agree that what two consenting adults do in the bedroom is no one else’s business?”
“We should remember that in all matters including the sexual, consenting adults also need the consent of God.” He smiled cunningly. “That is what makes us different from the unbelievers.”
“Hmm.”
“Thank you Dr. Leila. Let’s go to our next caller. What is your question for Imam sahib?” The TV show host with a neatly trimmed beard and puffed up blow-dried hair moderated the calls on the weekly show Call the Imam. People phoned to ask Imam Kutty, the local preacher, about different social problems. The camera remained fixed on both men for the one hour show. They sat on two chairs with a round table in between them. Some white sheets of paper along with two crystal clear glasses of water were next to both men.

“Imam sahib I found The Perfumed Garden in my 17-year-old daughter’s room. I didn’t know anything about it but the subtitle An Arabian Manual of Love alerted my senses.” The next caller spoke in a deep voice.
“The 16th century book by Sheikh Nefzawi?”
“Yes.”
“Where did she find that?”
“She said some friend gave it to her. I looked through it and it had such filth about the…you know…intimate… umm…relations between men and women…I couldn’t believe a Muslim wrote this book.”
“Yes, sadly he strayed from the path of decency.”
“I threw the book out and now my daughter is being very rebellious. What should I do Imam sahib?”
“You did the right thing brother. I was talking about this in my sermon last week that we as parents should keep in check what our children read. One woman came crying to me at the mosque.” He took a sip of water and cleared his throat. “Her son had said to her that he didn’t believe in God any more and that life was meaningless. I asked her to find out what he had been reading and she discovered The Gay Science under his pillow. He had gotten those perverse, ungodly ideas from that book which contains the random thoughts of a German madman called Nietzsche. My advice to you is the same I gave to that woman; cleanse your home from such vile literature and try to convince your daughter to read the Qur’an daily. It is much more eloquently written than any book in the world. God willing, it will provide her with guidance and understanding. I would also suggest thinking about getting her married. The only place to enjoy sexual activity is within marriage. It will help curb those urges towards destructive self-pleasure.”

Haifa lay on the bed in Huda’s room. Their hands were on the footboard and their feet just above the pillows. Haifa was repulsed by the answer her father had given to the concerned caller. He ran his fingers through his long dark beard before Haifa changed the channel.

“He is such a stranger to what is happening in his own home. You know one of my favourite lines from The Perfumed Garden?”
“What?” Huda asked curiously.
“The intelligence of each man is in an inverse proportion to the length of his beard.” Haifa laughed infectiously and Huda loved how her eyes squinted a little when she chuckled. Her thumb came to rest next to the channel button on the remote as her eyes admired the suntanned heaving breasts and grinding asses in one of those countless rap videos that seemed to have the same monotonous drum beat. Their shoulders touched and she fondled the double-heart pendant of her necklace; a Valentine’s Day gift from Huda. She let it go and the silver interconnected hearts dangled just above the beginning of her curvaceous youthful bosom. Her straight dark hair covered her red spaghetti strap tank top till the middle of her back.

“I’m glad you’re staying the night Huda.”
“Yeah, me too.”
“I wish both of us could be together like this…all the time.”
“We will…soon.”
“Yeah, in university for sure.”
“School will be done in a month and off we are to university after the summer.”
“It’s so exciting. Finally we’ll have the freedom to live together like we’ve always wanted.”

They both cuddled and talked as the balmy summer breeze through the half-opened window lovingly touched their bodies. Haifa always forgot the worries of her life when she was with Huda. She just had a way of making her happy. A wisp of her hair came down and touched the side of her nose. Haifa moved it back and saw the kindness that her brown eyes possessed behind those long dark lashes. She placed a kiss on her forehead softly. They enjoyed the taste of each other’s lips before they took off their tops. Her nipples gradually hardened from the warmth of Haifa’s mouth on her breasts. Her eyelids closed in satisfaction as Haifa licked the inside of her belly button; something she always waited for her to do. She moved down and the sole of Huda’s feet tickled a little by the moving tip of Haifa’s tongue along with the occasional touch of her quivering lips. “Your feet always have that sweet apricot smell.” Haifa patiently nibbled on her toes one after the other. The saliva moistened fingers of Huda’s right hand moved up and down as the edge of her palm rubbed against the patch of hair between her legs.

“I cannot watch this anymore, astagfirullah, this happened in my house?…my own daughter? God forgive me.” Imam Kutty said angrily as he turned off the camcorder. His face was red with anger.
“When you first told me that you suspected this, I did not believe you. I could never imagine that my Haifa would ever do such a thing. And I didn’t like the idea of spying on them. But after watching this….performance…I don’t know what to say.”
“I wonder how long has this been going on right under our noses, but we have to figure out how to end it Fauzia.”
“You’re right.”
“I never wanted the two of them to be friends.”
“Huda seemed so innocent and nice. Her mother too will be devastated.”
“Her mother’s a whore. What has she been reading?”
“I don’t know.”
“You’re her mother Fauzia and you don’t know?”
“Whatever she read or not, we have to deal with this problem.”

Sadia was shocked by the news she received about her daughter and stayed in her room alone for most of the day. She talked to Huda calmly the next day who was somewhat surprised at her mom’s reaction; she had said that if this was the lifestyle she wanted for herself, then she would accept that. Both hugged and talked for a long time. The argument that had taken place between her and her dad was reenacting in Haifa’s mind over and over as she sat grounded in her room.

“A month from now, at the end of July, we will have your wedding.”
“What?” Haifa was stunned.
“It’s the best thing for you. You’ve been engaged to Anwar for two years and it is good to have the marriage done now. He is a good boy and will get your mind off that misguided girl.”
“Huda is not misguided. I love her more than my own life and I want to be with her. How can I marry him? I am not attracted to boys.” He gave her a stern look but she felt a kind of relief at finally saying the truth openly.
“Why are you intent on destroying our family’s reputation? To live a sinful life, is that what you want? We have a standing in the community. I am an imam.”
“Yeah, if only people knew the truth about you.” Haifa retorted. He paused for a moment.
“People respect me….respect us for our religiousity and if anyone finds out about this we will hear taunts the rest of our life that we failed to raise our daughter properly. You’re getting married and that’s that.” He left the room hurriedly. She spent most of the day crying and late at night, called Huda. She stared at the ceiling deep in thought after the hour long conversation and then turned off the lights.

The night gradually merged into morning. The rays of the sun had not yet peaked through the pinkish red clouds that filled the sky. The dewy sweet softness of the wind caressed her face as she got to the corner of the street and turned to look at her home. Images flashed before her eyes: playing in the street with friends, long talks with her mom on the porch, and kissing Huda for the first time underneath the spring snow magnolia tree. She held back her tears and walked through the deserted early morning streets that calmly awaited the hustle and bustle of everyday life. After about half an hour, she got off the bus and rang a door bell. The house was old but the varnish on the dark brown tulipwood door was relatively new. She saw somebody approaching behind the stained glass.

“Hello Sadia Jee.”
“Come on in dear.” Their supple cheeks met as they kissed the air tenderly.
“Thank you for having me over.” She put her two bags and a stone coloured purse next to the shoe rack near the coat closet.
“You drink tea, right?” She didn’t wait for her response. “My tea is very special. You’ll like it.” Huda came up from the basement. Her eyes were a bit puffy and there were sleep creases on her left cheek. They hugged and Huda’s lips touched Haifa’s ear. She didn’t let go for a few moments. The comfort of her arms was something Haifa badly needed at this time. They sat down on the kitchen table and Haifa tried to distract her mind. She noticed that Sadia’s silk night gown tied firmly around her waist made her hips look slightly bigger though she was of slender build. She had always liked Sadia’s bob cut brunette hair whose sides gently swayed when she moved. She spoke constantly as the water boiled on the stove with tea leaves, cardamom and crushed aniseeds. The reddish orange glow of the stove burner became lighter as she added milk. The tea slowly simmered in the open pot for the next five minutes. She then added two cinnamon sticks to the mixture and less than a minute later, poured the tea.

“You want some too dear?” She spoke a little louder.
“No, I have to get going.” A man’s voice came from upstairs.
“Once they get what they want, they can barely wait till sunrise to leave.” She put the tea mugs on the table. Huda’s parents had divorced some years ago and rumours of Sadia having different boyfriends were rampant in many households. Haifa saw Sadia share a light peck with him before he left.
“You make yourself at home, ok? Don’t worry about anything.” There was a touch of sleepiness in her voice. “What your parents are doing is very wrong. I would confront them but this is a delicate situation. We’ll call them later today and try to resolve things step by step.”
“I really appreciate what you’re doing for me Sadia Jee.”
“O’ it’s the least I can do sweetheart.” The conversation between the three continued as they devoured the spicy ham omelet that though Haifa hadn’t requested today like before, Huda knew she would like it.
He read the handwritten note and feelings of anger and resentment were followed surprisingly by sexual thoughts; the electrifying sensation that went through his entire body the first time his middle finger moved against the smoothness of her vulva just as she finished urinating. Her delicate rosebud like skin excited him. At a rented summer cottage years later, he intentionally opened the door of the room where he knew she was getting dressed. She hurriedly covered her body but he caught a glimpse of her naked back and hips. He could not curb the intensity of his desire one day and walked….his cell phone rang.

Sadia had somewhat successfully mediated the tension between Haifa and her father though Imam Kutty had privately expressed derision towards Sadia. Over the course of the past four months, the boiling issues between father and daughter had cooled down. Imam Kutty had reluctantly agreed to not proceed with Haifa’s wedding. He still held a great deal of contempt for the lifestyle that Haifa had chosen and had told her that he didn’t wish to see her any more. Fauzia too had a hard time accepting that which she had never anticipated arising in her family – homosexuality. She held herself guilty and wished she had done more to protect her beloved daughter from the hedonism that pervaded Western culture. Despite that, a mother’s heart could not resist a daughter’s affection. Haifa called her at those times when she knew her father would not be home. On a few occasions, Fauzia secretly met her at the university bringing with her Haifa’s favourite meals like the Aloo Keema today. She rolled a small piece of roti filled with it between her thumb and the next two fingers. She dipped it in the homemade cucumber yogurt sauce that was sprinkled with cumin seeds. The well cooked spicy minced meat mixed with small cut pieces of potatoes alongside a touch of coriander leaves made her mouth water every time. Fauzia remembered in nostalgia how when Haifa was nine, for about a year, she refused to eat anything else but that for lunch and dinner.

“You’re so tight, you’re soo tight.”
“Haifa, honey?”
“Hmm?” She woke up drenched in sweat.
“You sounded so anxious, that’s why I came into your room. I hope you don’t mind.”
“No, no, it’s ok Sadia Jee.”
“Here, have some water.”
“O’ thank you.”
“A nightmare?”
“Yeah. It’s one that comes to me from time to time.” She spoke after placing the empty glass on the side table next to The Embroidered Couch. The familiar book cover reminded Sadia that she had read the ancient Chinese pillow book during her university days.
“Really?”
“The dream again?” Huda sat up with her back against the pillow. She moved her arm around her.
“Yeah.” Haifa replied.
“What happened…in the dream I mean.” Sadia asked empathetically as she sat down at the edge of the bed.
“Umm, it was three years ago. But I still see everything so vividly.” She told all the details of that dreaded afternoon.
“Who was it?” Sadia asked but Haifa looked down on the blanket.
“Let’s get your shirt changed. It’s all wet. We can talk about this later mom.”
“O’ ok,” Sadia understood in Huda’s expression that she wanted to be alone with Haifa. “I guess I’ll go to my room then.”
“I’m here with you baby.” Huda said as the door closed.
“I know my love, sorry that I woke you up. I know I won’t be able to sleep for a while now.”
“It’s ok sweetie,” She held her hand. “Hey, you wanna go for a walk?”
“I don’t know.”
“It’s so nice out. I know you like walking in the warm nights. We’ll just go around the block and come back…...I’ll buy you that raspberry yogurt you like so much. It will make you feel better and then we can sleep. Ok?”

The yellow autumn leaves on the sidewalk crunched beneath their feet. They were singing in a low voice together as their arms surrounded each other’s backs. They stopped for a few moments and giggled as they heard the sounds of a woman moaning in pleasure from the open window of a house.

“You think she’s faking it?” Huda asked amusedly.
“If it’s with a man, then of course she’s faking.” The giggling continued and Huda playfully groped Haifa’s breast. As they turned left onto their street a hand tapped her shoulder and they both turned around. The face of the person was not clear in the darkness.

“Why didn’t you call before?” Imam Kutty said angrily.
“Things didn’t go according to plan.”
“What do you mean?”
“Jabir came back finally. They stuck his own knife in his arm.”
“What?”
“He rushed back badly injured and I had to send one of my other men to go into the fuckin’ area and clear it up. The only thing he found was a fuckin’ torn T-shirt.”
“Listen, I’m paying you a lot of money and you can’t even do your job? She knows a secret so grave that she needs to be silenced.”
“It’s never happened before. I mean I…” Imam Kutty interrupted him.
“I don’t care what did or did not happen in the past, I want this done fast.” He slammed the phone on the glass of the desk where it slipped and fell on the other side. His nostrils flared as he sat in the chair behind the desk. His thoughts were muddled and a cold sweat dripped from his armpit onto the side of his chest.
“Who’s calling this late?” He hadn’t even noticed Fauzia standing at the door.
“Just some business. Go back to sleep.” He looked at her and then at some papers in front of him pretending to be busy. She wanted to probe more but decided against it.

“I feel scared Sadia Jee.”
“I am too.” Huda said. Sadia remained silent. Haifa saw her eyes slowly following the handmade patterns on the red Turkish rug that lay in the middle of the room. Both looked at each other and then at Sadia. The early morning sounds of car engines began to fill the silence as people left for work and school.
“You girls need to be in a safe place. You were both lucky this time thank God and I have to say very brave too. The fact that you actually hit him and then attacked him with his own dagger, requires a lot of guts. I don’t like bloodshed but what you did is something to be proud of.”
“What if he’s still around?” Haifa said worriedly.
“He probably tried to escape but he might try to attack again so you girls have to go from here. The only person I can really trust is my friend Ayesha in Montreal. I know she can keep a secret and she will take good care of you. I will talk to her now and get you on the first bus.”
“How long will we stay there?” Huda asked.
“I don’t know, a week, two weeks, more….until we can be a little sure that things are ok.”
“How will we be sure? Shouldn’t we tell the police?”
“We could but for how long? The police protection will come to an end someday.”
“I guess you’re right.”

She looked at the skyline and then the lake with longing eyes as the bus left Toronto. It felt like she would never return. The city she loved to call home was one where her life was in danger. There was no guarantee that if she returned after a month or two, some killer would not be waiting to take her life for money. She was pretty sure who must have given the order. “Only a snake kills and eats its own offspring, how could a human do the same?” A thought that repeated itself in her mind several times. Ayesha had been very kind and helpful to them. She had a son who was a year older than Haifa and both girls developed a friendship with him in the two weeks that had gone by.

She gently scrubbed her soft feet. The tiny apricot cleanser granules resisted the flowing water between her toes. She bent down and brushed them off with her fingertip. She stood still for a few moments as the warm water glided down her face following the contours of her body and swirled a little above the drain before disappearing. She messaged her scalp with lavender oil shampoo and cleared some of lather above her eyebrows. She closed her eyes and took in the soothing gardenia and honey fragrance of the soap.

He peeked in through the slit between the door and the frame. He had done this before. The image aroused him as he slowly walked in and opened the opaque misty shower door. She turned around in shock and the soap slipped from her hand and fell between her feet. Before she could say anything, he quickly put his right hand on her mouth but instead of his skin, she felt thick duct tape on her lips. He moved behind her and tied a long white shoe lace around her wrists. She screamed but her voice remained muffled. He put his right hand on her stomach while his left hand forcefully pushed her. Her back arched forward and her head hit the tiled wall. He unzipped his pants and moved faster and faster. The shampoo stung her left eye. The water from the shower splashed between his crotch and her hips. A few moments later, he groaned as if in pain and a slimy warm liquid slowly dripped down her lower back. Her hair touched the side of his face as she felt the pull of the shoe lace on her throat. She choked as he tightened his grip more and more. She tried to move left and right but to no avail. “Where is she?” He slammed her head against the glass and it tilted to one side. He moved backwards and loosened his hands as her hips touched the floor; she had lost consciousness. There were drops of blood in the water and some blood on the inside of her legs. He let the water wash her body for a few minutes before turning off the faucet. He sat down on the toilet seat and smoothed his beard within his fist a couple of times. Three men came in, covered the body in garbage bags and took it in their van.

“Tell us where she is.”
“I don’t know.”
“You don’t know or you don’t want us to know, huh?” The fat man with a thick mustache splashed an ice cold jug of water on Sadia’s face. The water trickled down her naked chest settling in the middle of the chair she was tied to.
“Please, I really don’t know.”
“Spare yourself the trouble. We won’t say anything to your daughter. We just want Haifa.” A slim tall man sitting on a metal chair to the right continued. “Don’t try to be a saint. Just tell us her address and we’ll let you go. If you don’t…”
“What if I don’t?”
“Ah, so you do know indeed.”
“Do whatever you want, I’m not gonna tell.”
“Whatever we want? O’ if you only knew what we are capable of, you wouldn’t say that.” Sadia looked at him with terrified eyes trying to keep her composure. Her head was filled with pain.
“So what does she say Jabir?” A man came down the stairs to the left. There was a phone in his right hand.
“She’s resisting, she is trying to be the tough, independent woman.”
“Ha ha, yes…she is not tough, she is a harlot; I hear she fucks a different guy every night.”
“Fuck you!” Sadia spit on the floor.
“O’ see the fire that is raging inside that body.” Jabir smiled as he looked at her.
“Fellas, treat her like the whore she is. I am gonna sit here and watch the bitch moan and groan.” The man with the cell phone sat down on an empty chair. There were no windows and the stairs indicated to Sadia that she was in some kind of basement. The floor had glue stains that looked like carpet had been torn off of it. Sadia’s body shivered in the damp coldness of the room. Jabir pointed at her while he looked at a boy who seemed barely twenty who then proceeded to come behind Sadia’s chair and untied her hands. She hesitantly got up and the men in the room who circled her now, grinned. She was pushed forward by a harsh slap on her cold hips. They all laughed out loud and spanked a different part of her body and shoved her towards the guy who stood next. She had completed the circle about three times like this when suddenly someone pulled her left leg and she fell facedown on the floor. More laughter continued as she felt two strong hands around her waist followed by a forceful breach into her vagina. She kept her teary eyes closed while six men ejaculated inside her one after the other.

How long had she been asleep, she didn’t know? It seemed a few hours had past. She got up from the cold floor and looked around in the empty room. She moved her hands over her body to remove the gooey glaze but her hands remained dry. Inner and outer dirtiness were hard to distinguish for her. Two of the men came back; tied her to the chair and asked the same questions over and over. She remained silent. Finally, one of them took out a razor from the back pocket of his jeans.

Fauzia went to the mosque and walked into the room where ablutionary baths were given to dead bodies before the funeral service. She would generally perform the ritualistic baths. A woman on her early morning jog by the water’s edge of Port Hope discovered a naked dead body and had called the police. After identification, the body was transferred to Toronto and following a week long autopsy, it now lay on a wooden plank in the incense filled room of the mosque. Fauzia had been warned about the gory state of Sadia’s corpse. The head had been shaved clean. Her left nipple had been cut off. Her right breast was completely removed and Fauzia had heard that when the body was found, the torn blood covered breast was inside Sadia’s mouth. She poured lukewarm water gently over the belly and washed it away with her hand. She parted her legs and what she saw took her a back. Her labia lips seemed to have been chopped off by a sharp object. There were cigarette burns all over the body. Fauzia continued to wash it but her tears were uncontrollable as a nausea swept through her gut.

Later that night, Fauzia was in bed miles away from any trace of slumber. She couldn’t shake off the images from her mind that she had seen. The only solace she could find was in silently reciting Qur’anic verses from memory that asked for God’s protection from the evils of this world. Her eyes opened when she heard the sound of the door lock. Imam Kutty walked into the bedroom door and she could see the lust in his eyes and the hardness that had risen beneath his pants. He quickly took off his clothes and she felt the blanket slide off her body completely. She detested the fact that he wanted sex on such a gloomy day but she didn’t refuse. After twenty one years of marriage, their occasional sexual activity was very mechanical. His sexual intelligence had remained undeveloped, not that he was that bright otherwise. She knew he would be done in seven to eight minutes at most and she just wanted to get it over with. He turned her around so she was on her hands and knees. He hurriedly pulled up her white, blue striped cotton caftan and stretched her hips with his hands. There was something different about him tonight.

After a few patients, Dr. Leila saw a familiar name on the next file.
“Fauzia Kutty!” she announced in the waiting room. A large, overweight, distressed woman got up and walked slowly. Leila greeted her warmly. She had been Fauzia’s family doctor for years.

“How is Haifa these days?” She sat down in her black leather chair.
“She finally told me that she’s in Montreal. I got so worried after I heard about what had happened to Sadia. I’m begging her to come back home but she won’t tell the reason why not.”
“Any chance her father will forgive her?”
“He’s a stubborn man, I hope he will one day. Still I am thankful to Sadia, may God bless her soul. It was because of her that the tension between Haifa and her father was somewhat resolved. They still don’t talk but at least I have contact with her. Imam sahib says to me that she has dishonoured the family; people look down upon him and whisper behind his back ‘his daughter is a lesbian’.”
“Just tragic what happened to Sadia. Who would do such a thing?”
“God only knows and He will do justice…one day….Insha-Allah”
“How are you feeling, Fauzia?”
“Ah…a lot of pain actually…since last night.”
“What kind of pain?”
“Well, bleeding…..between my hips.”
“O’ really? Why don’t you lie down, I’ll have a look.” She took off her pants and underwear and laid down on her left side on the cold examining table. “I talked to Imam sahib on the phone a few months ago…on the TV show. I asked him a question I had been thinking about a lot.” She gently put her gloved hands between Fauzia legs exposing the area between her ample hips. “The sphincter muscles seem to be badly ruptured. How did this happen?”
“I told him to stop but it was like he was in another world…..he was so overcome with desire that he just kept thrusting harder and harder.”
“You mean….you mean…Imam sahib did this….”
“Yes.” She looked down on the grey carpeted floor.
“Anal sex? He told me…it’s forbidden.” A startled look prevailed on Leila’s face. Fauzia’s tears fell on the white paper sheet underneath her. She patted her on the shoulder. “With treatment, the pain will go away. Don’t cry Fauzia. It’ll be alright.”
“It’s not that.” Fauzia wiped her nose with the back of her left hand.
“What is it?”
“He has never done that to me ever before but…but as I was trying to hold back my screams from the pain of his penetrations, I heard him say something several times.”
“What?”
“Haifa! Haifa! Tight like Haifa!” Her voice trailed off.

A chill went through Leila’s body.

Haifa © 2008 Nauman Mir

Red Hair

2008-01-17T16:52:00.000-05:00

The following is my first fictional short story. -NM

Red hair

Late night

“Have you ever done this before?” Sarah slowly moved her fingers through his coarse chest hair. Saleem paused at the question and Sarah felt his warm breath on her neck. He traced the lining of her lips with his index finger. “No.” She looked into his eyes to find the truth; she believed that eyes never lied. He continued his soft, wet kisses on her neck. Her breathing gradually became faster and Saleem realized that he had found her weak spot. Everyone had a weak spot; an area that, if stimulated, quickly engulfed the entire body in sensual pleasure. And Saleem knew from experience that for many women, the neck tended to be this area. He was happy that he found Sarah’s so quick. The more time he would have taken, the more questions she would have asked.

This was Saleem and Sarah’s wedding night. They had been engaged for three years but had spoken only at family gatherings due to conservative traditions. This was the first time they had talked in private for about two hours before they had begun exploring each other physically. Can two people who don’t love each other, make love? When does having sex turn into making love? These thoughts were going through Saleem’s mind as he unzipped the back of her red wedding dress. Her golden shoes were arranged neatly at the side of the bed, without them, she was four inches shorter than him. They matched the gold-thread embroidery on her dress that Saleem hung over the rosewood screen divider in the corner of the room. She felt a slight chill as she lied down and her back touched his chest. He put his hand under her leg and told her to move it up a little. The certainty with which Saleem handled her body and the way he moved from one sexual position to the next guiding her along the way, made Sarah wonder whether this was his first time too. Later, as she let out a loud sigh, he moved up and brought his head closer to her face.

“Can I listen to your heart?”
“My heart?”
“I love the sound of the beating heart”
“I guess” she spoke in a bewildered way, still trying to catch her breath.

He placed his right ear on her chest and curiously listened as her heart calmed down. The rhythm of the heart always intrigued him. She caressed his cheek with her fingers for some time silently.

“Where did you learn to lick so well?”
“Did you like it?”
“Yes…but that’s not the answer to my question.”
“What–was–your–question?” He prolonged the words as he circled his tongue on the inner side of her right breast. She did not repeat it.
“You trust me, right Saleem?” He kept his eyes closed. He never liked talking after sex and it always annoyed him that women wanted to talk afterwards.
“Yes.”
“There is something I have to tell you, something nobody else knows.” Saleem moved to his pillow and held her hand. Sarah’s lips moved slightly but no words were uttered. After a few moments, she hesitantly began: “It’s not easy for me to trust another person and it will take me a long time to trust you. I want to tell you the reason for that from the start…….I know that as Muslims, virginity is very important to us. But I…umm when I was fourteen,” tears began to fill her eyes, “I was…was raped, Saleem” she started to cry. Saleem was taken aback at the unexpected confession and gently touched her face. “Nobody in my family knows and I could’ve hidden it from you but…..I didn’t want to…..start our relationship with a lie.” She dried her tears with the back of her hand. “That’s the reason…the rape…that I have difficulty trusting people, especially men. So my request to you is please, please don’t lie to me, ever. No matter how bad something might be, just tell me the truth. That’s the only way I can trust you, ok?”
“Yes of course” he said in an empathetic voice.
“Promise me.”
“I promise.”

They talked for a while afterwards. He comforted her and did not ask how and by whom she was raped. She did mention that she had never had a boyfriend.

“I’m gonna ask you just one more question before we sleep. Remember you promised me the truth,” A gentle smile made her misty brown eyes shine.
“Yes.”
“Was there a girl in your life, before me?” He gazed towards the wall behind her. A red headed beauty came to his mind, her arms and legs wrapped around him. He remembered the musk like fragrance of her hair.
“No.” he replied after a moment. Sarah rubbed her hand trustingly on his forearm and turned off the light. She noticed the snow falling in the window. Saleem closed his eyes. He had lied.

Afternoon

The smell of sweat permeated the room. Shannon’s hand slipped a little across Saleem’s sweaty skin. She placed passionate kisses all over his back and could taste the salt on her lips. Saleem turned around, his eyes filled with passion.

“A drink before round two?”
“Yes, my darling.” Shannon said in that melodic voice Saleem could never resist.

He went into the living room and picked up the half-empty bottle of Chardonnay from the coffee table in front of the couch. Literary magazines and newspapers were scattered on the table. Shannon was standing next to the bed drying her armpits with the white sheets as Saleem came back. There was no air-conditioning in the apartment and the hot summer day along with their intense sexual workout was making both of them sweat profusely. He couldn’t help but admire how beautiful she looked, like a Celtic goddess. Her ruffled red tresses came down a little below her shoulders. She looked at him with those dreamy blue eyes and held his gaze. He sat down on the bed next to her white satin nighty that she had worn that morning. It had elegant lace embroidery that formed a V-shaped neckline at the bottom of which was a white ribbon tied in a bow. She had picked that colour because she knew that in clothing, Saleem loved shades of white. She drank a little from the bottle and handed it back. He gulped down a larger amount. Chardonnay was very much a part of their relationship. It was their favourite wine and they would always drink it before making love and recently, had started drinking it during as well.

“Does it taste sweeter because religion forbids it?” she mischievously asked.
“Not as sweet as your lips my dear.”
“O’ you and your charming words…you always know what to say.”

She pulled him towards her and their lips met. The round tip of her delicate nose bent a little against his. As they parted, Saleem got that taste of oak-seasoned wine from her mouth that he always craved when he and Sarah would make love. Sarah never drank. He had tried to hide his drinking from her and was successful for a few months after their marriage but she eventually found out. They had argued about it. “God will never forgive a person who drinks alcohol” Saleem remembered her saying last month, or was it the month before? He wasn’t sure, the same argument had happened over and over. They had grown apart in these four years of marriage due to one reason – she was quite religious, he was not at all. Every tenet of religion that she followed, he defied.

“I love drinking with you Shannon.”
“Me too.”
“Life is just simple when I’m with you.”
“You want me to make it complicated?” She gave him a flirtatious look.
“We have such great discussions, we like the same books, the same wine, and the love we make…ah, a taste of heaven.”
“When you’re wife can’t give you any of the things you like, why did you marry her sweetheart?”
“Aah….,” he sighed. “A son’s duty. A family’s reputation. Arrange marriages are made in heaven, they tell me. Mine for sure was made up there.”
“Did your parents force you to marry her?”
“No, but the traditions that hung over me had a lot of implicit force.”
“I often think about what Sarah would do if she found out about us.”
He came close to her red curls and rubbed his face against them. “God I love the smell of your hair. Good thing she’s gone for the weekend, gives us time to be together.” I have a feeling she’s suspecting something.”
“What do you mean?”
“When she was leaving, she said to me; ‘Enjoy yourself fully this weekend’. The way she said it…it seemed suspicious.”
“Hmm…..forget about her. Don’t you want to taste me again?” An intended expression of innocence appeared on her face.
“I do.”

Shannon and Saleem had worked at the same hospital for the past six years. She had felt a tingling attraction from the day they had first met; not just physical but intellectual attraction as well. He was quite well read and her tender heart melted at his eloquent words. He was enamored by her beauty, intelligence, and free-spirited personality. She was everything he wanted in a woman and she satisfied his every depraved sexual urge. Their relationship had continued despite his marriage.

Saleem moved on top of her as his right hand dried the perspiration between her breasts. She gripped his hips and squeezed them tightly. Their tongues touched and she tasted the spicy cinnamon flavour of his mouth that she had always liked.

“You love me not her, right?” She felt him deep inside.
“You are my only true love.” He had not lied.

Late night

The key in the lock slowly turned. The door opened without much sound. A shadow walked in and locked the door. With cat-like steps the shadow moved from the kitchen to the bedroom. Something shiny was in its hands.

The door was open. The bedroom smelled of alcohol and bodily fluids. Shannon and Saleem lay curled up together, asleep. He held her hand tightly outside the white sheets; an old sleeping habit. An empty wine bottle was on the side table. In the street light coming in through the window, the shadow noticed some stuff scattered on the floor. It bent down and saw used condoms, two different kinds of vibrators, empty packs of lubricants, an unusually long penis sleeve, and a strap-on dildo. All signs of a night spent in earthly pleasures.

A loud bang woke Saleem up. The shadow vanished. It was Nida being hit against the wall in the other room. Saleem could hear their father cursing in the quite of the night. “Randee…haramzadi…family honour”. He couldn’t quite make out the words in the middle. “Papa please, I’m sorry!” There was the sound of some objects falling. “Saleem bhai, help me please!” Saleem bit his lower lip as he felt helpless at not being able to save his sister. “So what if she had a boyfriend? She didn’t deserve to be beaten. And how could a father call his own 16-year-old daughter a whore and a bastard?” Saleem thought.

The sound of a leather belt lashing across Nida’s back several times along with her anguished wails emanated from the room. This had been happening every night that week. He couldn’t handle his heart pounding at her cries any more. He put on his robe and finally mustered up the courage to confront his father. He got to the end of the hallway and started shouting at him to stop. A few minutes later, he heard a slashing sound and Nida let out a pain-filled scream that cut through his ears like a knife. The locked door opened; she stumbled outside and fell on the floor, a stream of blood gushing from her throat.

“Nida, Nida!!” He turned her around and put her head on his lap.
“Don’t worry Nida,” he spoke loudly. He looked towards the room with confused eyes and saw their father looking outside the window.
“What did you do? You…you tried to kill my sister, you…bastard!” Saleem had never sworn at his father who remained motionless. He rested Nida’s head on the floor and rushed to get a towel. He covered her wound with it and called 911.
“Hello, I need an ambulance, fast, my sister’s throat has been cut open. Hurry, please.” He told the address as he wondered why Shannon was still in the bedroom.
“Shannon! Come out! Don’t you see, my sister…..don’t worry Nida,” he spoke gently as he put her head back on his lap.
“I always…” Nida tried to speak but her voice broke off.
“Don’t talk, don’t talk, it’ll be ok” Saleem covered her neck with another towel and it quickly became drenched in blood too.

Paramedics rushed in and carried her on a stretcher. They sensed a faint pulse and tried to resuscitate her with oxygen but the next few moments were Nida’s last. Two police officers–one male, one female–came inside the apartment and asked about what had happened. They noticed the blood on Saleem’s pants. He told them the truth.

“Where is he?” the female officer asked.
“In that bedroom.”

They came out with Saleem’s father handcuffed. Saleem noticed his grayish hair. There were blood stains over the buttoned area of his shirt and right collar. He had his black jacket on, unzipped, sandals underneath that seemed to have drops of blood on them. He looked directly into Saleem’s eyes and a grim smile appeared on his face. “It had to be done…..for honour” he said in a deep voice. Saleem could hear his own heartbeat as they walked out of the apartment.

He felt a sharp metallic object slide into his chest, in and out, in and out. The unbearable pain woke him up from that recurring dream of the night his sister was killed ten years ago and he screamed at the top of his lungs. Shannon jumped out of bed and saw a shadowy figure thrusting a shiny blade inside Saleem. She screeched loudly and turned on the lights. It was Sarah. She had stabbed Saleem five or six times and now held the long knife in her hands, blood dripped from it on the off-white carpet. Saleem reeled in pain. She looked towards Shannon who noticed her long dark hair covering the sides of her milky white face. Sarah spoke firmly.

“Don’t scream, you hear me bitch. I’m not gonna run away and I’m not gonna hurt you. Ok? Just stay calm. Saleem will die in a few minutes at most. He deserves to. Sit down on the bed and don’t move. Sit down, I said!” Shannon sat down, breathing heavily. She looked at Saleem who was gasping for air. His blood was spreading over the entire bed. Sarah continued to speak, knife in hand, dressed in all black.

“He deserves to die because he has brought dishonour to me and our family. He broke my trust and for that he needed to be punished. I tolerated his drinking but I cannot forgive that he’s been sucking your dirty red-haired cunt for God knows how long.” She paused; her eyes moved to Saleem and then back to Shannon. “When I told him that I was going to my sister’s for the weekend, I knew he would run to you. I needed to see proof. I know you give him all the things I don’t. Only white whores like you would do the degrading things he likes to do in bed.” Shannon saw her looking towards the sex toys on the floor. “Look at him now, lying dead, naked. I hope you satisfied him well today. Call the police and give me the phone…and put some clothes on.”

Shannon could feel the sweat dripping down her naked back. Her hands trembled as she dialed the number and gave Sarah the phone, still unable to say anything. It seemed she had lost her voice in the fear that enveloped the room along with the stench of blood. She quickly put on her white nighty and felt a shiver go through her body.

“I’ve just killed my husband. He’s dead. This is the address. I’m waiting.”

Sarah went into the kitchen and dropped the knife in the sink. Shannon looked at Saleem whose eyes like two black stones stared at her face. She moved over and kissed his cheek. She felt the taste of blood on her tongue and heard the sound of a paper crumpling. She lifted her hand and saw the wrinkled love note Saleem had left on her pillow that morning.

“Well brunettes are fine/ And blondes are fun/ But you’re life’s been wasted/ Till you’ve got down on your knees and tasted/ A red-headed woman/ It takes a red headed woman/ To get the dirty job done. Yours in love and lust, Saleem.”

Tears streamed down Shannon’s face as she read those words again. She heard the sound of police cars approaching in the quiet of the night.

2008-01-07T04:05:00.000-05:00

THE DEATH OF AQSA PERVEZ: A reflection on Canadian Muslim-Pakistanis

Nauman Mir
Updated: 07 January 2008

-This is a modified version of my original article that I posted on 16 December 2007. I have added a new section, section # 2, to the article and have also included endnotes. [NM]

“When the young girl who was buried alive is asked: For what crime was she killed?” (Qur’an 81: 8-9)

[1]

A young Mississauga teenager, Aqsa Pervez, was killed by her father who later called the police and confessed. Mohammad Pervez is in police custody and his case hearings are ongoing [2]. Most media reports have linked Ms. Pervez’s refusal to wear the hijab as the issue that led to her murder.

It is highly unlikely that the hijab was the only issue though the media attention that the hijab has received in this murder case is not surprising. The friend and her family with whom Aqsa stayed the week before her death have indicated that hijab was not a main factor in the dispute between Aqsa and her father [3]. There are several issues that have been raised in the media by this whole affair and it is important to discuss these at some length.

1. Was it an honour killing?
2. Does Islam allow honour killings?
3. What should be done if the hijab is forced upon a girl or woman?
4. Is this a particularly Muslim issue?
5. What is to be done?

I would like to state that I am not a religious or legal authority on any issue. What I am about to say in the following passages is strictly my personal opinion.

1. Honour Killing

Killing girls and women to restore and preserve the family honour has unfortunately been a poisonous tradition that still exists in parts of some Muslim countries. Women are killed for actual or suspected behaviour and actions which are seen as causing loss of face or dishonour to the family. These can include having contact with any male outside the family, having a boyfriend/lover, disagreeing with the family’s choice for spouse, marrying someone against the family’s will, going against family requirements of any kind, having sexual relations outside of marriage (pre-marital or extra-marital), being raped, and many other flimsy reasons. Some have said that the murder of Ms. Pervez was Canada’s first honour killing hinting that perhaps there will be more. From the few details that are available about the case (there is currently a publication ban on the case proceedings) it seems that it was indeed an honour killing. But it was not the first such crime in Canada and those who claim otherwise indeed have short term memory spans. Unfortunately, there have been other similar cases in the past in the Muslim-Canadian as well as other communities. There is no need to go into the details of those other incidents here because my purpose in this article is not to document the incidents of honour killings in Canada, though I intend to write on that separately. From my preliminary research, it seems there have been about a dozen such reported cases of honour killings in the past twenty years in Canada. It is certainly possible that there have been more deaths than the recorded number and each life lost due to such a dishonourable and horrendous act is one too many. But honour killings are neither the norm in Muslim countries nor will they be here in Canada. Ms. Pervez’s family is of Pakistani background. In parts of Pakistan where honour killings do happen, the acts sadly have some unofficial social acceptance that allows people to consider them different from a murder. In urban cities of the country, such killings have also been reported though less than rural areas. At times, they have happened among educated middle class families. It is a sad fact that with some people, even higher education does not change their traditional tribal attitudes related to women and the family. Most Pakistanis however do consider such acts as heinous crimes as do Pakistani-Canadians. So the fear that some try to dispel that Muslims will commit honour killings everywhere in Canada is baseless and absolute non-sense. And that is made clear by the reaction that the Pakistani and Muslim community in Toronto has displayed in response to this murder; one of utter disgust and condemnation of the act.

2. Islam and honour killings

The answer to whether Islam allows honour killings depends on whether you view Islam from a legal perspective or a cultural perspective [4]. Let us discuss both.

From a legal perspective, the sacred texts of Islam (The Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad’s traditions known as Sunnah) do not address the issue of honour killings. They do not discuss or sanction the issue at all. From this perspective, a male member of a family who has killed a female member has committed murder and murder is punishable by death according to the sacred texts. In other words, Islam does not allow the killing of any person (Muslim or non-Muslim). An oft-repeated verse of the Qur’an sums up Islam’s position: “if anyone kills a person…it shall be as if he killed the entire humanity” (5:32). So theoretically, Islam does not sanction honour killings; it does not allow any man or the state to kill a woman because of supposed loss of “honour”.

From a cultural perspective, it is true that honour killings are an ancient tribal custom that has existed in the Arab and Muslim world for centuries, even before the advent of Islam. So Islam certainly did not start this practice. However, since Islamic texts or Muslim scholars did not explicitly forbid it, the practice remained acceptable in most societies. Here rulers as well as Muslim scholars are to blame. They are the ones who have cultural influence of what is seen as right and wrong in a society and have the power to implement change. But they did no such things as far as honour killings or other issues related to women were concerned. In most societies where Islam became the major religion were and are very patriarchal societies. Though Islam’s written texts seek equity between the sexes, such equity was only minimally implemented in the written laws of Muslim countries or in actual practice. Patriarchy that was deeply entrenched in various cultures before Islam, became even stronger because it was then given religious justification. The major interpretations and exegesis of the Qur’an and Sunnah that were done, even in the 20th century, all were done by men and were done through the prism of sexism, as far as women’s issues were concerned. A re-interpretation of the verses and passages that concern women in particular according to an inclusive non-sexist perspective is especially needed, the process of which was started by Amina Wadud in her excellent book Qur’an and Women: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective [5]. I do not mean to give the impression that Muslim women have silently accepted their fate and have not done anything to change it. The opposite is true. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, women’s movements across the Muslim world were successful in gaining many rights for women in their respective societies. But from the late 1970s onwards, women’s rights group have faced tremendous pressure and many defeats on previously won rights because of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. The last battle of the Cold War (the Afghan war from 1979-1989) was an American war fought with Muslim blood. And it was won because of the strong fundamentalist groups that were created, trained and funded by the governments of the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt. That fundamentalism didn’t remain in a vacuum in Afghanistan. As the 1990s began, a wave of religious fundamentalism (not just Islamic) swept through most parts of the world (including the United States where Christian fundamentalism gained political strength, and it is no surprise that one such fundamentalist currently resides in the White House). One main target of all religious fundamentalisms (be they Muslim, Hindu, Christian or Jewish) is women. They use religious ideology to justify oppressing women and in the case of Islamic fundamentalism, this area has been distinctly pronounced. And it is for this reason that most women’s rights groups in the Muslim world see fundamentalism as their main enemy, not Islam.

From a secular point of view, Islam does give the male more social power in the family institution. It rests the economic responsibility of the family on the male and the domestic responsibility on the female. And it cannot be denied that the way our world is structured, the person who has the economic power inevitably has the social power too in both the private and public spheres. From an Islamic perspective, this is seen as justified because, Islam wants gender equity not equality [6]. Equity implies complimentary but different spheres of influence within the family for both men and women. Equality on the other hand means women being on an equal footing with men without any distinction of roles or spheres. Most progressive interpretations of Islam seek equity. Secular feminism in both the West and the Muslim world seeks equality. Despite this distinction and the fact that Islam gives more social power to the male, it still does not allow a man to kill the womenfolk of his family for any reason whatsoever. So Islam clearly does not allow honour killings but culturally in many countries of the Muslim world, a mixture of an unwritten ancient tribal code of honour has been in practice and validated by cultural interpretations of Islam. These interpretations imply understanding Islam in terms of the culture while ignoring the legal written texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah. A case in point is the debate that has ensued in Jordan’s parliament over honour killings where the government backed religious leaders have tried to change the penal code to criminalize honour killings but have faced hard opposition from Islamic fundamentalist MPs who see honour killings as part of Jordanian and Islamic culture and thus changing the practice as an attack on Islam [7]. Here is a good example of scholars interpreting Islam legally and thus condemning honour killings and fundamentalists interpreting Islam culturally and seeing honour killings as a man’s right or at most a minor crime which can be punished with a light jail sentence. Both sides claim that Islam is on their side but it is generally the cultural interpretation that seems to be more widespread amongst people who consider honour killings to be justified.

Due to a whole variety of reasons (not mentioned here) secular feminism has very low popularity in the Arab and Muslim world at the moment. It gained some popularity in the 1960s and 1970s, but since the 80s, it has become widely suspect and is seen even by many Muslim women as being a Western ideology that is perhaps not suited best to a Muslim environment. Given the current social and political environment in the Muslim world, the approach that many Muslim women have taken to gaining better social and legal treatment for women is through a progressive, non-sexist legal re-interpretations of the sacred texts of Islam that form the backbone of the law be it in countries where Sharia law is practiced or where separate legal codes exist which have been influenced by both Sharia and ancient customs of the particular country. In my personal opinion, secular feminism (with all its flaws) is what would provide true equality to Muslim women, but that is an ideal. One has to see the situation on the ground; whether a particular ideology will actually work in a given environment and it seems Islamic feminism [8] (feminism that seeks an egalitarian interpretation of Islam) is the approach that seems to work more. So despite the fact that legally Islam does not condone the practice of honour killing and culturally it has acceptance in many Muslim societies, it is the legalistic Islamic approach that is being used in order to bring about effective change in the laws concerning honour killings. Thankfully, there are many people in Muslim countries who are trying to stop honour killings clearly because they consider it morally wrong and a disgrace upon the name of Islam. It is a long struggle but with persistence, it will bring change for the better. The real challenge however is changing the cultural attitudes towards honour killings; that is not an easy task because ideas that have been held for centuries cannot be changed in the blink of an eye. And it is not just the lack of formal education that is the cause of such attitudes. As stated earlier, honour killings have some social acceptance even in educated middle class people. Only social education alongside formal education has the potential to change people’s attitudes towards honour killings. This is an extremely slow process but it is the only way forward to bring about change.

3. Hijab

The second question has led some like Canadian columnist Barbara Kay (of the right-wing newspaper National Post) to suggest that the hijab should have been banned here in Canada like it was in France [9]. She even goes to say that it might have prevented Aqsa’s death and she thinks it is apt-time to ban it now so such crimes do not happen again. “Progressive” Muslim Tarek Fatah of the Canadian Islamic Congress agrees with Kay and has written on the death of Ms. Pervez. He too suggests that the hijab ban is the real solution to ending honour killings and adds that it is the rise in Muslim extremism that is leading to honour killings [10]. I do not defend extremism of any religion but it has to be kept in mind that honour killings existed long before Muslim extremism began to rise from 1979 onwards. Thankfully, this perverted line of thinking is not widespread in Toronto or the rest of Canada.

The orientalist ignited fascination with this Muslim garment does not seem to end as the centuries go by. Rather as humanity progresses further into modernity, the fascination with the hijab keeps increasing, especially in the West.

It is a symbol of respect, faith, and honour for some and a symbol of oppression, tradition, and patriarchy for others. Some Muslim girls and women choose to wear it or not, others are forced to wear it implicitly by the weight of tradition or explicitly by family members. Those who are more traditional seem to think it mandatory while others consider it a matter of choice. In such a situation, the position that Canada currently holds on the issue of hijab is the right one; to leave the choice to the individual. For any state to intervene and make it either mandatory to veil or unveil goes against fundamental rights of the individual. Those who propose banning the hijab seem to not notice that they are acting exactly in the way religious fundamentalists would act. Islamic fundamentalists want to force Muslim women to wear the hijab; “Freedom” fundamentalists (like Kay, the French government, or Fatah) want to force Muslim women to not wear the hijab. Both fundamentalists want to impose their choice upon Muslim women and are unwilling to give them any autonomy to exercise their free will. Both think that Muslim women obviously don’t know what is good for them and thus they have to be decided for.

I can almost hear your question reader; but what about those women who are forced to wear the hijab either implicitly or explicitly? Allowing a safe counselling environment where young Muslim girls can discuss such issues with their parents would be a good start. Even if that does not work, at least having programs where girls can discuss these issues individually with a counsellor or peer-group can help. To have school teachers better trained in providing help with such issues to students is also important. If someone is suffering silently from any issue at home, generally there are signs that he or she will display at school which teachers can notice if they look. Many will remain silent unless asked or until they know there is a person they can talk to who can guide them to make decisions on their own. It is the girls and women who should be given the freedom to make their choices. To force women to either veil or unveil is not the solution.

4. A Muslim Issue?

Aqsa Pervez was a Muslim Pakistani-Canadian girl. But her killing by her father is not a Muslim or Pakistani issue only. It is clearly a case of domestic violence intertwined with inter-generational conflict. Both of these social problems are not particular to Muslims or Pakistanis. Domestic violence against girls and women is an issue that inflicts all communities that make up Canada and there should be zero-tolerance for it. We all have responsibility in relation to this issue. The Muslim and South-Asian community however does need to acknowledge more that this issue actually exists within our own families. There is considerable denial that is mainly due to the brushing aside of any problem that will make “us” look bad in front of “them”. The first path to resolving any issue is accepting the fact that the issue exists and then finding solutions in a collective way. I do not mean to de-emphasize honour killings by considering them part of domestic violence. All domestic violence stems from the men trying to assert their authority over the girls and women and honour killing is an extreme expression of that authority. In many Muslim countries, the way honour killings happen cannot be confined to just domestic violence because at times, the tribe or the extended family is involved in the crime. The way honour killings have happened in the West, generally tend to be in the home and the larger community is not involved, which is why I consider them as part of domestic violence.

The inter-generational conflict is also one that affects all parents and teenagers the world over. From the details that are emerging, it seems that like any teenager, Ms. Pervez wanted more independence in her life, she had wanted to move out of the family house and the week before her murder, had been staying at a friend’s house. She was not non-religious but wanted less restrictions in her lifestyle. The urgings of rebellion that she felt are those that every teenager goes through. She wore clothing like those of her friends at school in a desire to fit in not because of her different cultural background but because all teenagers feel the need to fit in and be more like their friends. Being part of the group is an obsession that all of us have experienced to varying degrees in our youth. A big part of that rebellion is appearance. Teenagers want to dress in a way that is acceptably “cool” which translates as follows: wear the opposite of everything your parents like. Most girls of that age want to wear make-up, tighter clothes, etc., which most parents understandably disapprove of. In the case of immigrant children, the only difference is that such behaviour of teenagers is seen as loss of the culture of the mother country and that makes parents feel helpless and insecure. Though that is understandable, immigrant communities (and I speak here particularly of the Muslim Pakistani-Canadian community) need to acknowledge and understand that it is unrealistic to expect our children to not be influenced at all by the society they live in. Yes, they should be taught the ideas and traditions that make up our heritage but we have to understand that they will be different from the children growing up in our mother country. The word ‘different’ in the previous line does not necessarily mean that it is a bad thing. Living in any society is like sailing through the sea in a small boat. No matter how much you protect yourself, you will get a little wet from the water. Similarly, society will have its influence on you and it should In order to make us and our children productive member of society.

Other than that, only time, understanding, and culturally sensitive support groups for both adults and teens can resolve inter-generational conflict that affect all immigrants. Will both parties be happy with the resolution? Maybe or maybe not. But both the parent and the teenager can finally come to some understanding eventually. The extreme measures taken by Mohammad Pervez are clearly unacceptable for which he will be rightfully punished.

5. What is to be done?

Looking at photos of Aqsa Pervez that her friends have posted on Facebook groups in her memory, it seems she was a lively girl, loved by friends, and full of life. Sadly, a life cut short by the most dishonourable of acts. It is still being decided in court whether her father will be charged with first or second degree murder.

As Canadians, we have to accept this unfortunate incident as a reminder that domestic violence against girls and women takes many shapes. There should be no tolerance for it. More social and culturally sensitive youth programs that are well-funded need to be there and should be well publicized to help members of our communities whenever they need it.

As Muslims and Pakistani-Canadians, we have to openly accept that there is domestic violence in our community against girls and women and we cannot deny it. It obviously brings shame to the community as a whole when we lose a member like Aqsa Pervez so tragically to an honour killing. We should openly say first to our own community and then to others that the practice of honour killing is un-Islamic. Yes, it unfortunately exists in our mother country but we want it to end and should work towards educating our own communities about the horrors of this terrible practice.

As parents, we need to understand and acknowledge that though we face issues and problems in accommodating our values and beliefs in Canada, our children deserve even more understanding and support because they are caught between two distinct worlds; one inside the home and one outside neither of which is completely “perfect”. But we shouldn’t make things more difficult for say a young daughter or sister who is already trying to fit in with her friends and is also trying to keep up with her parents’ expectations. It is not a very comfortable or easy issue for her to deal with on a daily basis. If we imagine being in her place, we can better understand her point of view and thus know how to resolve problems when they arise.

One hopes for tragedies like that of Aqsa Pervez to never happen but when they do, they inevitably bring communities together and remind us of our weaknesses as a society. Let us reflect and learn so that such tragedies can be prevented in the future.

ENDNOTES

[1] All Qur’anic verses mentioned here are from Yusuf Ali, A. (trans.) The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an (Brentwood, Maryland: Amana Corporation, 1989)

[2] “Teen Dead after Alleged Attack by Father” CBC News [11 December 2007]
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/12/11/teen-attacked.html

[3] “Aqsa Pervez Mourned” The Edmonton Journal [16 December 2007]
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/story.html?id=4b0875ae-dada-4e47-8cd7-10d8e62aa614&k=93596

[4] This distinction is made in Yotam Feldner, “’Honor’ Murders – Why the Perps Get off Easy” Middle East Quarterly Vol. VII, Number 4, December 2000 http://www.meforum.org/article/50

[5] Wadud, A. Qur’an and Women: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1999)

[6] I take this distinction between equity and equality from Dr. Jamal Badawi. He explicates it as follows. “The term "equity" is used instead of the more common expression "equality," which is sometimes misunderstood to mean absolute equality in each and every detailed item of comparison rather than overall equality. Equity is used here to mean justice and overall equality in the totality of rights and responsibilities of both genders and allows for the possibility of variations in specific items within the overall balance and equality. It is analogous to two persons possessing diverse currencies amounting for each person, to the equivalent of US $1000. While each of the two persons may possess more of one currency than the other, the total value still comes to US $1000 in each case. It should be added that from an Islamic perspective, the roles of men and women are complementary and cooperative rather than competitive.” [bold emphases in original] Footnote in Badawi, J. Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles (Plainfield, Indiana: American Trust Publications, 1995) p. 55.

[7] Yotam Feldner, “’Honor’ Murders – Why the Perps Get off Easy” Middle East Quarterly Vol. VII, Number 4, December 2000 http://www.meforum.org/article/50

[8] Margot Badran discusses this term and its implication in detail in the following article. Margot Badran, “Islamic Feminism: What’s in a name?” Al-Ahram Weekly Online [17-23 January 2002]
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/569/cu1.htm

[9] Barbara Kay, “How Canada Let Aqsa Down” National Post [12 December 2007]
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/12/12/barbara-kay-how-canada-let-aqsa-down.aspx

[10] Tarek Fatah & Farzana Hassan, “The Deadly Face of Muslim Extremism” National Post [12 December 2007] http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=162281

2008-01-06T12:17:00.000-05:00

Does Islam allow honour killings?

Nauman Mir
06 January 2008

In a previous article that I wrote about the murder of Mississauga teenager Aqsa Pervez by her father, I briefly touched on the issue of honour killings[1]. My knowledge of this topic was minimal and I had suggested that her murder was not an honour killing. I have since been obsessively researching this issue and have changed my opinion. It is my understanding now that Ms. Pervez’s murder was indeed an honour killing and actually is similar in many aspects to other cases around the world of honour killings.

One question which I raised in that article was whether Islam sanctions honour killings or not. This question deserves some more attention and I have written the following to answer this question in detail.

At the end, I also include a list of further information resources on the topic of honour killings.

Honour Killing

Killing girls and women to restore and preserve the family honour has unfortunately been a poisonous tradition that still exists in parts of some Muslim countries. Women are killed for actual or suspected behaviour and actions which are seen as causing loss of face or dishonour to the family. These can include having contact with any male outside the family, having a boyfriend/lover, disagreeing with the family’s choice for spouse, marrying someone against the family’s will, going against family requirements of any kind, having sexual relations outside of marriage (pre-marital or extra-marital), being raped, and many other flimsy reasons. The answer to whether Islam allows honour killings depends on whether you view Islam from a legal perspective or a cultural perspective[2]. Let us discuss both.

From a legal perspective, the sacred texts of Islam (The Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad’s traditions known as Sunnah) do not address the issue of honour killings. They do not discuss or sanction the issue at all. From this perspective, a male member of a family who has killed a female member has committed murder and murder is punishable by death according to the sacred texts. In other words, Islam does not allow the killing of any person (Muslim or non-Muslim). An oft-repeated verse of the Qur’an sums up Islam’s position: “if anyone kills a person…it shall be as if he killed the entire humanity” (5:32)[3]. So theoretically, Islam does not sanction honour killings; it does not allow any man or the state to kill a woman because of supposed loss of “honour”.

From a cultural perspective, it is true that honour killings are an ancient tribal custom that has existed in the Arab and Muslim world for centuries, even before the advent of Islam. So Islam certainly did not start this practice. However, since Islamic texts or Muslim scholars did not explicitly forbid it, the practice remained acceptable in most societies. Here rulers as well as Muslim scholars are to blame. They are the ones who have cultural influence of what is seen as right and wrong in a society and have the power to implement change. But they did no such things as far as honour killings or other issues related to women were concerned. In most societies where Islam became the major religion were and are very patriarchal societies. Though Islam’s written texts seek equity between the sexes, such equity was only minimally implemented in the written laws of Muslim countries or in actual practice. Patriarchy that was deeply entrenched in various cultures before Islam, became even stronger because it was then given religious justification. The major interpretations and exegesis of the Qur’an and Sunnah that were done, even in the 20th century, all were done by men and were done through the prism of sexism, as far as women’s issues were concerned. A re-interpretation of the verses and passages that concern women in particular according to an inclusive non-sexist perspective is especially needed, the process of which was started by Amina Wadud in her excellent book Qur’an and Women: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective [4]. I do not mean to give the impression that Muslim women have silently accepted their fate and have not done anything to change it. The opposite is true. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, women’s movements across the Muslim world were successful in gaining many rights for women in their respective societies. But from the late 1970s onwards, women’s rights group have faced tremendous pressure and many defeats on previously won rights because of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. The last battle of the Cold War (the Afghan war from 1979-1989) was an American war fought with Muslim blood. And it was won because of the strong fundamentalist groups that were created, trained and funded by the governments of the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt. That fundamentalism didn’t remain in a vacuum in Afghanistan. As the 1990s began, a wave of religious fundamentalism (not just Islamic) swept through most parts of the world (including the United States where Christian fundamentalism gained political strength, and it is no surprise that one such fundamentalist currently resides in the White House). One main target of all religious fundamentalisms (be they Muslim, Hindu, Christian or Jewish) is women. They use religious ideology to justify oppressing women and in the case of Islamic fundamentalism, this area has been distinctly pronounced. And it is for this reason that most women’s rights groups in the Muslim world see fundamentalism as their main enemy, not Islam.

From a secular point of view, Islam does give the male more social power in the family institution. It rests the economic responsibility of the family on the male and the domestic responsibility on the female. And it cannot be denied that they way our world is structured, the person who has the economic power inevitably has the social power too in both the private and public spheres. From an Islamic perspective, this is seen as justified because, Islam wants gender equity not equality[5]. Equity implies complimentary but different spheres of influence within the family for both men and women. Equality on the other hand means women being on an equal footing with men without any distinction of roles or spheres. Most progressive interpretations of Islam seek equity. Secular feminism in both the West and the Muslim world seeks equality. Despite this distinction and the fact that Islam gives more social power to the male, it still does not allow a man to kill the womenfolk of his family for any reason whatsoever. So Islam clearly does not allow honour killings but culturally in many countries of the Muslim world, a mixture of an unwritten ancient tribal code of honour has been in practice and validated by cultural interpretations of Islam. These interpretations imply understanding Islam in terms of the culture while ignoring the legal written texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah. A case in point is the debate that has ensued in Jordan’s parliament over honour killings where the government backed religious leaders have tried to change the penal code to criminalize honour killings but have faced hard opposition from Islamic fundamentalist MPs who see honour killings as part of Jordanian and Islamic culture and thus changing the practice as an attack on Islam[6]. Here is a good example of scholars interpreting Islam legally and thus condemning honour killings and fundamentalists interpreting Islam culturally and seeing honour killings as a man’s right or at most a minor crime which can be punished with a light jail sentence. Both sides claim that Islam is on their side but it is generally the cultural interpretation that seems to be more widespread amongst people who consider honour killings to be justified.

Due to a whole variety of reasons (not mentioned here) secular feminism has very low popularity in the Arab and Muslim world at the moment. It gained some popularity in the 1960s and 1970s, but since the 80s, it has become widely suspect and is seen even by many Muslim women as being a Western ideology that is perhaps not suited best to a Muslim environment. Given the current social and political environment in the Muslim world, the approach that many women have taken to gaining better social and legal treatment for women is through a progressive, non-sexist legal re-interpretations of the sacred texts of Islam that form the backbone of the law be it in countries where Sharia law is practiced or where separate legal codes exist which have been influenced by both Sharia and ancient customs of the particular country. In my personal opinion, secular feminism (with all its flaws) is what would provide true equality to Muslim women, but that is an ideal. One has to see the situation on the ground; whether a particular ideology will actually work in a given environment and it seems Islamic feminism[7] (feminism that seeks an egalitarian interpretation of Islam) is the approach that seems to work more. So despite the fact that legally Islam does not condone the practice of honour killing and culturally it has acceptance in many Muslim societies, it is the legalistic Islamic approach that is being used in order to bring about effective change in the laws concerning honour killings. Thankfully, there are many people in Muslim countries who are trying to stop honour killings clearly because they consider it morally wrong and a disgrace upon the name of Islam. It is a long struggle but with persistence, it will bring change for the better. The real challenge however is changing the cultural attitudes towards honour killings; that is not an easy task because ideas that have been held for centuries cannot be changed in the blink of an eye. And it is not just the lack of formal education that is the cause of such attitudes. As stated earlier, honour killings have some social acceptance even in educated middle class people. Only social education alongside formal education has the potential to change people’s attitudes towards honour killings. This is an extremely slow process but it is the only way forward to bring about change.

FURTHER READINGS ON HONOUR KILLINGS

I. Mojab, S. & Abdo, N. (eds.) Violence in the Name of Honour: Theoretical and Political Challenges (Istanbul, Turkey: Bilgi University Press, 2004)

II. Suzanne Ruggi, “Commodifying Honor in Female Sexuality: Honor Killings in Palestine” Middle East Report No. 206 Spring 1998
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer206/ruggi.htm

III. “Q & A: Honour Killings Explained" BBC Online [22 June 2004]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3829139.stm

IV. “BBC report on Honour Crimes” BBC Online [22 June 2005]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/honourcrimes/

V. Yotam Feldner, “’Honor’ Murders – Why the Perps Get off Easy” Middle East Quarterly Vol. VII, Number 4, December 2000
http://www.meforum.org/article/50

VI. “A Dishonourable Practice” The Economist
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9009023

VII. Rebecca Allison, “Where the honour in this?” The Guardian [03 October 2003] http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1054980,00.html

VIII. Fareena Alam “Take the honour out of killing” The Guardian [06 July 2004]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1254762,00.html

IX. Kathaerine Zoepf, “A Dishonorable Affair” The New York Times [23 September 2007]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23wwln-syria-t.html

X. “Pakistan: Honour Killings of Girls and Women” Amnesty International Canada
[22 September 1999]
http://www.amnesty.ca/women/news/view.php?load=arcview&article=1015&c=Women+Reports

XI. “’The Whore Lived Like a German’” Spiegel Online International [02 November 2005] http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,344374,00.html

XII. “Brother of Murdered Turkish Woman Convicted” Spiegel Online International [13 April 2006] http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,411301,00.html

XIII. “Brother of Slain Turkish Woman to Be Retried” Spiegel Online International [29 August 2007] http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,502651,00.html

XIV. “Honor Killings – Who’s to Blame: A Look at Iraqi Kurdistan” A World to Win News Service [14 May 2007]
http://www.aworldtowin.org/wordpress/?p=163

XV. “A German Court Goes Face to Face with Honor Killings” Spiegel Online International [12 September 2005]
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,374732,00.html

XVI. “Honour Killings in Pakistan”
http://www.crescentlife.com/articles/social%20issues/honor-killings_in_pakistan.htm

XVII. “Honor Killings Plague Pakistan” Islam Online [11 January 2007]
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1168265536796&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

XVIII. “Women Challenge ‘Honor’ Killings” The Christian Science Monitor [02 March 2005]
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0302/p15s01-wome.html

XIX. “Thousands of Women Killed for Family ‘Honor’” National Geographic News [12 February 2002]
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html

XX. “Honor Killing: Killing of Women on the Basis of Family Honor” The Palestinian Human Rights Monitor Vol. 6, Issue # 4, August 2002
http://www.phrmg.org/monitor2002/Aug2002.htm

XXI. “Arab Honor’s Price: A Woman’s Blood” Polyzine [20 June 1999]
http://polyzine.com/arabwomen.html

XXII. International Campaign Against Honour Killings http://www.stophonourkillings.com/

XXIII. “Honour Killing: A Crime Against Islam”, “Case Study: Honour Killings and Blood Fueds” http://www.islamawareness.net/HonourKilling/honour_killings.pdf

XXIV. “Britain examines ‘Honor Killings’” The Christian Science Monitor [07 July 2004] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0707/p06s02-woeu.html

ENDNOTES

[1] Nauman Mir, “Death of Aqsa Pervez: A reflection on Canadian Muslim-Pakistanis” Chowk.com [16 December 2007]
http://www.chowk.com/articles/13182

[2] This distinction is made in Yotam Feldner, “’Honor’ Murders – Why the Perps Get off Easy” Middle East Quarterly Vol. VII, Number 4, December 2000 http://www.meforum.org/article/50

[3] Yusuf Ali, A. (trans.) The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an (Brentwood, Maryland: Amana Corporation, 1989)

[4] Wadud, A. Qur'an and Women: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1999)

[5] I take this distinction between equity and equality from Dr. Jamal Badawi. He explicates it as follows. “The term "equity" is used instead of the more common expression "equality," which is sometimes misunderstood to mean absolute equality in each and every detailed item of comparison rather than overall equality. Equity is used here to mean justice and overall equality in the totality of rights and responsibilities of both genders and allows for the possibility of variations in specific items wthin the overall balance and equality. It is analogous to two persons possessing diverse currencies amounting for each person, to the equaivalent of US $1000. While each of the two persons may possess more of one currency than the other, the total value still comes to US $1000 in each case. It should be added that from an Islamic perspective, the roles of men and women are complementary and cooperative rather than competitive.” Footnote in Badawi, J. Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles (Plainfield, Indiana: American Trust Publications, 1995) p. 55.

[6] Yotam Feldner, “’Honor’ Murders – Why the Perps Get off Easy” Middle East Quarterly Vol. VII, Number 4, December 2000 http://www.meforum.org/article/50

[7] Margot Badran discusses this term and its implication in detail in the following article. Margot Badran, “Islamic Feminism: What’s in a name?” Al-Ahram Weekly Online [17-23 January 2002]
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/569/cu1.htm

2007-12-17T14:50:00.000-05:00

THE DEATH OF AQSA PERVEZ: A reflection on Muslims, Pakistanis, and Canada

Nauman Mir
16 December 2007

“When the young girl who was buried alive is asked: For what crime was she killed?” (Qur’an 81: 8-9)

A young Mississauga teenager, Aqsa Pervez, was killed by her father last week who later called the police and confessed. Mohammad Pervez is now in police custody and his case hearings have begun. The motive behind the murder is still unclear though most media reports have linked Ms. Pervez’s refusal to wear the hijab as the issue that led to her murder.

It is highly unlikely that the hijab was the only issue though the media attention that the hijab has received in this murder case is not surprising. The friend and her family with whom Aqsa stayed the week before her death has indicated that hijab was not a main factor in the dispute between Aqsa and her father. There are several issues that have been raised in the media by this whole affair and it is important to discuss these at some length.

1. Was it an honour killing? If so, is it religiously sanctioned?
2. What should be done if the hijab is forced upon a girl or woman?
3. Is this a particularly Muslim issue?
4. What is to be done?

I would like to state that I am not a religious or legal authority on any issue. What I am about to say in the following passages is strictly my personal opinion.

1. Honour Killing

Killing girls and women to preserve the family honour has unfortunately been a poisonous tradition that still exists in parts of some Muslim countries. Women are killed for behaviour or actions which are seen as causing loss of face. Some have said that the murder of Ms. Pervez was Canada’s first honour killing hinting that perhaps there will be more. Is it so? In my opinion, no and such crimes are neither the norm in Muslim countries nor will they be here in Canada. Ms. Pervez’s family is of Pakistani background. In rural parts of Pakistan where honour killings do happen, the acts sadly have some unofficial social acceptance that allows people to consider them different from a murder. Most Pakistanis consider such acts as heinous crimes as do Pakistani-Canadians. So the fear that some try to dispel that Muslims will commit honour killings everywhere in Canada is baseless and absolute non-sense. And that is made clear by the reaction that the Pakistani and Muslim community in Toronto has displayed in response to this murder; one of utter disgust and condemnation of the act.

As for religious sanction of honour killings; Islam does not allow the killing of any person (Muslim or non-Muslim). An oft-repeated verse of the Qur’an sums up Islam’s position: “if anyone kills a person…it shall be as if he killed the entire humanity” (5:32). As stated earlier, the practice of honour killings exists in some parts of the Muslim world but there are many people in those countries who are trying to stop such a horrendous practice clearly because they consider it morally wrong and a disgrace upon the name of Islam.

2. Hijab

The second question has led some like Canadian columnist Barbara Kay (of the right-wing rag National Post) to suggest that the hijab should have been banned here in Canada like it was in France. She even goes to say that it might have prevented Aqsa’s death and she thinks it is apt-time to ban it now so such crimes do not happen again. Some Muslims have agreed with these ideas as well. Thankfully, this perverted line of thinking is not widespread in Toronto or the rest of Canada.

The orientalist ignited fascination with this Muslim garment does not seem to end as the centuries go by. Rather as humanity progresses further into modernity, the fascination with the hijab keeps increasing, especially in the West.

It is a symbol of respect, faith, and honour for some and a symbol of oppression, tradition, and patriarchy for others. Some Muslim girls and women choose to wear it or not, others are forced to wear it implicitly by the weight of tradition or explicitly by family members. Those who are more traditional seem to think it mandatory while others consider it a matter of choice. In such a situation, the position that Canada currently holds on the issue of hijab is the right one; to leave the choice to the individual. For any state to intervene and make it either mandatory to veil or unveil goes against fundamental rights of the individual. Those who propose banning the hijab seem to not notice that they are acting exactly in the way religious fundamentalists would act. Islamic fundamentalists want to force Muslim women to wear the hijab; “Freedom” fundamentalists (like Kay, the French government, some Muslims also included) want to force Muslim women to not wear the hijab. Both fundamentalists want to impose their choice upon Muslim women and are unwilling to give them any autonomy to exercise their free will. Both think that Muslim women obviously don’t know what is good for them and thus they have to be decided for.

I can almost hear your question reader; but what about those women who are forced to wear the hijab either implicitly or explicitly? Allowing a safe counselling environment where young Muslim girls can discuss such issues with their parents would be a good start. Even if that does not work, at least having programs where girls can discuss these issues individually with a counsellor or peer-group can help. To have school teachers better trained in providing help with such issues to students is also important. If someone is suffering silently from any issue at home, generally there are signs that he or she will display at school which teachers can notice if they look. Many will remain silent unless asked or until they know there is a person they can talk to who can guide them to make decisions on their own. To force women to either veil or unveil is not the solution.

3. A Muslim Issue?

Aqsa Pervez was a Muslim Pakistani-Canadian girl. But her killing by her father is not a Muslim or Pakistani issue only. It is clearly a case of domestic violence intertwined with inter-generational conflict. Both of these social problems are not particular to Muslims or Pakistanis. Domestic violence against girls and women is an issue that inflicts all communities that make up Canada and there should be zero-tolerance for it. We all have responsibility in relation to this issue. The Muslim and South-Asian community however does need to acknowledge more that this issue actually exists within our own families. There is considerable denial that is mainly due to the brushing aside of any problem that will make “us” look bad in front of “them”. The first path to resolving any issue is accepting the fact that the issue exists and then finding solutions in a collective way.

The inter-generational conflict is also one that affects all parents and teenagers the world over. From the details that are emerging, it seems that like any teenager, Ms. Pervez wanted more independence in her life, she had wanted to move out of the family house and the week before her murder, had been staying at a friend’s house. She was not non-religious but wanted less restrictions in her lifestyle. The urgings of rebellion that she felt are those that every teenager goes through. She wore clothing like those of her friends at school in a desire to fit in not because of her different cultural background but because all teenagers feel the need to fit in and be more like their friends. Being part of the group is an obsession that all of us have experienced to varying degrees in our youth. A big part of that rebellion is appearance. Teenagers want to dress in a way that is acceptably “cool” which translates as follows: wear the opposite of everything your parents like. Most girls of that age want to wear make-up, tighter clothes, etc., which most parents understandably disapprove of. In the case of immigrant children, the only difference is that such behaviour of teenagers is seen as loss of the culture of the mother country and that makes parents feel helpless and insecure.

Only time, understanding, and culturally sensitive support groups for both adults and teens can resolve such issues that affect all immigrants. Will both parties be happy with the resolution? Maybe or maybe not. But both the parent and the teenager can finally come to some understanding eventually. The extreme measures taken by Mohammad Pervez are clearly unacceptable for which he will be rightfully punished.

4. What is to be done?

Looking at photos of Aqsa Pervez that her friends have posted on Facebook groups in her memory, it seems she was a lively girl, loved by friends, and full of life. Sadly, a life cut short by the most dishonourable of acts. Whether her father is guilty and if so, what was his motive, still remains to be proven in court.

As Canadians, we have to accept this unfortunate incident as a reminder that domestic violence against girls and women takes many shapes. There should be no tolerance for it. More social and culturally sensitive youth programs that are well-funded need to be there and should be well publicized to help members of our communities whenever they need it.

As Muslims and Pakistani-Canadians, we have to openly accept that there is domestic violence in our community against girls and women and we cannot deny it. It obviously brings shame to the community as a whole when we lose a member like Aqsa Pervez so tragically. But this was not an “honour killing” and we should openly tell everyone so. As parents, we need to understand and acknowledge that though we face issues and problems in accommodating our values and beliefs in Canada, our children deserve even more understanding and support because they are caught between two distinct worlds; one inside the home and one outside neither of which is completely “perfect”. But we shouldn’t make things more difficult for say a young daughter or sister who is already trying to fit in with her friends and is also trying to keep up with her parents’ expectations. It is not a very comfortable or easy issue for her to deal with on a daily basis. If we imagine being in her place, we can better understand her point of view and thus know how to resolve problems when they arise.

One hopes for tragedies like that of Aqsa Pervez to never happen but when they do, they inevitably bring communities together and remind us of our weaknesses as a society. Let us reflect and learn so that such tragedies can be prevented in the future.

2007-12-17T14:44:00.000-05:00

GENERAL MUSHARRAF: From Soft Dictator to Ruthless Dictator

Nauman Mir
07 November 2007

The political history of Pakistan has always been turbulent. But the recent state of emergency imposed by President Musharraf has put Pakistan on the front page of every major newspaper in the West, something that is rarely accorded to news from Pakistan.

General Musharraf acted in a surprise defiance of American wishes when he imposed the emergency and is now in the process of brutally crushing any opposition to his rule. Thousands of people including lawyers, judges, human rights activists, opposition party leaders, have been beaten and arrested in the few days since the emergency. The police now has absolute power to arrest anyone and everyone. All private news channels both local and foreign have been blacked out, leaving the information hungry public without any real source of news except local newspapers which are facing intense scrutiny as well.

It is such actions by Musharraf that have caused slight discomfort in the echelons of power of the western world. The Netherlands has cancelled its aid to Pakistan. The UK is considering a similar action. Canada has shown alarm but even if it cuts aid, the loss of such a puny amount will not have much effect. The United States, the main donor of foreign aid to Pakistan and with whose money Musharraf has been able to put on a façade of economic improvement in Pakistan, is also re-considering its aid package.

An interesting point to note is how Musharraf’s image as an ally of the West changed to an image of a ruthless dictator, in the western media. It seems that many in the West had accepted the idea of a “soft” dictatorship that Musharraf had concocted. Since his original coup in 1998, he had allowed freedoms not common in a traditional dictatorship. The Pakistani media had enjoyed a freedom it had not seen before in either civilian or military rule. Private local news channels were galore and political talk shows (which are extremely popular) openly criticized the government and its actions. Musharraf seemed secure in his position and he did not really mind opposition leaders criticizing him daily on news channels. Now these same channels have disappeared off the air.

Musharraf did a number of things to show (especially the West) that he was committed to the betterment of women’s position in Pakistani society. The rape case of Mukhtaran Mai created a huge out cry from international human rights organizations and Musharraf was later praised for his handling of the issue. Musharraf challenged the Hudood Ordinances imposed by a previous dictator, General Zia, who in his quest for Islamisation of the Islamic Republic had implemented this law with its strict Islamic punishments for crimes like rape, extra-marital sex, drinking alcohol, etc. Women’s rights group had long spoken against these unjust laws which in the most heinous circumstances generally lead to blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator. Musharraf, to his credit, amended some of those ordinances and replaced the law with the Women’s Protection Bill. Now in the state of emergency, police are treating women protestors as brutally as the men and putting them in jail or house arrest.

Musharraf had also been able to portray his image as a leader who was fighting terrorism well and was a valuable ally of the international community (i.e., the United States) in its terror-filled war on terror. But just like the Afghan war of 1979-1989 was an American war fought with Muslim blood, this fight against extremist groups in Pakistan is an American war fought with Pakistani blood. The Pakistan army has been fighting its own countrymen in the tribal areas of Waziristan since the past few years and more recently has been involved in a low-intensity war with militants in the Swat Valley; drenching its beautiful and lush mountains in blood.

A mass opposition movement of lawyers against Musharraf and the Red Mosque occupation in July caused Musharraf’s popularity in Pakistan and abroad to plunge. It seemed power was being slowly drained from him. The reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry by the Supreme Court, whom Musharraf had ousted, showed his weakening power. It seemed he might have got former PM Benazir Bhutto arrested when she arrived in Pakistan, but because of America backing her, he dropped all charges against her. Musharraf made announcements that he would be leaving his post as Army Chief, thus surrendering his main source of political power – the Army. It would have been wise for Musharraf politically to follow the route he seemed to have taken at that time. In the January elections, Bhutto would have become Prime Minister and Musharraf would be the President for the next five years. He would have left office at the end of the five year period and then enjoyed the rest of his life with his family and perhaps by writing another memoir. He would have been remembered somewhat fondly by the population as someone who at least allowed a little more breathing space and freedom in his rule to the population than most leaders before him. The western governments too would have remembered him as an ally.

But Musharraf chose a different course of action. Fearing that the Supreme Court might rule against his re-election, he became extremely desperate and extremely power hungry. He wanted to cling to power so much that he decided to impose an emergency and is now in the process of brutally suppressing the freedoms that he had allowed himself. He now is being seen in the West as a brutal dictator and his earlier services might soon be forgotten. He is like a desperate, wounded lion who is loosing his life blood but is lashing out at anything that stand in his way in order to still be the leader and somehow hold on to power. That is where one of the unlucky dilemmas of Pakistani leaders emerges again; they often come to power in very dramatic ways, but never ever want to leave it. They want to cling to power until it is taken from them by force.

How long will the General be able to hold on to power and what actions he takes next, remain to be seen. But one thing is for sure, he has sparked a flame of dissent in the heart of a tired and weary population. The lawyers movement, which had receded a bit, has once again been rejuvenated by the current brutality against them. Students used to be very active in politics in the 1960s and 1970s (especially in support of Z.A. Bhutto), but had since been engulfed by the culture of disillusionment that evades most of Pakistani political culture. College and university students are now joining the protests against Musharraf. The first military leader who ruled Pakistan, General Ayub Khan, was overthrown by a genuine mass movement against him. One hopes that Musharraf will face a similar fate.

2007-12-17T14:41:00.000-05:00

MUSHARRAF WINS ELECTION

Nauman Mir
11 October 2007

General Musharraf won 98 percent of vote in the presidential elections that took place in Pakistan. His popularity had plummeted significantly in the last six months and most opposition parties boycotted the elections except the People’s Party led by former PM Benazir Bhutto. It is a rarity for elections to not be rigged in Pakistan, and in all probability, this was too.

Musharraf and Bhutto had been negotiating for sometime before the elections about some kind of power sharing deal. Bhutto had contested that she would not support Musharraf so long as he remains in uniform. It seemed very unlikely that Musharraf would leave his post as Army Chief because his main source of political power is the army. But Musharraf seems to have understood the political situation well and decided to leave his position.

Just before the elections, he appointed a new Army chief, General Ashfaq Kiani, in his place. From mid-November, Musharraf will no longer be a head of the army and will assume a civilian position of the president. Musharraf understood that the gracious hand of America is slowly lifting off his back and internally, he has very little support of the people. In such a situation, he chose to take what was on offer; five years as a ceremonial president where he still gets a pay-check but loses all power. Politically speaking, that was a sensible decision.

Bhutto had said that she would petition Musharraf’s running in the elections if he retained his Army chief position but Musharraf found a political solution to that issue. He signed a “reconciliation ordinance” in which all corruption charges and cases against Bhutto from 1988 till today have been dropped. The $1.48 billion that she is accused of amassing during her rule is now hers to keep. She thus did not petition against Musharraf.

The Supreme Court still has to pass judgment on whether Musharraf’s second term is legitimate or not. It is unlikely that the court will rule against him. Since a few weeks before the elections, the court has fallen in line with Musharraf and the little span of independence that the judiciary had displayed seems to have come to an end.

Musharraf will also have to make an amendment in the constitution to allow a third term to a PM, in order for Bhutto to gain power. Her coming back in Pakistani politics is not a positive prospect. Though she is claiming to tackle terrorism better than what Musharraf was able to do, she is known for her immense corruption which will start again.

The Pakistani population will continue to suffer economic hardships due to high unemployment accompanied by astronomical inflation. Whether it is the army ruling or the civilian politicians, the difficulties facing the population remain unchanged.

2007-12-17T14:31:00.000-05:00

MUSHARRAF vs. SHARIF: Dictatorship vs. Democracy?

Nauman Mir
23 September 2007

A tumultuous political storm passed through Pakistan on September the 10th. Former Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif returned to the country after seven years in exile. His return although sanctioned by the Supreme Court, was totally opposed by General Musharraf.

The night before his return was one of fear and anxiousness for the population. Roads leading to the capital city were blocked by trailers and road making machinery. Islamabad was effectively sealed; no entry or exit allowed. The next morning, as Sharif arrived, significant amounts of his supporters gathered outside the airport but were held at a distance by the police. Army troops surrounded his plane and he was taken to a VIP lounge of the airport where he was officially charged with corruption and money laundering and was arrested. He was then taken to another plane bound for Jeddah, Saudi Arabia where he was originally exiled to in 2000 by Musharraf.

Sharif had gotten the backing of the Supreme Court which allowed his return to Pakistan. By deporting Sharif, Musharraf defied the Court’s ruling and thus asserted his authority over the judiciary.

Sharif, in his time as PM, acted similarly though now he projected himself as the hero who had the law on his side. In November 1997, Sharif got his party workers led by his own federal ministers to physically attack the Supreme Court building and cause significant damage to it while the court was in session because he wanted to oust the Chief Justice to save his own seat of power.

To return to power, civilian politicians in Pakistan have always shown their political fight as a struggle between democracy and dictatorship. But the fact is that once in power, they themselves act like the dictators they replace.

Petitions have been filed against Musharraf for contempt of court. The court has not made a decision yet but it is unlikely that Sharif will return anytime soon to participate in Pakistani politics.

Musharraf has two main choices; the first is that he can do a deal with former PM Benazir Bhutto (as the United States wants), leave his position as army chief and become a ceremonial president with no real power. This would also involve changing the constitution to allow a third term to a prime minister, something unheard of in Pakistan’s history. The second option available to him is to run in the elections on his own. If he does not win or if the Supreme Court rules against him running in the election, he could impose martial law like he did in 1999. Pakistan’s leaders and politicians have never liked power sharing, so in all probability, Musharraf will choose the second option.

A large majority of the population is tired of Musharraf and wants to see him gone. How will the population react if he imposes martial law, remains to be seen.

2007-09-02T16:36:00.000-04:00

FINKELSTEIN, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND THE ACADEMY

Nauman Mir
02 September 2007

“Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men.”
–Mark Twain

In the past two decades, most North American universities have seen a growing gap between academia and the world outside the walls of the university. But events of the past few months at Chicago’s DePaul University have broken that barrier.

The issue that has received public attention is the denial of tenure to Political Science professor Norman Finkelstein who has been teaching at DePaul for the past six years. A famous author and intellectual, he has published several books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is a supporter of Palestinian rights and a staunch critic of Israel’s policies and human rights record.

His latest book, Beyond Chutzpah, deals with two major issues; the atrocious human rights record of Israel and a critique of Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz’s book The Case for Israel. Dershowitz has been at the heart of the controversy surrounding Finkelstein’s tenure. He has led a vile campaign of defamation and sent a pointless dossier to DePaul that detailed why Finkelstein should not be granted tenure.

Although the political science department supported Finkelstein, the dean of his college, Charles Suchar, denied him tenure on the baseless grounds that Finkelstein does not respect the views of his ideological opponents. Suchar thus did something unheard of at an American university; he succumbed to outside pressure on an internal matter of his university. The views of a second-rate professor at Harvard about a highly popular professor at DePaul should have had no bearing on any decisions made by the dean. But that has not been the case and one hopes that Suchar will be held accountable for his actions.

Finkelstein’s two fall courses have been cancelled despite full student registration. The DePaul bookstore has taken all books by Finkelstein off its shelves. He has been denied access to his office on campus. A school that boasts about how much it values academic freedom and freedom of inquiry has removed a valued member from its community and has taken away his books so that his thoughts and ideas are not uttered in the university. DePaul has proven that it values freedom of speech only if that speech involves polite musings that strengthen the status quo. Harsh truths are not acceptable because they disturb the comfortable environment of the university. The right of free speech is worthless without the right to be heard but Suchar’s actions prove that the latter is not allowed at DePaul. Indeed Suchar is a disgrace to his college and to the academic community in general.

The mild mannered Finkelstein has had more than his share of academic battles but his spirit is running strong. He has vowed to go back to his office and teach his classes for the fall term which is soon to begin. He has said that if he is denied access, he will engage in non-violent disobedience. He has the support of many students who are eager to attend his classes and learn from his wealth of knowledge.

2007-09-01T03:30:00.000-04:00

THE GENERAL WITHOUT HIS UNIFORM

Nauman Mir
01 September 2007

Words often come back to haunt people, especially in politics. When Pakistan’s President General Musharraf published his memoir titled “In the Line of Fire” last fall, he probably did not think those words would ring true so soon.

Musharraf seemed to have been holding strong to his throne, yet the events of the past few months have seriously weakened him politically. It started out with him ousting a Supreme Court judge. A decision that resulted in a strong show of opposition to Musharraf’s government by the public and a rare victory for the Supreme Court where it reinstated the judge, contrary to the dictator’s will.

The opposition then arose from Islamist militants inside the Red Mosque. The army dealt with that issue by causing a tremendous loss of innocent life, thus further alienating the population and bringing public support for Musharraf to an all time low.

The judiciary asserted further independence from the government, when the Supreme Court ruled that former PM Nawaz Sharif, who was ousted and sent into exile by Musharraf in 1998 can return to Pakistan, something Musharraf does not want. Sharif, eyeing the seat of power once again, is acting boldly because of the weak political position of Musharraf. Meanwhile, the United States has been covertly pushing former PM Benazir Bhutto to strike a deal with the dictator in a sort of power sharing deal. Bhutto announced that Musharraf has agreed to step down as army chief before the upcoming elections, something which has not been officially confirmed by Musharraf.

Two points to consider. Firstly, stepping down from the position of army chief will strip Musharraf of his main source of political power: the army. With no army backing and no public support, Musharraf does not stand a chance in the elections.

Secondly, there is no word more taboo to Pakistani leaders than “power sharing”. Those in opposition always harp on about it, like Benazir. Those in power do not utter it because in the history of Pakistani politics, no leader (military or civilian) has ever been willing to share power. Z. A. Bhutto (Benazir’s father) chose to lose the largest region of Pakistan in 1971 (Bangladesh thus appeared on the map) rather than share power with the party ruling that region. It will be in absolute desperation that Musharraf might agree to do that which has never been done.

Ideologically speaking, democracy should be restored but the sad truth is that it will not do much good for the people of Pakistan. Their basic needs will remain unmet. High unemployment accompanied by skyrocketing inflation will keep making life more and more difficult. Since 1958, a vicious ten year cycle has been noted in Pakistani politics; military rule for a period of roughly ten years comes to an end with calls for restoring democracy. It is followed by a decade of civilian rule in which corruption reaches astronomical heights. Another ten years of military rule proceeds in which it is claimed that the prior corruption is being brought to an end. Musharraf’s military rule is reaching the ten year mark in 2008. In all probability, a corrupt democratic decade is in order.

2007-08-11T22:26:00.001-04:00

THE SILENCING OF THE RED MOSQUE

Nauman Mir
15 July 2007

The stand-off between militants and Pakistani security forces at the Red Mosque in Islamabad finally came to an end after eight days. But has left many unanswered questions alongside a violent backlash whose beginnings were seen this week.

There have been three separate suicide bombings in various cities of Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province particularly targeting the police and the army. The delicate truce that the government had signed with tribal leaders in South Waziristan has now ended, at least from the militant’s side.

Operation "Silence", conducted by the elite commando unit of the army, was indeed meant to silence any criticism of the government’s handling of the issue. The major question has been; how many casualties? The government figure is 73. Local media has reported more than 100, some hinting it might be double that number. The army did however order 400 coffins after the operation. That is probably the real number of people left dead.

During the operation, the area surrounding the mosque complex was sealed. When journalists were finally allowed into the mosque, it had been sanitized and other than the bullet holes left on the walls and pillars of the mosque, there was really no other evidence left of the bloodshed that had happened. So what exactly took place inside will remain a mystery leading one to conclude that it was extremely bloody and had it been shown, General Musharraf would not be able to strut around as the hero of the battle.

The tactics used by the militants were unacceptable. To enforce a morality police, to disrupt the business of ordinary (and in most cases poor) shopkeepers selling music CDs, kidnapping supposed brothel owners and prostitutes, kidnapping foreign nationals, are all unacceptable. Yes, the entire Pakistani bureaucratic system is filled with corrupt officials, but if one is concerned about the social vices of society, there are alternative ways to do something about them rather than taking such aggressive measures.

The commando operation was inevitable considering that the militants were not allowing hundreds of innocent women and children to leave. Most of the local population was in favour of the operation, but is now deeply saddened by the way it was conducted, causing so much loss of life. The militants were only 70 to 80 in total. The rest were innocent students and teachers. Their loss of life is unforgivable.

The lack of any left alternative in Pakistani politics has created a huge vacuum where the only people speaking on behalf of the poor and oppressed are the religious fundamentalists. Their agenda is not how to move forward to meet the challenges of modernity but how instead to go back to a golden past. The only hope then for Pakistan is a genuine movement from below that will change the political landscape because every leader of the country whether military dictator or politician has in the end betrayed the population. And what might spark such a flame in the hearts of the population remains to be seen.

2007-06-25T21:08:00.000-04:00

A KNIGHTHOOD FOR SALMAN RUSHDIE

Nauman Mir
19 June 2007

The British government recently announced the knighthood of author Salman Rushdie. The governments of Pakistan and Iran have condemned this action and have called for a withdrawal of the knighthood. There have been some small protests in a number of Pakistani cities where effigies of Rushdie as well as Queen Elizabeth II have been burned.

Rather than outright condemning the knighthood or Rushdie himself, one has to first ask: does he deserve a knighthood?

According the British monarchy’s website "While in past centuries knighthood used to be awarded solely for military merit, today it recognizes significant contributions to national life". Rushdie fits the description; looking at his work from a strictly literary perspective, one has to admit that he is a very eloquent and accomplished writer who has published ten fiction and three non-fiction books in Britain. He won the Booker of Bookers prize in 1993 for his novel Midnight’s Children, one of his finest works. His writings have come to symbolize "post-colonial" literature and his writing style is the aspiration of countless authors. Rushdie has thus made considerable contribution to British cultural life and being awarded a knighthood for that is a fine gesture by the British government.

But in the current context, with the dual occupations in the Middle East of Iraq and Palestine, as well as the indirect occupation of Afghanistan, awarding Rushdie can understandably seem like an act meant to infuriate Muslims already suffering from Western imperialism. And this award isn’t solely for its own sake. Britain and the United States, being bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, are in constant need of intellectual supporters. Who better than Salman Rushdie? Rushdie once used to have sympathy for leftist causes and even wrote a non-fiction book The Jaguar Smile: A Nicaraguan Journey (1986) in support of the Nicaraguan people standing up against American intervention, but has long since changed sides. He openly supported the US-led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 and has expressed support for the war against terrorism. So of course the British government will award him a knighthood for such loyalty.

The clearest example of Rushdie’s backing of the US/UK regimes is his acceptance of the knighthood itself. A truly "post-colonial" author who wants to assert the identity of his own people against the colonizers would have refused such an award. Rushdie, who eloquently described the excruciating troubles suffered by the people of India and Pakistan due to the British partition of India in Midnight’s Children, will now bow before the British Queen with his head lowered to accept the knighthood. Could there be another gesture more fitting for a servant of the empire?

Rushdie should take inspiration from the American poet Sharon Olds who in September 2005 refused to speak at the Library of Congress and have dinner with Laura Bush due to her opposition to the war on Iraq. The First Lady had sent Olds a personal invitation, but the poet whose conscience was alive, refused on the grounds that "…it would feel to me as if I were condoning what I see to be the wild, highhanded actions of the Bush Administration…I would be taking food from the hand of the First Lady who represents the Administration that unleashed this war and that wills its continuation…I could not stomach it."

But "Sir" Salman Rushdie’s conscience has long been dead.

2007-06-25T20:57:00.000-04:00

Baghdad, Ramallah, and now Beirut: All burning

Nauman Mir
24 July 2006

The bombing of Beirut and other parts of Lebanon continues, with civilian deaths now close to 400 in the last twelve days. Israel as always is not willing to negotiate or do a prisoner-swap, it prefers bloodshed to peace.

The US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has arrived in Israel to supposedly quell the fire she is further igniting by providing quick shipments of bombs and ammunition to Israel.

George Bush’s chief of staff Josh Bolton said that an attack on Israel is an attack on the US; “We are allies, and we will support Israel in its right to self-defense”.

But no one is willing to talk to Hezbollah. This is where the fundamental problem lies. The United States and Israel are not willing to talk to any group that they consider “terrorist”. Israel keeps bombing Gaza while refusing to discuss or negotiate any kind of peace deal with Hamas, because it considers Hamas a “terrorist” organization. Political pride comes in the way of negotiating with “terrorists”.

The United States backs Israel and acts in the same way. After 9/11, it chose to bomb Afghanistan rather than try to negotiate with the Taliban. The world would look quite different had they chosen a political rather than a military approach.

Governments have negotiated with resistance groups (which they considered “terrorists”) in the past. It was in 1984, during the rule of Margaret Thatcher, that the IRA bombed the Grand Hotel in Brighton, England as the Conservative Party conference was in progress. Many of Thatcher’s cabinet members were killed in that attack. In response, Britain could have bombed Dublin, they could have invaded Northern Ireland, but they did not do either. For once they thought rationally (a rarity during Thatcher's reign) and began secret negotiations with the IRA three months after the bombing. They were kept “secret” because again negotiating with “terrorists” causes a great loss of pride.

Negotiating with Hamas and Hezbollah for a prisoner-swap is the only rational political solution. But rationality is not a trait that the Israeli state has ever possessed. It is now senselessly bombing Lebanon in an effort to draw Iran and Syria into the conflict.

Beirut, the city loved by poets, is now being destroyed again after 15 years of peace. Once the bombing ends, which one hopes will be soon, who will rebuild it? Who will heal these open wounds?

2006-03-24T11:14:00.000-05:00

– This essay was written in July 2003 for a Political Science class titled "Introduction to Foreign Policy" at Dalhousie University.

Afghanistan, the United States, and Women's Rights

In response to the horrific attacks in New York and Washington on 11 September 2001, the United States of America waged a war against Afghanistan in early October. The main reasons for the war, other than the terrorist attacks were; to oust the Taliban regime, to capture Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden allegedly responsible for the attacks, and to liberate the people of Afghanistan; in particular the women from the ultra repressive Taliban regime. This third reason is what I will concentrate on in this paper.

The war on Afghanistan was the first US war in which women’s liberation was a justification for the war (although ‘liberation’ in general has been a common justification for centuries). It seemed to be part of the US foreign policy to advocate women’s rights in a country where the State was openly discriminating against women. That is how it appeared to be but I will argue that the US foreign policy towards Afghanistan has never in the past included any concern for the Afghani people, not even during the five years of Taliban rule. National interests are what mattered, not the Afghani people.

Almost nineteen months have passed since an Interim government, under the Northern Alliance party, was installed in Afghanistan by the US. One of the first things it did was to lift the restrictions on women that had been in place. Under the Taliban, women were not allowed to work, get education, go out of their homes without a male relative, travel in a taxi alone, see a male doctor, laugh or talk loudly in public, and numerous other restrictions[1]. The burqa has been made optional which was mandatory for women under the Taliban. But recent reports by groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International show that the women of Afghanistan are still not ‘liberated’[2]. I will explain this in detail later in the paper.

I will first explain the current situation of women in Afghanistan and how the Afghani women view the situation. I will then try to explore the US foreign policy towards the current and previous Afghan governments, to explain whether the United States has ever been concerned with the plight of the Afghani people in the past. In the end, I will briefly touch upon how feminism has been used by the US government and what solution do the Afghani women propose to achieve liberation.

The current situation of women in Afghanistan, according to an Amnesty International report is that although the government has lifted the restriction on women’s mobility outside the home, lack of security due to increasing sexual violence, kidnapping and harassment has “continued to restrict women’s movement, expression and dress”[3]. Most women, especially outside the capital city of Kabul, feel very insecure and are thus wearing the burqa for security reasons. The religious police, which had been introduced in Afghan society by the Taliban, was reinstated in August 2002.[4] The Interim President, Hamid Karzai’s control is limited to Kabul, the rest of the country is being ruled by different warlords. The warlord of Hirat (in western Afghanistan), Ismail Khan, has gotten special attention from Human Rights Watch because he has imposed Taliban-style laws and restrictions on women. An example are the forced “chastity” examinations; if any woman or girl is seen with a man not related to her, she is arrested and taken to a hospital and forcibly examined whether she has had intercourse or not.

For the first time in Afghan history, a Ministry for Women’s Affairs was established. But its minister, Dr. Sima Samar was recently removed from her position and made a member of the Human Rights Commission. She was accused of blasphemy because she spoke against the Taliban’s treatment of women. The charges were later dropped but she did lose her ministry. Dr. Samar said that “Even Karzai is scared to push women’s issues too strongly because he is concerned that other leaders will not tolerate such progress”[5]. Before I comment on this, another incident is worth noting. In October 2002, the Afghan Supreme Court dismissed one of its female judges, Marzeya Basil, after she came back from an official trip to Washington. The reason for her dismissal was that she did not cover her hair during a meeting with the American President and his wife[6].
All these incidents reveal the presence of religious fundamentalism in the background. This is what the Afghani women’s feminist group, RAWA has said; “Leaders of the Northern Alliance have no ideological difference with the Taliban. Some of them may talk about “elections” and “women’s rights”, but in fact they are as much misogynist as the Taliban”[7]. Interestingly, RAWA opposed the US war on Afghanistan, with thousands of Afghani women joining the demonstrations. They did not want a war that, according to President Bush, would liberate them. The reason for this was, not a support of the Taliban, but a disagreement with the means as well as the end. The means were B-52 bombers and cruise missiles; basically destruction of a war torn country. The end was the so-called ‘liberation’ which the Afghani women knew, would not take place because essentially, the United States replaced one religious fundamentalist regime with another (a little less) fundamentalist regime. RAWA says that “The ‘War on Terrorism’ has removed the Taliban, but it has not removed religious fundamentalism, which is the cause of all our miseries”[8]. The US is supporting and giving aid to fundamentalists and warlords who have a long crime record against the Afghani people. Daria Fane, a foreign officer with the US State Department, justified this reason by asking Afghani women at a Conference; “Wouldn’t you rather have them (the warlords) in the government than fighting against it”. The reply was a unanimous ‘No’[9]. To understand why the US policy is to support and give aid to the Northern Alliance warlords, I will examine the history of US policies towards previous Afghan regimes.

Afghanistan had a close alliance with the Soviet Union since the early 1920’s. A Communist party, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) took power in a bloody military coup in 1978. It made reforms in land distribution, the education system, and women’s rights. Numerous literacy programs were introduced for women and at Kabul University, female students outnumbered male students. Due to these reforms and the fact that the government was Communist, anger started to grow among the Islamic fundamentalists[10]. The PDPA was a combination of two communist parties and tensions started developing inside the party. Meanwhile, the United States saw an opportunity of removing the Communist government in Afghanistan as part of the on-going Cold War. It started covertly arming and funding the religious opposition groups to start a civil war[11]. In 1979, the civil war began alongside the increasing tensions inside the government. The USSR decided to intervene. A massive number of Soviet troops crossed the border into Afghanistan. This intervention turned a civil war into a jihad against the atheist Russians and the religious opposition fighters now became the mujahidin (holy warriors)[12]. The major allies of the United States in this jihad were Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. The Pakistani military regime of General Zia-ul-Haq was given arms and funds by the CIA that were then supplied to the mujahidin[13]. The Pakistani Intra-Services Intelligence (ISI) started training the mujahidin alongside CIA officials. The city of Peshawar near the Afghan border became the gathering point of the fundamentalists who were pouring from many parts of the Muslim world. The Saudi monarchy was also heavily funding this jihad and Egypt was sending arms which it had originally bought from the USSR. The ISI had been asking the Saudi monarchy to send a prince to lead the on-going jihad. No Royal prince volunteered. Instead, a close friend of the Royal family was sent to Peshawar. His name was Osama bin Laden[14]. He acknowledged in an interview that the mujahidin were being trained by the CIA and the ISI, and were being funded by the Saudi government[15].

The US government does not deny that it supported the Mujahidin but it does dispute the timing of when it got involved. The Center for Defense Information (CDI) says that the US got involved after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979[16]. But President Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, admitted in 1998 that the CIA had started supporting the mujahidin six months prior to the Soviet invasion contrary to the “official version of history”[17] (see Appendix). Brzezinski went to Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion and gave encouraging speeches to the Mujahidin which were translated for them, and he told them that “God is on your side”[18]. His interview (see Appendix) leaves one with no illusions about the point that the US foreign policy was not at all concerned with the people of Afghanistan during the Cold War. Its national interest was to give a major blow to the already failing Soviet Union. Indeed, Afghanistan did become a “Vietnam” for the USSR as Brzezinski predicted. The US provided over $2 billion in weapons and money to different factions of the mujahidin during this war (1979-1989). And what is even worse is that the US, along with its allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, created the fanatics it is now trying to combat with the War on Terrorism. I will give two examples of how young boys were mentally and physically trained to be fanatical fighters. First is the case of the primary school textbooks. During the Afghan war, the US Agency of International Development (AID) gave a grant to the University of Nebraska at Omaha. The Center for Afghanistan Studies was asked to write books on mathematics, science, and other subjects, in the two dominant languages of Afghanistan---Dari and Pashto. These books were filled with violent content; bullets, Kalashnikovs, grenades, and soldiers were used as examples to explain mathematical problems. They also contained racist anti-Soviet material and was meant to “stimulate resistance against (Soviet) invasion” according to a professor at the center for Afghanistan Studies[19]. Students of grade 4 and 5 were being ‘stimulated’ by these books which were being smuggled into Afghanistan from Peshawar by the mujahidin. AID spent nearly $51 million on the education programs it carried out in Afghanistan, using these books, from 1984 to 1994. The second example is of the madrassas (religious boarding schools) that were being funded by the Pakistani and the Saudi government since 1979. There were nearly 2500 madrassas in Pakistan where orphan Afghan and Pakistani children and/or the sons of Afghan refugees in Pakistan were being prepared for future jihads. At a young age these boys were only taught to read and memorize the Qur’an (without understanding the meaning of the words). As they grew up, they were taught the use of different weapons and making of bombs by the ISI[20]. At the young ages of 16 and 17, these boys were ready to kill and die, whenever ordered to do so.

The Taliban were a product of these madrassas. What expectations can one have about respect for women from such systematically created fanatics who had grown up in literally all male environments? They had been taught to stay away from the temptation of women because it would hinder their bonds in the male brotherhood, needed to fight the jihads. And the practical embodiment of this indoctrination was seen when the Taliban took power in 1996 and in a period of five years, destroyed the culture of Afghanistan.

The year was 1989. The Soviet Union pulled out its forces from Afghanistan. The Afghan war became the final hit to the USSR and it brought the Cold War to an end. The PDPA was still ruling Afghanistan and receiving some assistance from USSR. President Najibullah sustained the government for the next three years, until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992[21]. The Mujahidin leader Burhanudin Rabbani, attacked Kabul and took control of it. For the first time in Afghan history, the country was under the rule of Islamic fundamentalists. A civil war broke out between the different mujahidin factions. The United States, since 1989 had lost interest in Afghanistan. It could be said that the US did liberate the Afghani people from the Russians by funding the mujahidin. But it did so, not for the people of Afghanistan, but for itself. It won the Cold War due to the Mujahidin; it was an American jihad, fought with Afghani blood.

Rabbani was and is the leader of the Northern Alliance. He ruled Afghanistan from 1992 to 1996. Numerous restrictions were imposed on women’s dress, education, and mobility. But there was no religious police to enforce these restrictions, so many women did not wear the burqa. They were not denied employment. Since the time of the Communist government, nearly 70% of the teachers in Kabul were women, 40% of doctors were also women and they maintained their jobs during the Mujahidin rule[22]. But the incidents of harassment, gang rape, torture, abductions, and kidnapping, increased greatly during this time. Nowadays, Rabbani is not in the Interim government but is ruling the north-eastern province of Badakhshan. Many of the members of his government are now in power again, and the instances of the crimes against women mentioned in the previous lines, have increased once again all over Afghanistan.

Two main factions in the civil war were the Rabbani government being supported by Iran and a faction led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. He was a favourite of the ISI was sent to Afghanistan to overthrow the Rabbani government which was opposed to Pakistan[23]. He failed to do so. The ISI then chose to send the Taliban who fought fierce battles and captured Kabul in 1996 ousting the Rabbani government. They had control over two-thirds of Afghanistan during their five year rule.
The US was still not overly concerned with Afghanistan. Some of the petroleum companies however were very interested in Afghanistan. Oil giant UNOCAL “applauded the fall of Kabul to the Taliban and expressed their eagerness to do business with the regime”[24]. In September 1997, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright did openly condemn the Taliban regime for its human rights abuses during a trip to an Afghan refugee camp in Pakistan[25]. But a month later, the assistant Secretary of State Karl Inderfurth, declared at a Congressional hearing that “Let me be very clear about our policy towards Afghanistan. The US is neutral between the (mujahidin) factions”[26]. This reveals that although the US expressed concerns about the human rights abuses, it still was not concerned about the Afghani people or the government. It is true that the US did not recognize the Taliban government; from all the UN member countries, only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates recognized them. But what good did this do for the Afghani people? The Taliban were earning enough revenues from their heroin trade and were still receiving aid from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. They did not care about what the rest of the world thought of them. Only after September the 11th, did the Bush Administration express the dire need to ‘liberate’ the Afghani women. It is worth noting that after the terrorist attacks, the first country chosen as a target for response was not Afghanistan, but Iraq[27]. But that mission was postponed till March 2003.
The examination of all this history shows that the only people whose interests have not and are not being served by these wars and interventions are the Afghani people. The history of Afghanistan is filled with the ironies of history. The US along with its obedient allies created, funded, armed, and trained fanatical men to fight its war against the USSR. As the 21st century came to light, some of those fanatical men (not Afghani, but veterans of the Afghan war) created mayhem in New York and Washington. Then their old master decided to destroy Afghanistan, using Pakistan as a base, who now spoke against the Taliban that it had helped to create and had supported till August 2001. Nearly 10,000 people died in the War on Afghanistan, but still President Bush said that the US “is a friend to the Afghan people”[28]. President Bush, British PM Blair, and the first ladies used feminism as a tool to wage a war. An ideology that aims at ending the oppression of women and creating equality between men and women locally as well as globally, was used for imperialist aims. Feminism was made into “Colonial Feminism” which is “a ‘feminism’ that is racist in its assumptions and exploitative of both ‘native’ and Western women in its appropriation of feminist language to serve imperialist/patriarchal interests” according to Therese Saliba[29]. And this is exactly what was used in the case of Afghani women. This form of feminism goes against the spirit of feminism and thus should be resisted.

Feminists and governments should support the Afghani women in their struggle against oppression and its main cause, religious fundamentalism. But as RAWA has said, the support should be to “empower” women so that they can attain liberation, but on their own terms. The Afghani women should themselves determine their liberation. Change should not be imposed against the will of the people because that is not liberation. Groups that are pro-democracy and anti-fundamentalists inside Afghanistan are the ones that should be given support. This approach takes patience and time, but it brings lasting change. The approach of removing one extremely repressive regime and replacing it with a less repressive regime is bound to failure in liberating the people from oppression. This is something that the US foreign policy should take into account. It should learn from its past mistakes. As the evidence shows, the US created and trained the Frankensteins it now fears and is scrambling to combat. But the approach of wars, regime changes, and pre-emptive strikes that it has taken, amply shows that the Empire still has not learned(t) from its past experiences. It is breeding more hatred against itself than ever before but in my opinion, the US government is blinded by its fundamentalist belief in its own ‘goodness’. President Bush said on 11 October 2001, five days after the war on Afghanistan started; “How do I respond when I see that in some Islamic countries there is vitriolic hatred for America? I’ll tell you how I respond: I’m amazed. I just can’t believe it because I know how good we are”[30]. Afghanistan is a prime example of a country that has suffered from the ‘goodness’ of the United States. The men created by the United States turned out to be fatal for both the United States and Afghanistan. The US is not to be held responsible for every crime that the Taliban committed, of course not, but the Empire and its allies are responsible for creating the source of oppression of the Afghani people; religious fundamentalism. And until this source keeps flourishing in Afghanistan with the help of the United States, I think, history will keep repeating itself.

I have tried to show in this paper that US foreign policies towards Afghanistan were concerned only with its own national interests without a shred of consideration for the Afghani people and how these policies would affect them. The women of Afghanistan have been brutally oppressed and have suffered tremendous physical, mental, and emotional traumas in these two decades of war. But it is heartening to see that still many Afghan women, members of RAWA and other groups, are trying their best to help the Afghani women in so many ways. Many NGO’s and INGO’s are doing tremendous efforts to educate and train the women of Afghanistan so that they can be able to support themselves and begin the process of change in their society. These forces are what need to be supported for betterment of Afghanistan. But to consider the United States government as a force of ‘good’, eager to liberate the oppressed people of the world, is a fatal mistake in my opinion.

APPENDIX

This interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski was published by the French weekly Le Nouvel Observateur of 15-21 January, 1998. I quote it here from Ali, Tariq. The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads, and Modernity. (London: Verso, 2002) pp. 206-207.

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs (From the Shadows) that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahidin in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahidin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now is completely otherwise: Indeed it was 3 July 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired the Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advise to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet Empire? A few crazed Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?

[31]

ENDNOTES

[1] From the website of Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA). It is the only major feminist group struggling to help women in Afghanistan and also in the Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan. Even under the Interim government, the group works as an underground movement. http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/wom-view.htm

[2] Telegraph, 02 January 2003. Why Burqas still stifle Afghan Women.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F01%2F02%2Fwafg02.xml

[3] Amnesty International. 2003 Annual Report on Afghanistan.
http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/afg-summary-eng

[4] See endnote # 2.

[5] See endnote # 2.

[6] Reuters, 02 November 2002 Afghan Woman Fired for Meeting Bush Uncovered. At the RAWA website: http://rawasongs.fancymarketing.net/fired.htm

[7] See endnote # 1.

[8] See endnote # 1.

[9] News and Letters, November 2002.
http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues/2002/November/Afghanwomen_Nov02.htm

[10] Ellis, Deborah. Women of the Afghan War. (Westport, CT: Praegar Publishers, 2000) p.61.

[11] Ali, Tariq. The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads, and Modernity. (London: Verso, 2002) p. 206.

[12] Most Muslim scholars have said that the translation of the word Jihad as ‘Holy War’ and Mujahidin as ‘Holy Warriors’ is not linguistically accurate. But Islamic fundamentalists do consider these words to have these meanings. I am using these words as the fundamentalists see them.

[13] See endnote # 12 ibid., p. 195.

[14] Rashid, Ahmed. Taliban: Islam, Oil, and the New Great Game in Central Asia. (London: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2001) p. 131.

[15] Ibid., p. 132. Bin Laden said: “To counter the atheist Russians, the Saudis chose me as their representative in Afghanistan, I settled in Pakistan in the Afghan border region. There I received volunteers who came from the Saudi Kingdom and from all over the Arab and Muslim countries. I set up my first camp where these volunteers were trained by American and Pakistani officers. The weapons were supplied by the Americans, the money by the Saudis.”

[16] Center for Defense Information. http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/afghanistan-history-pr.cfm

[17] See endnote # 12 ibid., p. 208.

[18] From the documentary Not In My Name. (London: Platform Films, 2001)

[19] The Washington Post, 23 March 2002. From US, the ABC’s of Jihad: Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5339-2002Mar22?language=printer

[20] See endnote # 12 ibid., p. 196.

[21] See endnote # 11 ibid., p. 62.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Foreign Policy in Focus. Afghanistan. December 1996
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol1/afghan.html

[24] Physicians for Human Rights. The Taliban’s War on Women: A Health and Humans Rights Crisis in Afghanistan. (Boston, 1998) p. 35.

[25] Ibid., p. 36.

[26] Ibid., p. 37.

[27] See endnote # 12 ibid., p. 153.

[28] See endnote # 18.

[29] Therese Saliba. “Military Presences and Absences: Arab Women and the Persian Gulf War” in Kadi, Joanna (ed.), Food for our Grandmothers: Writings by Arab-American and Arab-Canadian Feminists. (Boston: South End Press, 1994) p. 126.

[30] See endnote # 12 ibid., p. ix.

[31] I wonder how Brzezinski would reply to his own question after the attacks of September the 11th, when a ‘few crazed Muslims’ did become ‘important’ to history.

2006-03-23T14:31:00.000-05:00

Some of my favourite Non-fiction Books

Book: The Clash of Fundamentalisms - Crusades, Jihads, and Modernity
Author: Tariq Ali
Publisher: Verso

-If you want to get a thorough but succinct historical perspective on the history of Islam, Middle Eastern politics, the role of the United States in the Middle East, and the post- 9/11 world, this is a great book to read. It beautifully weaves together history and politics, with literature and poetry from the Arab and Muslim world and it reads like a novel. The author is my most favourite. He is eloquent, witty, and extremely honest.

Book: The Great War for Civilisation - The Conquest of the Middle East
Author: Robert Fisk
Publisher: 4th Estate

-A lengthy but well worth-reading book. The author is a veteran journalist who writes for the British newspaper The Independent. He lives in Beirut, Lebanon and has witnessed every major war, battle, and political event that has happened in the Middle East in the last 30 years. The book re-accounts many of those incidents and meetings with major figures from Khomenei to Osama bin Laden. The writing is beautifully eloquent and does not let you put the book down. For a more detailed account of the event where I heard Robert Fisk speak about this book and later met him, read my article that has the same title as the book.

Book: Bush in Babylon
Author: Tariq Ali
Publisher: Verso

-Written in 2003, just as the war on Iraq began and the massive anti-war movement was in full force where 8 million people had marched globally on February 15th, 2003 against this war before it even started. The book talks extensively about the history of Iraq; how it was under British rule. The rise of the Ba'ath Party and the near demise of the Iraqi Communist Party. How Saddam Hussein came to power and his relationship to the United States especially during the Gulf War. The economic sanctions and the role of Britain, the United States, and the UN in imposing them and the tremendous loss of life that they caused in Iraq. The book provides the broader context and rips apart the false justifications for the Iraq War. It ends on a more optimistic note in noting the achievements of ordinary people through the means of the anti-war movement globally and leaves hope for further struggle against imperialism and the American Empire. The paper back edition was updated in 2004 explaining one year of the resistance in Iraq.

A must read for anyone who wants to understand the current situation in Iraq and its implications for the whole of the Middle East.

Book: Imperial Ambitions - Conversations on the post- 9/11 world
Author: Noam Chomsky (Interviews by David Barsamian)
Publisher: Metropolitan Books

A great series of interviews with scholar Noam Chomsky. In my opinion, it is most educational to hear writers and scholars speak about a topic because in speaking they provide the gist of years and years of research on a particular issue. Chomsky is impecable in providing references to the comments he makes and brings a much needed perspective on the politics of the American Empire in the world today.

Book: Speaking of Empire and Resistance - Conversations with Tariq Ali
Author: Tariq Ali (Interviews done by David Barsamian)
Publisher: The New Press

Intriguing conversation between Tariq Ali and David Barsamian. The scope of the topics covered in this relatively short book is amazing. Politics is ofcourse the focus but literature and poetry related to politics is also discussed extensively. These conversations are truly a feast for the mind.

2006-03-22T05:49:00.000-05:00

Thousands say: “Bush go home”

Nauman Mir
11 March 2006

President Bush completed a five day tour of the “nuclear wastelands of South Asia” – India and Pakistan, after a pit stop in neighbouring Afghanistan. The ruling classes of both countries gave extremely lavish receptions to the world’s most unwelcome leader, while the bulk of their impoverished populations erupted into the streets in protest.

In a time when the United States is putting tremendous pressure on Iran to stop uranium enrichment, Bush agreed to provide blatant nuclear assistance to India. A number of political differences between India and Iran might explain this ultimate double standard.

India is a “democracy”, Iran is not. The definition of democracy: any country that not only has elections, but is also subservient to the American empire and has opened its market for free capitalist exploitation. India fits this definition perfectly, Iran does not. Iran has elections, but is not a servant of the empire.

India is a close friend of Israel, Iran is not. The Israeli intelligence agency Mossad and its Indian counterpart, RAW, have been clandestinely working together for several years now.

In the case of Iran, Israel is impatient why a regime changed has not happened. Since well before the war on Iraq officially began, Israel has been openly urging the United States to do so. In a February 2003 statement, Israeli PM Ariel Sharon said that Iran is one of the “irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction”.

The United States is keen on following the advice of its most powerful outpost in the Middle East.

Bush’s visit to Pakistan must have been disappointing for the Pakistani government. They were hopelessly expecting that like India, Bush would usher Pakistan into the American approved nuclear club as well; the countries that are allowed to have weapons of mass destruction. But that was not to be; the American empire does not consider Pakistan as “responsible” as India.

Although if India really thought responsibly, it would clearly see that rather than doing nuclear deals with the United States and jeopordizing its relationship with Iran, its energy needs would be better served by dealing directly with Iran in oil and gas. But the ruling classes are always blinded by the charm of serving the empire. It is only the oppressed masses that fight back and they said it loud and clear: “Bush go home”.

2006-03-22T05:34:00.000-05:00

DANISH CAPITALISM HIT BY THE ARAB STREET

Nauman Mir
14 February 2006

A fierce political storm has been raised in the Muslim world after a conservative Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, published ridiculing cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. Since their original publication in September last year, they have gathered more and more controversy, especially by their recent re-publication in Norway, Spain, Germany, France, and New Zealand. All papers justified the printing as “freedom of expression”.

The newspaper’s editor as well as the Danish Prime Minister initially refused to offer any apologies. But subsequently the newspaper apologized and is still featuring “an open letter to fellow Muslim citizens” on its website from the editor in Dutch, English, and Arabic. The editor explains that the 12 drawings “were not intended to be offensive” in any way.

One shows the prophet Muhammad as carrying an ignited canon bomb (with the Muslim proclamation of faith clearly written in Arabic on the bomb) in his turban, another shows him on the clouds saying to a queue of men supposedly entering heaven “Stop stop we ran out of virgins”, and a third depicts him holding a dagger with two black-cloaked women to his sides. The remaining nine cartoons are equally offensive but their purpose, according to the editor, was to show “what the Prophet Mohammed might have looked like” and also to contribute to the “ongoing public debate on freedom of expression, a freedom much cherished in Denmark”.

What possible political or cultural debate could such an offensive mockery of Islam’s most revered figure lead to? This is nothing but blatant hatred of Islam that is being expressed under the guise of “freedom of expression”. At a time when Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine are being raped by the imperial powers, such hate filled publications only increase the divide between the Muslim world and the West.

The editor then reluctantly apologizes in the letter (the Danish PM did not) for the whole incident but not because his hate is in any way diminished but because Denmark got a strong economic hit from the whole incident. Many in the business community pressured the newspaper because of boycotts of Danish products across the Arab world. Ordinary people intentionally stopped buying anything Danish and thus supermarkets from Riyadh to Cairo to Tripoli took Danish products off their shelves. Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador from Denmark affecting billions of dollars of trade between the two countries and Libya shut down its embassy.

The actions of these two Arab states undoubtedly gave an economic heart attack to the Danish government but their motives cannot be anything but self-serving. However, the non-state sponsored grassroots coordination among ordinary Arab people is quite impressive and gives hope for the future. The language that capitalist politicians clearly understand is that of economic damage. Violence of any form can never achieve what economic setbacks can.

Keeping this in mind, one is saddened by the fact that such quick actions were not taken where they truly should have been; the occupation of Palestine, the Gulf War, the brutal economic sanctions on Iraq, the war on Afghanistan, and the war on Iraq. The latter two resulted in the largest global anti-war movement in human history and that is no minor achievement.

But what incidents like this cartoon fiasco show is that to truly distress imperial governments, a political movement combined with tactics to economically hurt the aggressors is what can create a major political offensive on a grassroots level against the Empire and its enablers.

2006-03-22T05:19:00.000-05:00

The lonely occupation: Canada in Afghanistan

Nauman Mir
14 January 2006

The so-called “peacekeeping” mission in Afghanistan is looking more and more like a simple, outright, imperialist occupation – with Canadian troops shamefully propping up the US military.

The Pentagon announced it will reduce the number of US troops in Afghanistan from 19,000 to about 16,500 by this May. Bush is desperate for warm bodies to throw into the Iraq quagmire.

The Empire expects its allies to increase their troop capacity to fill the gap. Thus NATO is supposed to send 6,000 troops in addition to the 9,000 currently stationed in the country.

But after four years of fighting the US-led “war on terror” in Afghanistan, the NATO allies seem to be losing their will to fight: all except Canada – the only country that is sending more troops without any hesitation.

One thousand Canadian troops have arrived already and another thousand will be deployed by February in Afghanistan’s ancient capital city, Kandahar.

France, Germany, and Spain have failed to replicate this example of Canadian commitment. The Netherlands has in principle agreed to send 1,100 troops in addition to the 600 Dutch soldiers already on the ground but it is still quite nervous.

In a recent discussion at NATO headquarters in Belgium, the Dutch government sought guarantees that its “peacekeepers” would not be in a situation like that of Srebrenica. This was a reference to the genocide that took place in Srebrenica, Bosnia in 1995 when 8,000 Muslim men and boys were killed after they had been handed over to Serb forces by Dutch peacekeepers.

The British government has been decidedly vague about its commitment. It had announced earlier that 3,400 British troops will be in Afghanistan by May, but some reports have suggested that it might be half that number.

All this nervousness and confusion are reflective of the fact that the situation on the ground is not favourable to “staying the course”. Suicide bombing used to be rare in Afghanistan. But in the past three months, there have been 10 suicide bombings. A total of 99 American soldiers died in 2005, and 30 more from the coalition countries, including four from Canada.

But Canada’s commitment remains unchanged and it is getting ready for its biggest infantry combat operation since the Korean War. This is a stark example of Canada’s militarism and how the 13 billion dollars of taxpayers’ money that went into this year’s defence budget is going to be used.

Disgracefully, the issue of Canada’s imperialist role in Afghanistan and Haiti has largely been a non-issue. Martin, Harper, and Layton have not touched upon foreign policy at all during this campaign. In the little time left, we need to keep pushing our local candidates about Afghanistan and Haiti so that we know where they stand and they know our opposition to Canada’s militarism.

Troops out of Afghanistan and Haiti.

2006-03-22T05:00:00.000-05:00

Ariel Sharon: THE END OF A TERRORIST

Nauman Mir
14 January 2006

A year has passed since the death of Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat and now it seems Israeli PM Ariel Sharon is near to a similar fate. He has had number of emergency surgeries and is reportedly in medically induced coma.

Messages of concern have been sent from world leaders including our own Canadian PM Paul Martin who in November addressed the annual United Jewish Communities general assembly in Toronto. Expressing Canada’s unconditional support for the Israeli state he said: “Israel's values are Canada's value…You showed us the way to peace, Canada will never forget”.

Relations between Canada and Israel have been cordially warm during Sharon’s rule. In March 2005, thirty senior police officers traveled to Israel on tax payer’s money to learn “security measures” from the Israel defense forces. In May, the Canadian air force invited the Israeli air force to participate in a joint military exercise---the Maple Flag war games which are held every year but it was the first time that Israel was invited. Ten Israeli F-16s flew with Canadian and other planes in Cold Lake, Alberta to practice simulated war scenarios.

Those who are mourning and praying for Sharon should look back on his political career which does not show him as a “man of peace” but as a brutal terrorist.

The list of crimes that Sharon has committed against the Palestinian people is so long that only books can suffice to give an account of them. Here are just a few examples:

Sharon carried out an operation in the El-Bureig refugee camp in Gaza in 1953 where more than 50 refugees were bombed in their sleep. The same year he wiped out the Jordanian village of Qibya.
An Israeli government commission held him “personally responsible” for the terrible massacres of Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982 that killed nearly two thousand innocent Palestinians.
He has militarily participated in every Israeli war. He knowingly instigated the second intifada by visiting the Noble Sanctuary (or Temple Mount) in the year 2000.
Two years later, the Jenin refugee camp was demolished under his orders while the world media was deliberately denied access to the city until two weeks later.
Sharon is responsible for building Israel’s so-called security wall that is illegal according to the International court of Justice and is usurping Palestinian land. He should be remembered as the leader who built a “ghetto” for the Palestinians, much like the European ghettos in which Jews were forced to live before the Second World War.

Many in the West lauded his Gaza disengagement plan and portrayed it as an example of his determination and political skill. The dismantling of settlements from Gaza simply meant an increase of illegal settlements in the West Bank.

The list goes on. Sadly, his absence from Israeli politics will not bring about any good news for the Palestinians. Those who will replace him in the March elections (Netanyahu, Olmert, Peres) are equally ruthless albeit their crimes against Palestinians might not be on par with Sharon.

2006-03-22T04:54:00.000-05:00

ROBERT FISK – THE GREAT WAR FOR CIVILISATION

Nauman Mir
29 November 2005

Internationally renowned journalist and writer Robert Fisk gave a talk last week to a packed auditorium at the University of Toronto about his new book The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East. A long time foreign correspondent for London’s The Independent newspaper, Fisk has lived in Beirut, Lebanon for the past 25 years.

He told that his father fought for the British army in the First World War and how the supposed victors of that “war to end all wars” – Britain and France – drew the borders of “Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia, and most of the Middle East”. Fisk explained how he himself has spent his “professional career…watching the people of these regions burn”. His book focuses on the Middle East where he has spent the longest time of his career.

He witnessed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the beginning of the Iran-Iraq war and many more tumultuous events that have plagued the Middle East in the last quarter century.

The book is not meant to be a chronicled history, but rather a personal account from a journalist’s memory. It is written with lucidity, gut-wrenching emotion, and as one expects from him, painful honesty.

Fisk described in his talk that he writes his articles as “writing a letter to a friend”. And this is the best description of the book as well.

The eye-witness reports of various political incidents and wars are weaved together with personal anecdotes as well as discussions about the role, practice, and future of journalism. Fisk laments over the near-death of journalism in the West where the majority of journalists have developed a “parasitic relationship” with power, especially in the United States. They accept what information is given to them by the government and do not question it, especially in times of war. And enjoy the pampering they receive from the rich and powerful, to keep their eyes and ears shut.

Fisk told that the best definition of journalism he has heard is from fellow Israeli journalist Amira Hass of the Ha’aretz that journalists have “to monitor the centres of power”. They have to challenge authority, but that is exactly what they are not doing.

Talking of the current situation in Iraq and the greater Middle East, Fisk said that the people of the Middle East “would like a freedom of another kind: They want freedom from us”; a comment that was greeted with loud applause by the 800 strong audience. He said that every leader in the West talks of giving “freedom” to the Muslim world, but no one talks of justice. What people really want is justice.

One thing which readers of the book might note is the pessimism that seems to lurk in the background of the writing. In my opinion, that pessimism is understandable. Wars are the subject of the book and no optimism has ever come from war. It can only produce death, suffering, and trauma. As Fisk writes: “war is primarily not about victory or defeat but about death and the infliction of death. It represents the total failure of the human spirit”. And Fisk is not intending to present optimistic solutions to all the political issues and conflicts in the Middle East or elsewhere. He is describing a personal account of history as he has witnessed it.

It is quite a large book so it will require considerable time on the readers’ part but the eloquence and passion with which it is written, does not let you put it down. If there is one book you should read, it should be none other than The Great War for Civilsation.

2006-03-22T04:45:00.000-05:00

Saudi Storm Clouds Ahead

Nauman Mir
04 August 2005

After 23 years of rule, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia died on August 01, 2005. He was the fifth ruler of the kingdom and had the longest reign. The succession of his brother Crown Prince Abdullah was swift because he has been the de-facto ruler since 1995 when King Fahd had a stroke.
The major economic transformation of Saudi Arabia happened during King Fahd’s reign. Formerly modest cities are now thriving metropolises where skyscrapers grace the horizon. Every symbol of American capitalism from Saks Fifth Avenue, GAP, to McDonald’s and Marriott are well established in the kingdom.

King Fahd’s prime achievements include the massive expansion of the two Holy Mosques in Makkah and Medina, rise in education, and being a key figure in ending the Lebanese civil war.

The two Holy shrines of Islam have seen tremendous development. They are now equipped with the best facilities to accommodate thousands of worshippers all year round and especially during the Hajj (Pilgrimage) season when nearly two million people visit both cities.

A great deal of work has been done on education. Girls were not allowed to go to school in the kingdom until 1964. Today 55 percent of university students are female. According to a 2003 estimate, the literacy rate is 79 percent. Schools and universities are sexually segregated but access to education is free up to the university level for all Saudi citizens.

In 1989, King Fahd brought together the warring factions of the Lebanese civil war in the small historic town of Taif, Saudi Arabia. The Taif Agreement led to a ceasefire which ended the civil war and formed the basis of a government where power could be shared between Muslims and Christians in Lebanon.

King Fahd was a favourite of successive US governments. Saudis (secretly) called him the “yes-man” of the American Empire. He is one of the four leaders whose governments are responsible for creating Al-Qaeda. US President Reagan, King Fahd, Pakistani President General Zia and Egyptian President Mubarak, provided the training, funds, and arms to Osama bin Laden and his Mujahideen to fight the last battle of the Cold War in Afghanistan from 1979-1989. The problem of terrorism today is a consequence of that war and Saudi Arabia itself is a victim of terrorism. Once famous for its security, shootings as well as terrorist attacks are now becoming common in the kingdom.

The new king Abdullah is trying to control the upsurge in violence. He is seen as a reformer by the population. Under US pressure he has tried to restrict the power of the clerics who were given an open hand during King Fahd’s rule. In 2001, Saudi women finally got to have their own identity cards, although a male guardian must apply for them. In February 2005, the first municipal council elections were held in the capital city, Riyadh. Half of the new council members were elected. Women were not allowed to vote but it was said that by 2009, they will have the vote as well. Although these reforms are welcome, an ulterior motive might be behind them---the government’s longing to enter the WTO.

The longest reigning king is now dead but the future power struggles will happen due to a law he introduced in 1992 which allows the grandsons of King Abdul Aziz (Fahd’s father) to claim the throne, not just the sons. No line of succession has been made for that younger generation. And who might rise from them in the coming decades remains to be seen.

2006-03-22T04:36:00.000-05:00

US-crafted Iraq constitution represents: THE PRIVATIZATION OF IRAQ

Nauman Mir
24 September 2005

On the 28th of August, Iraq’s constitutional committee approved the final draft of the new constitution. The United States hailed this as a great achievement and a major step in establishing democracy in Iraq.

To be fair, the Bush Administration does deserve credit; it has provided Iraq with a constitution within a very short period of time, something which the state of Israel has not been able to do for itself in the 57 years of its existence.

Within a three month period, the Iraqi constitution went through three drafts. What deserves scrutiny is how carefully the US drafted the constitution so that it allowed maximum neo-liberal exploitation of the country’s economy and resources.

The language used in it is very subtle but the implications are profound. For example, privatization of social services, giving non-Iraqis equal rights as Iraqis over the country’s assets, and opening up the economy for foreign investment.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator but he did provide Iraqis with the best public health care facilities in the Arab world and free education up to the university level. The American empire is doing everything it can to “Americanize” Iraq. So health care will be provided by the government but “within the limits of their resources”; a hint towards future privatization much like it currently is in the United States. The ruling class “creates a world after its own image”, said Marx in The Communist Manifesto, and that rings true even today.

Iraqi oil was one of the major reasons for the war and occupation and to ensure that future “democratic” governments do not nationalize the oil, the following article has been added to the constitution:

“The federal government and the government of the (oil) producing regions and provinces together will draw up the necessary strategic policies to develop oil and gas wealth to bring the greatest benefit to the Iraqi people, relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment.” (Article 110)

“Market principles” and “investment” never provided benefit to any one but the capitalist ruling class. This article implies the privatization of the Iraqi National Oil Company which was formed in 1961 after the government of Brigadier Qasim nationalized Iraq’s oil. He paid for doing so with his life in a CIA covert assassination in 1963. And any government that would nationalize its oil resources today would also be answerable.

In the previous drafts of the constitution, non-Iraqis did not have the right to own property or real estate but the final draft read “An Iraqi has the right to ownership anywhere in Iraq and no one else has the right to own real estate except what is exempted by law” (emphasis added). And the so-called Bremer laws, particularly Order # 39, exempts non-Iraqis and gives them ownership rights. Thus American corporations have the same rights of ownership as Iraqi citizens.

Perhaps the clearest summation of the stark exploitation of Iraq’s economy is in Article 25 which was added only in the final draft and did not exist in previous drafts:

"The state shall guarantee the reforming of the Iraqi economy according to modern economic bases, in a way that ensures complete investment of its resources, diversifying its sources and encouraging and developing the private sector.”

This article is an example of the strong foothold of modern capitalism that the United States has established in Iraq and through the constitution, it has been made sure that capitalist exploitation continues for the years to come.

This constitution is yet another clear example of the fact that America is not interested in the ideological issue of spreading democracy in the Arab and Muslim world but is striving to achieve its economic and political interests. If democracy was allowed in the Middle East, it could lead to a government that would kick out all the American and foreign troops from its soil and nationalize its oil resources; two things which would require another American intervention.

The massive permanent US bases being built in Iraq are garrisons to enforce this corporate takeover.

All the more reason to demonstrate on September 24 and demand: “Troops out now!”

2006-03-22T04:33:00.000-05:00

Salman Rushdie: ANOTHER EMPIRE LOYALIST

Nauman Mir
08 October 2005

On September 28, controversial author Salman Rushdie came to the University of Toronto for a reading of his latest novel “Shalimar the Clown”.

It is a story of love, betrayal, and the evolution of a kind-hearted man into an assassin, all set against the landscape of the history of Kashmir. Rushdie was interviewed on stage by CBC’s Michael Enright. Eight hundred people attended the sold-out event.

The event was enjoyable until the question/answer period. All the questions from the audience were political except one or two that were about the novel. And it was here that the true arrogance and immaturity of Rushdie’s political thought was displayed.

Asked about Pakistan’s President General Musharraf, Rushdie replied: “I generally do not support Generals” but he supports Musharraf because if he is removed from power, the country will be taken over by “Islamic radicals” and Pakistan’s nuclear weapons will come into the hands of terrorists.

This is a uniquely American thought but laughable considering that in every general election that has taken place in Pakistan, the religious parties have never received more than 5 percent of the vote, showing how little support they have from the population.

So the “fundamentalist take-over theory” is a highly unlikely prospect and is only accepted by those who support Musharraf’s dictatorship because he is America’s ally.

The issue of the hijab was raised and Rushdie said that a great many women in the Muslim world reject it. They clearly see that the hijab is an oppressive entity imposed on women by men. And the fact that some women don’t admit that it is oppressive and say that it liberates them shows that “They are nuts”.

This disgusting and narrow minded comment against Muslim women was loudly cheered and applauded by the dominantly white audience. The fact that the hijab is a symbol of identity for many Muslim women around the world is of no concern to Rushdie or other secular fundamentalists. They consider themselves as being “feminists”. They are nothing but a disgrace to the noble cause of feminism.

He was then asked about his recent exchange with British MP George Galloway on a BBC panel discussion. He answered: “I was surprised as to how much I disliked Galloway, not because of his political views but on a personal level. And I thought to myself, if this is the face of the anti-war movement, then the anti-war movement is in deep shit”.

No it isn’t. The movement is proud to have Galloway as one of its representatives; a person who stands up for justice in the highest echelons of power and has the support of the masses around the world. Apologists of the American Empire like Rushdie (and his good friend Christopher Hitchens), tend to not like such people.

The event came to an end and I felt absolute disdain towards Rushdie who once had the support of a great many leftists, but has since found new friends on the right by expressing his love of the empire. And like them, he has become intellectually and morally bankrupt.

2006-03-22T04:16:00.000-05:00

Afghanistan – It’s still a war for oil

Nauman Mir
22 October 2005

In a letter titled “Don’t Criticize Canada’s Soldiers” the angry writer was offended that in my article, I had dared to criticize Canadian troops in Afghanistan knowing that they are putting their life on the line for us.

The writer says that it is not patriotic to criticize our men and women in uniform. Patriotism comprises of nothing but hallow bombast meant to justify the killings of innocent people abroad.

Governments always justify their political and economic interests ideologically. “Patriotism” uses carefully orchestrated lies told by our government to further their own interests.

The United States is in Afghanistan to gain control over Caspian oil and develop a strong presence in Central Asia. Canada is helping them. But our government tells us that they are there for ideological reasons: fighting terrorism, spreading democracy, and rebuilding Afghanistan. All are lies.

The Northern Alliance warlords that have been installed in the new government are not “better” than the Taliban. They are loathed by Afghanis.

Most of these same warlords ruled from 1992 – 1996. Violence and the lack of law and order had made conditions so bad for ordinary Afghans then that when the Taliban finally overthrew the government in Kabul, they were initially treated as liberators.

Now Canadian troops are there to keep those same warlords in power. Do we think they will act differently this time around? Will they dismantle their armed militias and give up the heroin trade?

Absolutely not. Their militias are active and the drug trade is booming. All under the watchful eye of the American Empire and its enablers like Canada.

Throughout Afghan history, the one thing that is strikingly apparent is that Empires and their helpers have always been intruding in Afghanistan for their own interests. Whether it was the British, the Russians, the Americans, the Pakistanis, or the Americans now once again, all have gone in to supposedly “help” the Afghanis, yet they have made conditions worse than before.

It is time the foreign forces were kicked out; all Canadian troops were pulled out of Afghanistan. Let the Afghanis decide the future of their country. We should not abandon them but instead should help those very weak grass roots movements that want genuine democracy in the country rather than supporting one group of warlords over another. That is what the Afghanis want and the Afghani women’s group RAWA has said so numerous times.

The only solution: Troops out now.

2006-03-22T03:54:00.000-05:00

CANADA DEEPER INTO AFGHAN QUAGMIRE

Nauman Mir
10 December 2005

The Canadian military base in Kabul, Afghanistan called Camp Julien was officially dismantled on the same day the liberal government of Paul Martin fell in Ottawa. Afghanistan is a primary front for Canada’s militarism which will continue whether or not the liberals win the January elections.

Currently about 970 Canadian troops are present in Afghanistan. 770 troops have now been moved from Kabul to the city of Kandahar. Another 200 troops are present in an undisclosed location in “southwest Asia”. The Department of National Defence is keeping their location a secret, probably because they are members of Canada’s secretive commando unit, the Joint Task Force 2 (JTF 2).

By February 2006, around 2,000 Canadian troops will be present in Kandahar (the same number as was sent to Kabul after 9/11) which has always been a stronghold of the Taliban. For the first time in their four year deployment, Canadian troops are now involved in combat operations along with their American counterparts.

A Canadian soldier, Private Braun Scott Woodfield from Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia, died last week in a road accident in Kandahar. An early sign that Canadians are now in hostile territory and the risk of attacks and accidents is much higher than Kabul.

The Canadian land forces Commander Maj. Gen. Andrew Leslie warned a few months ago that “Every time you kill an angry young man overseas you’re creating 15 more who will come after you. You have to be prepared for the consequences”. But despite this warning he proclaimed in his now famous statement “Afghanistan is a 20-year venture”.

Like Leslie, Martin knows full well the consequences of military deployment in Afghanistan --- deaths of Canadian soldiers in Kandahar and deaths of civilians here at home. And what concern the government has for both is made clear by the fact that its foreign policy remains the same, despite the knowledge of the harmful results.

Canada has not yet had a terrorist attack, but it is much more likely now than ever before. And it should be kept in mind that this new military operation, Operation Archer, under which the 2,000 troops are being sent to Afghanistan, was announced days after the July 7th bombings in London, England. It was meant to show Canadians as well as the American empire that Canada is doing everything it can to fight terrorism.

Terrorism will only increase by these deployments because fighting terror with terror is not the solution. The solution is to pull all Canadian troops out of Afghanistan not because of a fear of terrorism but because this policy does not deal with the main cause of terrorism – foreign occupation.

2006-03-22T03:40:00.000-05:00

MICHAEL IGNATIEFF GETS A TASTE OF POLITICS

Nauman Mir
10 December 2005

“Until philosophers are kings…cities will never have rest from their evils…and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and (it will) behold the light of day.”

So said Plato in his famous dialogue The Republic explaining how the best rulers would be philosophers or what he called “philosopher-kings”. It seems Paul Martin’s Liberal party agrees. And to that end has chosen a modern day philosopher-king as its candidate for Etobicoke-Lakeshore: Harvard University professor Michael Ignatieff.

It had been rumoured for the past few months that Ignatieff was going to leave his position at Harvard and join the liberal party; that proved true last week. The liberals first pressured MP Jean Augustine to leave her seat and then skirted around the party rules to nominate Ignatieff as the only eligible candidate for the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Other candidates hardly got a chance to even get their nomination papers filed.

But the amusing part of this whole charade was the fierce welcome that Ignatieff received from Canadians at the occasion of his party nomination. Rather than being lauded as the philosopher-king, he was booed, jeered, and heckled during his brief speech as many walked-out of the event in protest chanting “Shame”. Others protested outside the event carrying signs like, “Local liberals Locked Out” and “Bush-Ignatieff: Partners in Crime”.

The riding has a large Ukrainian community and they know well the degrading comments Ignatieff made against the Ukraine and its people in his 1993 book Blood and Belonging. Thus understandably, the constituency is not happy with him being installed as the party candidate. And protests have taken place outside the liberal party’s riding office as well.

A major criticism that Ignatieff is constantly facing is about his not living in the country for the past two decades. But the usually soft spoken Ignatieff replied to that with some anger by saying “Instead of criticizing me for being offshore they (Canadians) should be applauding me for coming back, rolling up my sleeves, and getting into the trenches.”

This shows political inexperience because such statements will only ignite an already angry constituency. Although Ignatieff was brought as a “star” candidate to boost the image of the liberal party, his presence might have the opposite effect. The whole strategy might backfire in the upcoming elections on January 23. Until then, Ignatieff must prepare to face more and more heat.