It’s a wonderful place.
Author: Brown Pundits Archive
The Islamic System of Government
The opening of the farcical (probably intended as such) “negotiations” between powerless pro-Taliban negotiators selected by the government of Pakistan and equally powerless pro-Taliban negotiators selected by the Taliban (2 of their representatives, including cricket star and political buffoon Imran Khan, have already dropped out) has led to a rash of TV appearances by various luminaries discussing the suitability or otherwise of the Taliban’s demand that “Western Democracy” be replaced by the “Islamic System” in Pakistan. In this debate the Islamists obviously have a huge advantage, in that the founder of the state promised a state “based on Islamic ideals” where there will be “nothing but Quranic principles as our constitution”, the first constituent assembly duly passed an “Objectives resolution” that states that Pakistan will be a state where Muslims can live “in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah” and the current constitution includes detailed “Islamic” provisions including the statement that no law shall be repugnant to the holy quran and sunnah. Still, there is some wriggle room in that the anti-Islam panelists can raise the question of “whose Islam” and thus defer the enforcement of Quran and Sunnah till such time as agreement can be reached about what it is that the Quran and Sunnah actually require of us. In the interest of the infidels and unislamic panelists, I want to point them towards a more substantive argument: The Shariah as traditionally understood (and various left wing Iranian jokers notwithstanding, there IS no other shariah yet) simply has NO POLITICAL SYSTEM.
No details about division of powers, method of selection of ruler, transfer of power, institutions of the state, etc etc. Nothing. Nada. There is no there there. If shariah is the set of rules and laws put together by the jurists of the four madhabs of Sunni Islam (nobody pretends that Pakistan is about to enforce some sort of Shia shariah, so that is besides the point) then they are practically nothing except detailed rules of inheritance, marriage laws and few penal regulations (regarding robbery, adultery, alcohol, murder but not, for example, about rape or transporting banned drugs across state lines). There are, of course, endless arguments about minor rules of social and personal conduct and hundreds of volumes of conflicting fatwas about farting during prayers and prayers to be said before and after sex.
But there is practically nothing about the political system or the constitution of a modern state. Any ruler and any state arrangement is OK as long as it is nominally Muslims and enforces the above rules for its Muslim population (and some humiliating ones for its non-muslim population). Once this is made clearer, we can proceed further.
Unfortunately for the infidel panelists, where we proceed next is also troublesome. It will turn out that while the constitution of Pakistan (or ANY other constitution) is more or less kosher as far as division of powers, elections, parliaments and supreme courts is concerned, the shariah DOES have a few rules about alcohol, amputation of hands and conversation with women…. and those rules are not being enforced in Pakistan.
Back to square one.
On a more serious note, i highly recommend Carl Brown’s Religion and State; the Muslim approach to politics. Must read. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2074197.Religion_and_State
GHQ Response to Taliban Demands
The TTP (Pakistani Taliban) has issued a list of 15 demands in the course of the farcical Taliban1 versus Taliban2 “negotiations” currently being used to keep ppl busy till the next operation in Pakistan.
In response, Mr Imtiaz Mahmood has issued a set of 15 demands that GHQ would have issued if it was not participating/directing/watching this insane farce.
15 point response to Taliban’s demands, should be as follows if Pakistan army had any balls, but we all know that they are deficient in that department:
1. Surrender.
2. Face trial for your crimes against the state
3. Compensate your victims under Qisas and Diyat.
4. Apologize to the entire world especially Pakistanis.
5. Deposit your weapons with the Pakistan Army
6. Name your handlers both in Pakistan and abroad
7. Rebuild all the schools you blew up.
8. Rebuild all the mosques, churches and Sikh Gurduwaras you blew up.
9. Confess to being child molesters and rapists.
10. Deposit all your funds in the state treasury so that these can be used to build girls schools in your area.
11. Admit that what you did was un-Islamic and against Shariat.
12. Repent
13. Take a shower.
14. Agree to voluntary castration.
15. Make a Gangam Style rendition video in FATA with Pakistani and US soldiers.
(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
Post by Imtiaz Mahmood.
A stirring reminder of India’s role in the British Empire
 |
| WWI – Indian taxpayers bore the brunt of Britain’s war. By Armistice day 11 Nov 1918, the First World War had cost India, £379,000,000 (military expenditure, equipment, food). If that wasn’t enough the Viceroy presented the British Government an additional £100,000,000 in Imperial taxes. That’s a staggering £479,000,000 in total which would be worth approx £30,000,000,000 in today’s money. The next time some anti immigrant, anti Asian ****** asks what you’re lot have done for Britain, don’t get mad, share the facts. |
I must say that the poster is somewhat amusing; how can a millennia old civilisation such as India be considered a “young lion” on par with Australia, Canada and NZ is somewhat surprising.
The global face of Islam
More Muslims live in India & Pakistan than all of Mideast & N Africa.
It seems Islam has really grown in the last decade, for some reason I’d always there were around a billion Muslims but it seems I was off by a fair margin. Global Religions:
| Religion | Adherents |
|---|---|
| Christianity | 2.1 billion |
| Islam | 1.6 billion |
| Secular*/Nonreligious*/Agnostic/Atheist | ≤ 1.1 billion |
| Hinduism | 1 billion |
| Chinese traditional religion* | 394 million |
| Buddhism* | 376 million |
| Ethnic religions excluding some in seperate categories | 300 million |
| African traditional religions | 100 million |
| Sikhism | 23 million |
| Juche* | 19 million |
| Spiritism | 15 million |
| Judaism | 14 million |
| Bahá’í | 7 million |
| Jainism | 4.2 million |
| Shinto | 4 million |
| Cao Dai | 4 million |
| Zoroastrianism | 2.6 million |
| Tenrikyo | 2 million |
| Neo-Paganism | 1 million |
| Unitarian Universalism | 800,000 |
| Rastafarianism | 600,000 |
| Scientology | 500,000 |
Where is My Family In the Media?
Ever since the first Cheerios commercial last year showing an interracial family in a banal non-controversial context, there has been a lot of talk in the media about the topic. But one thing that has stood out in these treatments is a relatively narrow understanding of what interracial is. This is illustrated by an op-ed in The New York Times, Where Is My Family on TV? I looked up the various references to an interracial family/individual/relationship within the piece (I don’t watch television, so many were unfamiliar to me), and every single instance except for the very last, pointing out Bruno Mars at the Superbowl, is of a black-white nature.
The problem is illustrated by this pie chart produced by the Census: most interracial interaction in the United States is no longer black-white. About 20% of the people who chose more than one race on the 2010 Census selected black and white. When the original controversy over the first Cheerios ad occurred I remembered a Facebook share which featured interracial families. From what I saw ~80% were of the black-white variety. Perhaps this is the reflection of the background of the family in the Cheerios commercial, but it does get a little tiresome that a broad and general term like “interracial” gets totally specified in a way that excludes many people.
To be fair, perhaps I am not being especially sensitive to the history of black-white relations in the United States. Though most minorities in this nation are no longer black, the vast majority were black until the 1965 immigration reform, and this remained the case up to the 1980s. America’s history of race is to a great extent its history of black and white, and modern non-black minority consciousness is strongly influenced by this older template. And to be honest I don’t think of my own family as “interracial” very much, because in my own life race is not that big of a day to day factor. And, unlike the very cute actress in the Cheerios commercial my daughter is not visibly of mixed race*, so presumably her primary interaction with racial issues is going to be the small moments of surprise people feel when they realize that the brown-skinned man is her father. All this is likely related to the emergent reality of America’s true race dynamic being that of a black/non-black divide.
But if that is really what’s going on here, we need to update it more explicitly. Too often the media seem to assume a world that is stuck in 1965, with a white majority and a black minority. We’re nearly 50 years on from that. Our discourse should reflect that in some consistent manner.
* It seems that people of mixed South Asian and European ancestry can look totally South Asian or European in appearance, with most in the middle. My daughter for whatever reason happens to be much closer to a European appearance.
Pakistan's dichotomy
Obviously I disagree with the joint family bit; it’s an extraordinarily efficient manner of living (if structured correctly) but tis true that us Pakis are a conflicted lot.
Another reason to hate Putin; fewer abortions?
The world (west) hates Russia because it’s resurgent? In the 90’s under “democracy” there were 2.5 abortions for every live birth (that’s an unimaginable statistic where one in 3.5 pregnancies make it to a baby) whereas coincidentally just after Putin took power the dramatic drop meant that 0.42 abortions for every live birth (5times less relatively). In this post-modern age where everything that is anti-life (anti reproduction) is venerated maybe that’s another cross to add to Putin’s sins; why didn’t Russian women continuing aborting their future towards a so-called golden democracy (not that the rest of the ex-USSR did any better after communism)?
Can Sindh Save Pakistan
Whatever one may think of Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, it is hard
to deny that his call to celebrate the heritage of Sindh in particular and
Pakistan in general has touched a chord. Perhaps it’s the fact that, after
years of paying homage to attitudes imported from the Arabia Deserta, someone
of prominence has had the guts to promote traditions with actual roots in
Pakistan, and to do it vociferously, without apology or qualification. In this
age of “Allah Hafiz” and Ansar Abbasi, this is no small relief. Two other
aspects of the festival are also especially important. First, the choice of
Moenjodaro as the site of the opening event – though understandably
controversial for archaeological reasons – sent a refreshingly clear signal of
the desire to own all of the region’s
history, not just that associated with Muslims or Pakistan. Second, the
inclusion of performers and languages from all over Pakistan – including Punjab
– turned the festival into a celebration of the country as a whole rather than
one focused on Sindh. Thus, it came to symbolize an alternative view of
Pakistan to place against the one promoted incessantly by those who seek to
turn the country into an ahistorical, joyless Salafist emirate. I have to
believe that this is exactly what the goal of the event was, and I think that
it is an extremely important one.
to deny that his call to celebrate the heritage of Sindh in particular and
Pakistan in general has touched a chord. Perhaps it’s the fact that, after
years of paying homage to attitudes imported from the Arabia Deserta, someone
of prominence has had the guts to promote traditions with actual roots in
Pakistan, and to do it vociferously, without apology or qualification. In this
age of “Allah Hafiz” and Ansar Abbasi, this is no small relief. Two other
aspects of the festival are also especially important. First, the choice of
Moenjodaro as the site of the opening event – though understandably
controversial for archaeological reasons – sent a refreshingly clear signal of
the desire to own all of the region’s
history, not just that associated with Muslims or Pakistan. Second, the
inclusion of performers and languages from all over Pakistan – including Punjab
– turned the festival into a celebration of the country as a whole rather than
one focused on Sindh. Thus, it came to symbolize an alternative view of
Pakistan to place against the one promoted incessantly by those who seek to
turn the country into an ahistorical, joyless Salafist emirate. I have to
believe that this is exactly what the goal of the event was, and I think that
it is an extremely important one.
It has become conventional wisdom to blame the Taliban or
other extremist religious groups for Pakistan’s recent tragic turn towards becoming
a narrow-minded, intolerant society, but anyone with any knowledge of the facts
realizes that the extremists are just a visible symptom of an older, less
visible and far more insidious disease. The intolerant ideology that today is
being imposed on people through guns and bombs was nurtured for decades – even
centuries – in mosques and homes, courts and seminaries, conditioning millions
of people all over the Muslim world to equate piety with bigotry. But in South
Asia, it was always kept in check by two important forces: The living
multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies of the region; and a
fundamentally tolerant, open-minded and welcoming tradition within Islam, i.e.,
Sufism. And nowhere was this more true than in the regions that constitute the
country of Pakistan today. While the men occupying the shrines of the great
Sufi masters may no longer have been as inspiring as their ancestors, the ethos
of Islam in Punjab and Sindh, and to a lesser extent in other areas, was shaped
by the tradition of those masters and great Sufi poets like Shah Latif, Rahman
Baba and Bulleh Shah. This is not to say that all was wonderful – how wonderful
could things be in a feudal society? – but Islam was not a divisive factor.
other extremist religious groups for Pakistan’s recent tragic turn towards becoming
a narrow-minded, intolerant society, but anyone with any knowledge of the facts
realizes that the extremists are just a visible symptom of an older, less
visible and far more insidious disease. The intolerant ideology that today is
being imposed on people through guns and bombs was nurtured for decades – even
centuries – in mosques and homes, courts and seminaries, conditioning millions
of people all over the Muslim world to equate piety with bigotry. But in South
Asia, it was always kept in check by two important forces: The living
multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies of the region; and a
fundamentally tolerant, open-minded and welcoming tradition within Islam, i.e.,
Sufism. And nowhere was this more true than in the regions that constitute the
country of Pakistan today. While the men occupying the shrines of the great
Sufi masters may no longer have been as inspiring as their ancestors, the ethos
of Islam in Punjab and Sindh, and to a lesser extent in other areas, was shaped
by the tradition of those masters and great Sufi poets like Shah Latif, Rahman
Baba and Bulleh Shah. This is not to say that all was wonderful – how wonderful
could things be in a feudal society? – but Islam was not a divisive factor.
Then came Pakistan – or rather, the movement to create
Pakistan. Perhaps its most harmful effect was to turn Islam into an ideological
weapon. Admittedly, India was not the only place where this happened (see Qutb,
Sayyid), but India was the only place
where it succeeded! An ideological state was created based on an inherently
exclusionary view of Islam – a land for Muslims and thus, by implication, a
land not for “others”. And once a society sets off on the path to purification,
there is no reason to stop at any particular point. What has followed – the
bombing of churches, the persecution of Ahmadis, the prejudice against Shias –
is a logical consequence of that first decision to draw the first boundary
between “us” and “them”. Ever since then, the disease has grown steadily,
helped along by the (necessary) creation of a mythological history to justify
the ideological state, feeding delusions of ancestral grandeur on the part of
presidents and generals seeking to replicate the triumphs of heroes past. The
Objectives Resolution of 1948, the anti-Ahmadi movement of the 1950s and their
being declared non-Muslim in 1974, the creation of the Council on Islamic
Ideology in 1962 and the Federal Shariat Court in 1980, the entire reign of
General Zia, the Hudood Ordinance, the Blasphemy law – the history of Pakistan
has traversed the path of increasing intolerance ever since the beginning. On
the one hand, it has led to the Taliban. On the other, it has gradually crushed
the older, more tolerant, more inclusive traditions that had dominated the
region for centuries. And that brings us back to the Sindh Festival.
Pakistan. Perhaps its most harmful effect was to turn Islam into an ideological
weapon. Admittedly, India was not the only place where this happened (see Qutb,
Sayyid), but India was the only place
where it succeeded! An ideological state was created based on an inherently
exclusionary view of Islam – a land for Muslims and thus, by implication, a
land not for “others”. And once a society sets off on the path to purification,
there is no reason to stop at any particular point. What has followed – the
bombing of churches, the persecution of Ahmadis, the prejudice against Shias –
is a logical consequence of that first decision to draw the first boundary
between “us” and “them”. Ever since then, the disease has grown steadily,
helped along by the (necessary) creation of a mythological history to justify
the ideological state, feeding delusions of ancestral grandeur on the part of
presidents and generals seeking to replicate the triumphs of heroes past. The
Objectives Resolution of 1948, the anti-Ahmadi movement of the 1950s and their
being declared non-Muslim in 1974, the creation of the Council on Islamic
Ideology in 1962 and the Federal Shariat Court in 1980, the entire reign of
General Zia, the Hudood Ordinance, the Blasphemy law – the history of Pakistan
has traversed the path of increasing intolerance ever since the beginning. On
the one hand, it has led to the Taliban. On the other, it has gradually crushed
the older, more tolerant, more inclusive traditions that had dominated the
region for centuries. And that brings us back to the Sindh Festival.
There was a time some years ago when many of us believed that
the ideological fever would eventually subside and the natural, organic ethos
of the Pakistani region would reassert itself. However, for reasons that can be
understood in retrospect, that has not happened. Most of Pakistan has actually
succumbed to the ideological virus, with the old attitudes fighting a desperate
rearguard action. What used to be called the Northwest Frontier was lost during
and after the Afghan jihad; in the last fifteen years, Punjab too has mostly been
overrun by extremist groups and their political sympathizers; Baluchistan is
struggling with both extremism and insurgency; which leaves Sindh. If the
people of Pakistan – most of whom are still not extreme fundamentalists – are to
reclaim their country from the clutches of insanity, the reclamation project
must start from Sindh.
the ideological fever would eventually subside and the natural, organic ethos
of the Pakistani region would reassert itself. However, for reasons that can be
understood in retrospect, that has not happened. Most of Pakistan has actually
succumbed to the ideological virus, with the old attitudes fighting a desperate
rearguard action. What used to be called the Northwest Frontier was lost during
and after the Afghan jihad; in the last fifteen years, Punjab too has mostly been
overrun by extremist groups and their political sympathizers; Baluchistan is
struggling with both extremism and insurgency; which leaves Sindh. If the
people of Pakistan – most of whom are still not extreme fundamentalists – are to
reclaim their country from the clutches of insanity, the reclamation project
must start from Sindh.
Of course, no cultural festival – however delightful – or a photogenic
young leader with a famous name can accomplish what needs to be done. The rot
of decades will take a long time to reverse, and will require active
participation from millions of people. However, one of the most important components
of any rearguard action must be to provide a positive alternative to the unacceptable situation. Ideas must be
opposed by ideas, not just by refusal. The extremist ideology that has gained
ground in Pakistan must be met with an alternative ethos with content – something that people can hold
and cherish and celebrate and identify with as Pakistanis. And for this
alternative to have any chance of prevailing, it must be able to excite people
viscerally, to attract them in ways beyond naming, to resonate with their
being. It must be something that they already carry in their hearts so that
when they are reminded of it, they recognize it as their own and love it for
that reason. Principles such as “rule of law” and “human rights” are extremely
important, but, unfortunately, they do not move populations. They must ride in
on something more primeval, something more intertwined with peoples’ sense of
themselves. Faith, art, community and tradition are such things. These, after
all, are the things that the other side is using (in addition to guns and
bombs, of course). They must also be deployed in the cause of good – but very
carefully. The last thing Pakistan needs is another ideology with its own
purity tests and its own interference in governance. The ideology of oppression
must be countered with a gospel of liberation – one that actively seeks to
include rather than exclude; that is based on allowing people the freedom to
make their own choices and find their own truths. This is something that the
great Sufis and poets understood well, which is why they are still loved by
millions hundreds of years after their death. No king or cleric has that love,
and that is a fact!
young leader with a famous name can accomplish what needs to be done. The rot
of decades will take a long time to reverse, and will require active
participation from millions of people. However, one of the most important components
of any rearguard action must be to provide a positive alternative to the unacceptable situation. Ideas must be
opposed by ideas, not just by refusal. The extremist ideology that has gained
ground in Pakistan must be met with an alternative ethos with content – something that people can hold
and cherish and celebrate and identify with as Pakistanis. And for this
alternative to have any chance of prevailing, it must be able to excite people
viscerally, to attract them in ways beyond naming, to resonate with their
being. It must be something that they already carry in their hearts so that
when they are reminded of it, they recognize it as their own and love it for
that reason. Principles such as “rule of law” and “human rights” are extremely
important, but, unfortunately, they do not move populations. They must ride in
on something more primeval, something more intertwined with peoples’ sense of
themselves. Faith, art, community and tradition are such things. These, after
all, are the things that the other side is using (in addition to guns and
bombs, of course). They must also be deployed in the cause of good – but very
carefully. The last thing Pakistan needs is another ideology with its own
purity tests and its own interference in governance. The ideology of oppression
must be countered with a gospel of liberation – one that actively seeks to
include rather than exclude; that is based on allowing people the freedom to
make their own choices and find their own truths. This is something that the
great Sufis and poets understood well, which is why they are still loved by
millions hundreds of years after their death. No king or cleric has that love,
and that is a fact!
Pakistan is a region rich in history. Unfortunately, most
Pakistanis are only familiar with its cartoon version. They do not know of all
the great civilizations – Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim – that rose and fell in the
area over three thousand years. Of the even older Indus Valley civilization,
they know only the words “Moenjodaro” and “Harappa”. They are not aware that
Alexander’s armies sailed down the Indus; that Iranian kings ruled over Sindh; that
Sialkot was the capital of King Menander; that major international trade routes
ran through Sindh and Baluchistan two thousand years ago; that whole new
schools of Hindu and Buddhist and Muslim thought developed in places where gas
stations stand today. But history never truly dies; it lives in the traditions
of the people, in their art, in their languages. If a leader should rise to
reclaim all that history, to revive the arts of the people, to welcome people
of all creeds, to celebrate the open-minded ethos of Sufi Islam and its poets, and
to do it in a broad, national and inclusive way, he or she could truly begin to
turn back the tide of obscurantism that is engulfing Pakistan. It will take
years, perhaps decades. And it will be dangerous. It will require not only the use
of the creative arts but also the exercise of military power, because people
with guns cannot be defeated with just songs and Sufism. But the process will
begin, and people will have something to stand for, not just against.
Pakistanis are only familiar with its cartoon version. They do not know of all
the great civilizations – Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim – that rose and fell in the
area over three thousand years. Of the even older Indus Valley civilization,
they know only the words “Moenjodaro” and “Harappa”. They are not aware that
Alexander’s armies sailed down the Indus; that Iranian kings ruled over Sindh; that
Sialkot was the capital of King Menander; that major international trade routes
ran through Sindh and Baluchistan two thousand years ago; that whole new
schools of Hindu and Buddhist and Muslim thought developed in places where gas
stations stand today. But history never truly dies; it lives in the traditions
of the people, in their art, in their languages. If a leader should rise to
reclaim all that history, to revive the arts of the people, to welcome people
of all creeds, to celebrate the open-minded ethos of Sufi Islam and its poets, and
to do it in a broad, national and inclusive way, he or she could truly begin to
turn back the tide of obscurantism that is engulfing Pakistan. It will take
years, perhaps decades. And it will be dangerous. It will require not only the use
of the creative arts but also the exercise of military power, because people
with guns cannot be defeated with just songs and Sufism. But the process will
begin, and people will have something to stand for, not just against.
It is hard to say if Bilawal Bhutto Zardari is – or can even
become – the leader that Pakistan needs. I am skeptical – change that to very
skeptical, given recent history and the tragic tradition of unfulfilled promise
that is his legacy. But one, skeptics can be wrong; and two, there may be
others. What I do know is that the attitude exemplified by the Sindh Festival
and Bilawal’s recent statements is exactly what Pakistan needs, and that Sindh
is the only place where the counter-offensive can be based. Fortuitously, Sindh
is also home to Karachi, which is not only the largest city in Pakistan but
also its economic center and home to the largest secular urban population in
the country. If the ethos of secular
commerce can be married to a new cultural awakening, an alternative history of
Pakistan may yet be possible.
become – the leader that Pakistan needs. I am skeptical – change that to very
skeptical, given recent history and the tragic tradition of unfulfilled promise
that is his legacy. But one, skeptics can be wrong; and two, there may be
others. What I do know is that the attitude exemplified by the Sindh Festival
and Bilawal’s recent statements is exactly what Pakistan needs, and that Sindh
is the only place where the counter-offensive can be based. Fortuitously, Sindh
is also home to Karachi, which is not only the largest city in Pakistan but
also its economic center and home to the largest secular urban population in
the country. If the ethos of secular
commerce can be married to a new cultural awakening, an alternative history of
Pakistan may yet be possible.
Mathew Martoma = “Triple Package” + Sociopathy
The extent of Mathew Martoma’s fraud at Harvard is almost farcical. The fact that someone like him (born Ajai Mathew Thomas) could succeed in high finance tells you something about high finance. But, it also tells you about the toxic brew of individuals with high intellectual competency but low moral compass. These are far more dangerous than garden variety sociopaths, because their success is contingent upon eating away at the fabric of civil society.
But another aspect hinted at in the story is the role that pressure driven Asian immigrant cultures play in incentivizing this sort of behavior.* To be frank I suspect many Asian immigrant parents might be able tolerate a little corner cutting if their child could make it to Harvard. Naturally when you have someone with sociopathic tendencies like Martoma that tends to be interpreted as carte blanche toward a success-at-any-price mode of operation.
Of course culture is not destiny. The man prosecuting Martoma is himself a 1.5 generation Indian American.
* This sort of problem also crops up in corporations where all rewards are based on outcomes. In which case there is a strong incentive to cheat the system.