Responding to General Pervez Musharraf: A Plea for Honesty and Commonsense

If the article: “A plea for Enlighten Moderation” [1] was published without the authors name, most Muslims – moderates and radicals alike would have guessed from reading the first couple of paragraphs that it was written by the likes of Paul Wolfwitz, Richard Perl or any of the other pro-Zionist elements known as the neo-conservatives. The article could have also been attributed to the regular right-wing commentators like Thomas Friedman, Charles Krauthammer or the vicious anti-Islamic zealot Daniel Pipe.

The gist of the message given by General Pervez Musharraf in the article1 is that the Muslims should unilaterally capitulate at all fronts to the benevolence of the US and Israel. He advocates his solution of “enlightened moderation” which is composed of a two-pronged strategy and he states: “The first part is for the Muslim world to shun militancy and extremism and adopt the path of socioeconomic uplift. The second is for the West, and the United States in particular, to seek to resolve all political disputes with justice and to aid in the socioeconomic betterment of the deprived Muslim world.”

I will address the socioeconomic aspect later. The first part of the strategy involves surrendering politically and militarily. The ability to negotiate a political settlement is usually dependent upon its military power. It seems odd to expect the Mujahideen to lay down their arms whilst their enemies are armed to the teeth, occupying their lands and have initiated all the aggression.

Capitulation does not automatically lead to peace as Neville Chamberlain found out in 1939. One would have thought a military man like Pervez Musharraf should know that unless the stronger party offers genuine peace the weaker party in the conflict can only resist or capitulate. Choosing the latter is likely to result in their permanent subjugation or annihilation.

Hence, the logic of General Musharraf’s proposal is in reverse gear as he expects the mongoose to cease resisting and pursue for peace instead of recognising that this can only come from the more powerful anaconda. For the mongoose to lay down his arms it necessitates that the anaconda demonstrates his intention for genuine peace. Otherwise, unilateral capitulation from the mongoose may be as good as committing suicide. Such an approach would never have resulted in Pakistan and the US attaining independence from the British.

So moving on to the second part of that strategy, on what bases does Pervez Musharraf think that the US and Israel are seeking to resolve the conflict on the basis of justice?

For Israel real justice means removing itself from the occupied lands going back to the 1948 borders, when the Indian forces also occupied Kashmir. However Israel is not even willing to back to the 1967 borders complying with UN ‘justice’! Israel and justice is an oxymoron, the very existence of Israel symbolises injustice.

The Capitalist with an insatiable lust for material resources drives the US. Its history is full of wars for profit. One of the central philosophies is the preservation of the American dream, even if it means a nightmare for the rest of humanity. The US clearly spelled out by refusing to ratify the Kyoto treaty. So to expect justice from the US is simply expecting it to defy its own nature.

In the language of the Bush administration Musharraf went on to blame the radical groups for resisting. He cited the danger arising from plastic explosives and suicide bombers without making any direct reference to the actual circumstances that have led to the birth of suicide bombers. There was no indication as to who are the victims (occupied) and the aggressors (occupier) in this conflict? No references to the organised state terrorism emanating from B52s cruise missiles and daisy-cutters. Which are immensely more powerful and dangerous than the lone suicide bombers. Is the General naive or simply dishonest to suggest that the violence is flowing solely in one direction?

But however, he then acknowledges the root causes as he states: “We need to understand that the root cause of extremism and militancy lies in political injustice, denial and deprivation.” Resisting political injustice, denial and depravation is natural and a human right. Hence, the use of the words “militancy” and “extremism” to describe such activities is inappropriate. Just as to call the French Resistance movement set up to counter Nazi aggression a terrorist group would be foolish beyond belief, likewise to call Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist groups for fighting a people who have stolen their land is equally as pathetic.

The anti-Islamic zealots are applying such terms to denigrate Islam and the Muslims as a whole, primarily focusing on those who are actively resisting the aggression. This is the very reason why the Western mass media constantly promotes the notion moderates and radicals. Moderates serve their interests whereas the radicals are a liability. Denouncing the radical Muslims tantamounts to calling for the cessation of all active resistance, as the moderates provide no real alternatives.

Pervez Musharraf proudly stated on TV that he is a moderate Muslim and accordingly argued along the same lines. He asserted the distinction between militancy, extremism, terrorism of the Muslims and Islam, which have caused the West to misunderstand Islam. In fact a little research would have revealed that the demonisation of the Islam and Muslims goes back for centuries which was been developed into an art called “orientalism”, a subject that can be studied in the universities. The West is not lacking in information. The formulation and the propagation of their negatively held views about Islam and Muslims simply reflect a biased mindset. So they deliberately interpret and present the events accordingly.

In an attempt to prove that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) had the same preconceived moderate credentials, the General went on to describe Him (P.U.B.H.) as someone who: “personified justice, compassion, tolerance of others, generosity of spirit, austerity with a spirit of sacrifice..” All of which are interpreted through the lenses and the filters of those who are formulating the policies of ‘war on Islam’. The General needs to be reminded that the Prophet (SAW) moved an army to war in response to the dishonouring of a single woman let alone standby and go further to aid non-Muslims to murder and rape an entire Muslim country for the material benefit of a few. The Prophet (SAW) did not capitulate to the criticisms of the Arab tribes (Quraysh). Nor did he conform to their values by altering the Islamic notions to prove his moderate credentials a! t the time.

The Prophet (SAW) delivered justice through the implementation of the Islamic laws backed up with the strength of his army i.e. Jihad. It seems that the Islam of Pervez Musharraf resembles that of the heretical Qadianis. The sect was the creation of the British to cause confusion and abolish Jihad in India behind a false Prophet. Rumour has it that his close relatives are from that same heretical sect.

Why the reference to Islam and then to talk about the pursuing of socioeconomic development through the adoption of “democracy and secularism”? This is a clear evidence of his mindset that Islam is nice to talk about for public consumption but the society is to be managed by the imported values of “democracy and secularism”.

It is the social values that Pervez Musharraf admires so much that produced the wild beasts that are ever ready to unleash their fantasies in Abu-Gharib style whenever given an opportunity. The same social values are depicted by their youths in holiday camps and nightclubs fornicating in public like animals. All of this is licensed under ‘freedom’ and ‘the emancipation of women’. Hardly a day passes when another western sex tourist is not caught for their paedophiliac activities in countries of the Far East. Those tourists are simply ‘developing’ those social values!

As for economic emancipation ask the Africans and other poorer nations. Through the institutions and policies of IMF/WB, the countries are suffering from an increasing debt, poverty, and destruction of the domestic economy; resulting in real enslavement not emancipation. Whilst in the height of the famine, Ethiopia was exporting cash crops to pay off their interest of their loan! The world has become a place where the rich grows richer and the poor grows poorer making the US the obese nation on earth. Part and parcel of that same economic emancipation involves attacking other countries for their resources, as one US General said we would not bothered with ‘protecting’ Kuwait if it grew carrots, the same could be said for Iraq.

The apex of a democratic society that has produced the abuse of human rights in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram and Belmarsh. It is secular democracy that used Nuclear and Chemical weapons against civilians. Two of the largest wars in human history have been the product of secular democracy. The examples are endless; one has to look with an open eye at the values of secular democracy as a whole and not just to their material and scientific achievements.

The final reference to revive the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Countries) is another example of the naivety and dishonesty of Pervez Musharraf. The OIC was formed to maintain the superficial divisions between our lands so that each country can be subjugated. So the Muslim countries remain spectators whilst each country is attacked in turn. The unspeakable horrors at Abu-Gharib could not even generate a unified response from the OIC closing all the US embassies demanding an independent investigation into the matter.

Why has the OIC not been able to unify in confronting the pressure to disarm whilst they (US and Israel) are constantly developing deadlier weapons? Why is it an issue for the Muslim nations to possess WMDs when it is the US that has been irresponsible by bombing civilians with it?

Unity is a hollow concept when each member of the OIC is acting for its own short-term national interests. Remember it was the General who said “Pakistan first” abandoning the Muslims in Afghanistan, Kashmir and handed the Mujahideen to the CIA, whose manuals endorsed the behaviour of the animals found in Abu-Ghraib. I am not referring to the dogs that were used by the army!

Pakistan’s nuclear capability is evidence that you do not need oil to have such deterrence. Despite all the wealth of the Muslims, what use has it been put to? Importing servants, cars, videos, and building shopping complexes, now promoting tourism for the West. Which will turn parts our nations into bars and brothels. It is these inept and short cited tyrannical rulers that are the real cause of the suffering not the small band of Mujahideen resisting imperialists.

The article is another evidence of the leaders of the Islamic world being at complete odds with its masses. The way forward is to reflect with honesty and common sense about how we as Muslims can break free from this situation, keeping in mind what it means to be a Muslim. Every nation fights against an occupational force with certain ideals and values. Therefore, it is strange that Pervez Musharraf does not expect Muslims to refer to their values embodied in Islam.

Through the passage of time from the time of Prophet the Muslims have used Jihad to liberate their lands, protect themselves from foreign aggressors and spread the message of Islam. It is through Islam that the Muslims can and will attain real socioeconomic development. If the General, has not the ability to take the required decisions on behalf of his country, then perhaps he should step down and let those who are willing do what is required, this would eventually be a win for all strategy.

Note (s):

[1]. –