Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pakistan's Jihad Culture

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Pakistan's Jihad Culture

    While trying to find Statistics about the Sectarian killings in Pakistan, I came across this interesting article.

    Pakistan's Jihad Culture

    This spring the U.S. State Department reported that South Asia has replaced the Middle East as the leading locus of terrorism in the world
    .
    .
    Both sides of the war in Kashmir -- the Indian army and the Pakistani "mujahideen" -- are targeting and killing thousands of civilians, violating both the Islamic "just war" tradition and international law.
    .
    .
    The U.S. government estimates that India has 400,000 troops in Indian-held Kashmir -- a force more than two-thirds as large as Pakistan's entire active army. The Pakistani government thus supports the irregulars as a relatively cheap way to keep Indian forces tied down.
    .
    .
    Pakistani officials estimate that 10 to 15 percent of the country's tens of thousands of madrasahs espouse such extremist ideologies .... Only about 4,350 of the estimated 40,000 to 50,000 madrasahs in Pakistan have registered with the government
    .
    .
    Mujibur Rehman Inqalabi, the SSP's second in command, told me that Haider's reform plan is "against Islam" and complains that where states have taken control of madrasahs, such as in Jordan and Egypt, "the engine of jihad is extinguished." America is right, he said: "Madrasahs are the supply line for jihad."
    .
    .
    Individual "mujahideen" also benefit financially from this generous funding. They are in this for the loot, explains Ahmed Rashid, a prominent Pakistani journalist. One mid-level manager of Lashkar told me he earns 15,000 rupees a month -- more than seven times what the average Pakistani makes, according to the World Bank. Top leaders of militant groups earn much more; one leader took me to see his mansion, which was staffed by servants and filled with expensive furniture.
    .
    .
    As the so-called jihad movement continues to acquire its own financial momentum, it will become increasingly difficult for Pakistan to shut down, if and when it tries.
    .
    .
    Khalil, who has been a "mujahid" for 19 years and can no longer imagine another life, told me, "A person addicted to heroin can get off it if he really tries, but a mujahid cannot leave the jihad. I am spiritually addicted to jihad." Another Harkat operative told me,

    We won't stop -- even if India gave us Kashmir. ... We'll [also] bring jihad here. There is already a movement here to make Pakistan a pure Islamic state. Many preach Islam, but most of them don't know what it means. We want to see a Taliban-style regime here.
    .
    .
    Asked for a list of his favorite books, a leader of Harkat recommended the history of Hitler, who he said understood that "Jews and peace are incompatible."
    .
    .
    The "jihad" against the West may be rhetorical (at least for now), but the ten-year-old sectarian war between Pakistan's Shi'a and Sunni is real and deadly. The Tehrik-e-Jafariya-e-Pakistan (TJP) was formed to protect the interests of Pakistan's Shi'a Muslims, who felt discriminated against by Zia's implementation of Sunni laws governing the inheritance and collection of zakat. Iran helped fund the TJP, probably in hopes of using it as a vehicle for an Iranian-style revolution in Pakistan. Five years later, Haq Nawaz Jhangvi, a Jamaat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) cleric, established the SSP to offset the TJP and to promote the interests of Sunni Muslims. The SSP was funded by both Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Since then, violent gangs have formed on both sides.
    .
    .
    The problem for Musharraf is that it is difficult to promote the "jihad" in Kashmir and the Taliban in Afghanistan without inadvertently promoting sectarianism in Pakistan. The movements share madrasahs, camps, bureaucracies, and operatives. The JUI, the SSP's founding party, also helped create both the Taliban and Harkat. Deobandi madrasahs issue anti-Shi'a fatwas (edicts), and boys trained to fight in Kashmir are also trained to call Shi'a kafirs (infidels). Jaesh-e-Mohammad, an offshoot of Harkat and the newest Pakistani militant group in Kashmir, reportedly used SSP personnel during a fundraising drive in early 2000. And the SSP's Inqalabi, who was recently released after four years in jail for his alleged involvement in sectarian killings, told me that whenever "one of our youngsters wants to do jihad," they join up with the Taliban, Harkat, or Jaesh-e-Mohammad -- all Deobandi groups that he claims are "close" to the SSP.
    .
    .
    The impotent Pakistani government has essentially allowed Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shi'a Iran to fight a proxy war on Pakistani soil, with devastating consequences for the Pakistani people.
    .
    .
    The United States has asked Pakistan to crack down on the militant groups and to close certain madrasahs, but America must do more than just scold. After all, the United States, along with Saudi Arabia, helped create the first international "jihad" to fight the Soviet Union during the Afghan war. "Does America expect us to send in the troops and shut the madrasahs down?" one official asks. "Jihad is a mindset. It developed over many years during the Afghan war. You can't change a mindset in 24 hours."
    .
    .
    The most important contribution the United States can make, then, is to help strengthen Pakistan's secular education system. Because so much international aid to Pakistan has been diverted through corruption, both public and private assistance should come in the form of relatively nonfungible goods and services: books, buildings, teachers, and training, rather than money. Urdu-speaking teachers from around the world should be sent to Pakistan to help. And educational exchanges among students, scholars, journalists, and military officials should be encouraged and facilitated. Helping Pakistan educate its youth will not only cut off the culture of violence by reducing ignorance and poverty, it will also promote long-term economic development.

    Moreover, assisting Pakistan will make the world a safer place.
    .
    .
    [Pakistan] must stamp out corruption, strengthen democratic institutions, and make education a much higher priority. But none of this can happen if Pakistan continues to devote an estimated 30 percent of its national budget to defense.

    Most important, Pakistan must recognize the militant groups for what they are: dangerous gangs whose resources and reach continue to grow, threatening to destabilize the entire region.
    .
    .
    Though the author might be a little off on the statistics but I believe she is right on top of the whole situation.

    #2
    This is a pretty scary article. Particularly with the guy that wants to bring Jihad to Pakistan. Govt is really playing with fire here. We need to hit these guys hard where it hurts, and work closely with the US to do so.

    Comment


      #3
      Ajee could you please define Jihad culture?

      ------------------
      Ours is not to reason why;
      Ours is but to do and die
      You can't fix stupid. So might as well troll them!

      Comment


        #4
        what a pethetically inaccurate articlewith all the screwed up stats. Shows the inaccuracy, ignorence and incompetence of the American think tanks. No wonder they had vietnam, bay of Pigs, this war on terrorism, empirically self-hurting support for Israel vs. foriming better relations with the larger Arab world and so on.

        Comment


          #5
          CM: We both know you don't have the time to read the article, then why making comments? :-P

          Sultan Toora: That's why I posted the article! For people to give contrary arguments where what is wrong, which stats. make no sense, and what is your source for saynig so. That's how a discussion suppose to work.

          [This message has been edited by ajee (edited April 07, 2002).]

          Comment


            #6
            Well they did quote from jihadi organization members. And if its not true, we should assume it is because not to assume the truth would be disastrous.

            Comment


              #7
              Sultan,

              I read your post before it got deleted. The only fact you argued was the number of madrissas. If you believe that the actual number of madrissas are far less than what is being reported, then show your proof.

              And try to not lose your cool. I appreciate your input but foul language is a turn off! It makes the argument nothing more than an emotional outcry of someone bitterly frustrated.

              Comment


                #8
                [b]
                Originally posted by ajee:
                CM: We both know you don't have the time to read the article, then why making comments? :-P
                Can you answer my question? FYI I have already read it.

                ------------------
                Ours is not to reason why;
                Ours is but to do and die
                You can't fix stupid. So might as well troll them!

                Comment


                  #9
                  ajee point taken and I shall reply soon.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    In our country, fighter's called "Jihadiees" don't know the true meaning of islam. Jihad indeed is a very sacred term but islam says of tolerance and not to harm women, children and the disables or sickone's. But here our most Mujahides even fight with each other.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by queenandjack:
                      In our country, fighter's called "Jihadiees" don't know the true meaning of islam. Jihad indeed is a very sacred term but islam says of tolerance and not to harm women, children and the disables or sickone's. But here our most Mujahides even fight with each other.

                      I know I am way off the subject, but why do perfectly healthy, able bodied, intellegent women, always get put together with children, elderly, and the disabled? I think I could defend myself just a little bit better than say a five year old, an eighty year old man, or someone in a wheel chair!!! Why is it thought to be more wrong to kill or hurt women than men? After recent events in the Middle East, with young women blowing themselves up, isn't it obvious that women aren't really all that innocent or helpless?

                      I am not violent by nature, but let someone threaten my family, and you will see a real fighter come out!!!

                      Me, most of the time

                      Someone tried to hurt my family, and I would become this

                      ------------------
                      Brenda McLennan

                      Comment


                        #12
                        In most cases its the women who are the ones that stay at home while the men do the fighting. Women can become fierce fighter to if they are allowed to, in Islam for example, we are allowed to treat a woman as just another of the enemy if she is fighting at the battle field. But most of the time, the women do not fight and are often defensless when the men have been killed. This is when we are not allowed to hurt them. Infact, muslims are not allowed to hurt anyone who is defenseless. For example, when the Prophet defeated his enemies and returned to mecca, he spared everyone including the men from what I have read, since they were now defensles. So, in short, we dont spare women because we think they are "innocent," but rather, because they are are the ones left defensles. But, if they can attack, and do attck us, then we are allowed to defend ourselves.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X