Media Watch – My Bit for Change

The Morning Show Circus

A while back, I was watching a morning-show when one of the guests on the show compared two very famous morning show hosts to Oprah Winfrey and called them the Oprah Winfreys of Pakistan. The next minute, I was cleaning the tea I had spilled on the table. As much as I wish with all my heart that, that statement was true but unfortunately those two morning show hosts are not even an iota of what Oprah Winfrey is all about.

For starters, Oprah Winfrey show does not have ‘Wedding Weeks’. Yes, weddings are an integral part of our culture, we are a nation which loves festivals and celebrations and marriage is a beautiful bond but that being said it does not mean that being unmarried is a disease or a taboo. Morning shows have an anti-dote for this ‘disease’ too, just by the way. The ‘matchmaking aunties’ are frequent guests on these shows to conduct ‘workshops’ on how a girl should carry herself and the tray when the potential in laws come to scrutinize her

Pakistani morning shows are on a mission to get the entire nation married before the world ends. It is about time they start to do shows on contraceptives as well before the population of Pakistan has doubled due to the weddings arranged by these shows. Or wait, they cannot really dare to do a show on contraceptives because that would upset us and PEMRA. But why don’t we ever raise a voice against the extravagance showcased on these shows and why does not PEMRA ever object to the crime shows which air forced confessions of alleged criminals? For how long will we continue to pick and choose to condemn or disregard the evils?

The shows portray their tactics of generating maximum revenue as a service to humanity. I have never been able to understand what joy does the couple from an under-privileged household get from watching people from the entertainment industry dance around in expensive couture. By doing all this, the morning shows are just demarcating the line between the rich and poor and making it more obvious than before. Showing the majority of Pakistanis who belong to middle, lower-middle and low classes, almost about everything they cannot afford just creates resentment.

An all-time favorite segment of these shows is about supernatural creatures and spirits and black magic. The morning show hosts ooh and aah every time a different ‘Aalim‘ tries to exorcise someone by sprinkling water on them, cutting lemons, lighting candles etc. It is actually painful to watch this and frustrating at the same time to witness different ‘Babas‘ torture people when in fact all they usually need is a good psychiatrist and therapy!

These shows have also really abused the concept of ‘Oprahfication’, that is, if that is what they try to imitate. While Oprah coined this term to describe public confession as a therapy and talked about various issues in her life, in our morning shows it is the other way around. The morning show hosts never talk about their failures, shortcomings, mistakes and life experiences but they invite people and cash on their misery by shedding a tear or two at their heart-breaking stories. While it has its advantages, we are still not ready for it. Inviting people to confess their secrets and discuss their personal and intimate issues on live television without a psychologist or psychiatrist being present is not only harmful but can have long term effects on the lives of these people as we are a part of an extremely judgmental society .

The morning show hosts are usually very active about speaking against domestic violence and gender-issues. But those issues set aside, what do they have to say about how they let themselves and other females on the morning shows be used as eye-candy? It’s not really hard to get why majority of the morning show hosts are females. A single female host carries the weight of dozen of labels and sponsors. Clothes, shows, make up, accessories and the list goes on. The more, the merrier.

These hosts constantly endorse the view that it is of utmost importance to fit in the society and for that you have to look a certain way. Whereas Oprah showed the world how a black woman with a voluptuous body can look so elegant, beautiful and charismatic only if she believes in herself. Almost every day at least one morning show has a make-up competition, which is fine but what is not okay is when the beauticians apply a foundation ten shades lighter to the model’s skin tone in order to make her look fair. This is very rare though, because most of the models chosen are fair-skinned anyway. What message are they conveying by this?

The most disappointing thing about these shows is the guests who are invited. There are few guests, couples to be specific who are permanent guests. They come, they dance, and they laugh out loud, go on and on about their recent vacation in Dubai or Thailand, gossip about other celebrities, display a lot of public affection and leave. From the guests lists of these shows it almost looks like as if half of the Pakistani nation is a part of the show business and the other half is trying desperately to be a part of it.

How often do we see Pakistanis who have excelled in other fields as guests on these shows? The shows endorse lawn brands but never speak up against the low wages the factory workers are paid. We are told about who wore who at the red carpet but we are never told who won the Booker or the Pulitzer prizes. Dramas and movies are reviewed and recommended but books are never talked about. Fashion designers, models, actors and singers are treated as if they are gods and goddesses with magical powers but scientists, economists, thinkers, social and human rights activists are never mentioned. Achievements of Dr. Abdu’s Salam, Prof. Atta-or-Raman, Mahbub-ul-Haq, etc. are never recognized and appreciated. They portray the Pakistani woman as a materialistic human being who has no business other than wearing designer clothes, expensive make up and brewing up facial masks in order to look at least ten years younger than her age. Why cannot the average Pakistani woman be portrayed as somebody who wants to fly a plane, be an astronaut, mountain climber or a F1 racer?

The media tries to get away with all this by using the excuse that it is broadcasting what people like to watch. But that is not a legitimate excuse. Yes, people have grown accustomed to watching trash because it’s the only thing that is aired these days. However that does not mean that we Pakistanis love to watch Turkish couples somersault around on our television screens. We are a nation who loved and appreciated 50-50, Angan Terha, Dhoop Kinaray, Loose Talk. We have been shown great things, so I do not know why the media thinks that all we deserve are dubbed foreign dramas and cheesy morning shows.

But ‘What is MBFC?’

Change is one of the most popular themes in contemporary Pakistan. But what exactly do we mean by ‘change’, and even more importantly, why do we need it so badly? This is something that we should all learn to question. When we demand something, we should be conscious of what it is exactly. This question is even more relevant when it comes to ‘My Bit for Change’. It is common to be asked what we mean precisely by our bit of ‘Change’. It becomes eerily more difficult to respond to such questions when certain inquirers come with their own framework of change and refuse to take any other possibility as a legitimate concern for social action. I will be trying in the following lines to clarify where we stand when we talk of change.

Most people see change as a one-time event. Many more view change as something that happens, not always something that is done. Others see change as all-encompassing and all-imposing, or to say; what I want for others. Some people see change as simply to challenge all things upheld in society as good and desirable. Some people see change as refusing anything that challenges established norms and values of society, whether such things are themselves oppressive and condemnatory. Some people don’t see change as anything but a simple slogan behind which the popular trend is going, while others see change as a call for irresponsible and disruptive action geared towards dismantling the social order.

To accommodate all such views under a singular umbrella would be too difficult a task for even the brightest of relativists. We, however, would only consider such an endeavor to be outright pointless and directionless. Because from our point of view; when you set your eyes in every direction, you’re not heading anywhere. There is a fine line between being accommodative and accepting all opinions as equally valid.

Our conception of change is one that is a life-time endeavor; a struggle; a jihad; a constant effort to improve ourselves and the world around us. There is no permanent state of perfection, at least not in this world, and we believe in relentlessly looking within ourselves critically and engagingly, and continuously improving ourselves and coming out as better human beings.

We endorse Rumi’s conception of change from the depths of being, who said, “Yesterday I was clever, so I wanted to change the world. Today I am wise, so I am changing myself.” And just as Gandhi put it, “Be the change you want to see in the world.”

We also believe that change doesn’t come, it is something you have to bring, or to invent, or to create. One should be in charge of destiny and fate, and not the other way around.

As Iqbal would suggest, “Khudi ko kar buland itna ke har taqdeer se pehle, Khuda banday se khud pooche, bata teri raza kiya hai.” (“Rise above yourself so high that even God, before deciding upon your fate, should ask you: Tell me, what would you like?”), and also, “Na Tu Zameen Ke Liye Hai Na Aasmaan Ke Liye. Jahaan Hai Tere Liye, Tu Nahin Jahan Ke Liye” (You are neither for the earth nor for the heaven: The world is for you, and not you for the world.)

We want the world to be a better place, a more peaceful and tolerant place, for all human beings whether they live in the ‘developed’ world or the ‘developing’ world; whether they belong to the majority or minority; or whether they belong to one so-called civilization or the other. Our call is a call to be human, and humanity begins at empathy; and realizing that persons other than you also feel, desire, and think, that they too have an existence as much valid as yours.

We don’t consider MBFC to be an ‘Islamic’ forum, if by doing so one is dividing a Muslim population and society across lines of ‘Islamic’ and ‘Non-Islamic’, or between acts of ‘Deen’ (religion) and acts of ‘Duniya’ (this world). For the first matter, we don’t believe Muslims can be categorized against a scale telling them who is how much ‘Islamic’. It is not our job to say who is more or less Islamic, or Muslim, as this is a matter of individual conscience, as well as one’s private relationship with the Almighty. It is not in our jurisdiction, but God’s alone, to judge other peoples religiosity. Secondly we don’t believe in the duality of our faith with the matters of this world. We believe that faith is as much a matter of this world as it is of the Hereafter. From our perspective, while praying is an act of worship so is earning an honest living or spending quality time with one’s family. In this sense, we consider ourselves ‘Islamic’ not as separate, but as part of the broader Muslim society. This is not to say that we exclude the non-Muslim voice either. A non-Muslim perspective has its own validity and legitimacy in a fully functioning Islamic society.

What one should grasp from the above description is that we want to bring people closer and not further apart. We are staunchly against sectarianism but also strongly against extreme polarization in society. We feel that extreme positions often fail to take the existence of another perspective into account. While religious extremism has been condemned and spoken of in media discourse; an opposite extremist discourse is also a common sight. Both depend on each other, as without the presence of the opposite, there would be little for either to say. To be exact, both speak in absolute and exclusivist terms; they talk about each other but never to each other. It should not come as a surprise that both sides have tried to attack our forum, either in the form of hate-mail to some of our writers or through certain reason-free writings.

This may be taken as a cost for trying to be moderate. To be moderate, of course, is not to merely take a balanced position in the middle of two extreme discourses; it is to refuse to fall prey to either. Some may not realize this but sometimes a loud call for moderation may be the most radical attack on extremists. To refuse to fight them is to defeat them.

But this is not where we end. We have continuously adopted an anti-imperialist, anti-hegemonic and anti-oppression stance. We have been very vocal against the drone attacks, as well as persons undermining their brutality, and such horrifying incidents as an American spy killing innocent civilians in the daylight of one of our major cities. We have spoken against outright human rights violations, such as the illegitimate kidnapping of our citizens, especially the case of Afia Siddiqui, and calling them ‘missing persons’. We have voiced concern for the brutal attacks on the Shia Hazara community in Quetta, as well as the tragic Badami Bagh incident. We have also spoken against various oppressive measures of state institutions and the state itself.

We have also been firm believers in accelerating the process of decolonization. We believe that has yet to end. The legacies of colonization are strongly visible even today, some more tangible than others. We have spoken against the usage of a certain language and traits that show of a false ‘superiority’. We have advocated pride in our own national, cultural and religious heritage. We have promoted such figures as Iqbal and Malcolm X for this very reason. And to quote our favorite activist for change, the latter of the two,

“A race of people is like an individual man; until it uses its own talent, takes pride in its own history, expresses its own culture, affirms its own selfhood, it can never fulfill itself.”

Reclaiming The Jihad: A Response to Tarek Fatah

To condemn the Woolwich incident, spine-chilling and disgusting as it may be_ is pointless. Not because it may by any stretch of imagination be justified, but because the haste and anxiety with which this is so promptly done both by spokespeople of Western nations and by Muslim leaders denotes the uncritical acceptance of the predominant narrative on terrorism on the terms of the powerbrokers and the media that tell us who to condemn, how and how much. It is also inadequate to only condemn these instances when they occur while failing to understand and take on the deeper dynamics that set them off. For, terrorism and the usage of the term are far more nuanced than these facile proclamations make us believe.

While Tarek Fatah has rightly pointed out this inadequacy in his article ‘UK Beheading Shows It’s Time to Fight the Doctrine of Jihad’, and reminded Muslims of the need to take on such criminal elements within their ranks, the rest of the article teeters on presumptions that are ignorant at best and dangerous a worst: ignorant because of a complete inability to understand the ground realities of contemporary international politics and dangerous for the ideologization of terrorism that lends credence to the idea that Islam is inherently violent and Muslims inherently predisposed towards violence.

The writer makes the same error many neoconservatives calling for a ‘War on Terror’ made, with disastrous consequences: accepting the motives and objectives of terrorism as interpreted and explained by American rhetoric. He tells us that such elements wish to ‘sow fear into the soul of British people’ and are ideologically motivated ‘by one powerful belief of the doctrine of Jihad against the kuffar…’ Readers are asked to make some leaps of faith here as this denies any possibility that such dastardly acts may be a crazed protest out of desperation and frustration, driven by vengeance over what is seen to be unfair and brutal, such as unfair occupations, drone strikes and brutal torture in illegal detention camps. By ideologizing the motives, attention is deflected away from the policies that provoke extreme and desperate reaction. Moral culpability is ruled out and the inaccurate and dangerous idea that the problem is with the ideology believed in by these people is given credence. Hence an image is conjured up of a clash between Islam and the West: a false and pernicious idea that makes the world madly careen towards a clash of civilizations.

The fallacy of the premise of this ideologization of terrorism and whose interests it serves, need to be exposed. Terrorism, in fact, is a tactic used by disaffected individuals and communities, not an ideology. It is not inspired by a hatred of all that the West stands for, but is a reaction to policy and actions of Western nations.

Michael Scheuer states: “There is no record of a Muslim urging to wage jihad to destroy democracy or credit unions, or universities. What the US does in formulating and implementing policies affecting the Muslim world is infinitely more inflammatory.” The smokescreen of rhetoric, however, keeps a dispassionate analysis of the real grievances that fire such acts at bay.

Fatah goes on to state that Muslim terrorists have been ‘emboldened’ by the West’s ‘passivity’ towards terrorism, implying that Western nations are victims too infirm to take on the horrifying, audacious enemy consolidating its ranks in the wings. There clearly is in this a criminal oversight of the glaring and undeniable reality that wars, occupations, kidnappings, tortures, detentions have been carried out by Western nations on the pretext of pre-empting and countering terrorism; that Guantanamo still detains thousands without charge, that only 2% out of the many thousands killed in drone operations against terrorists have any suspicion against them.

While what happened at Woolwich was grotesquely inhuman, refusing to acknowledge similar grotesque wrongs at the hands of powerful occupying armies in other parts of the world is diabolical. While Woolwich is unjustifiable, one cannot lose sight of the connection between the actions of armies abroad and the psychology of vengeance. In all honesty, one may also be reminded of the fact that barely weeks ago an unarmed seventy-five year old was similarly hacked and butchered to death in Birmingham while on his way home. The reason no one heard of it was because the victim being a Muslim on his way back from the local mosque made the story not newsworthy enough. Islamist terror is the in-thing- other acts of violence and terrorism are relegated to individual criminality or insanity.

The writer reminds us that the tactics used by the Woolwich attackers were ‘straight from medieval times’, recklessly making a direct link with Islamic doctrine and tradition. Anyone with a basic understanding of terrorism would know that desperate tactics like this one are used when the might of perceived enemies is too great and invincible, defying conventional tactics. Reading more than that into it and connecting it to medieval Islamic doctrine is grossly irresponsible for the devastating social and inter-subjective consequences in an atmosphere of great prejudice and hostility against Muslims and Islam. The UK Muslim community is already targeted for hate-speech by white supremacist groups like the English Defence League, and Mr. Fatah’s proclamations serve to keep this atmosphere of hate and suspicion charged.

It is vital and urgent that Muslims take responsibility for such elements and tendencies within their community and the writer did well to highlight this, but to interject ‘Islam is the enemy!’ when the religion and its practitioners already stand much stereotyped and pigeonholed, misunderstood, mistrusted and maligned is highly irresponsible and reckless.

However, such reform has to come from within the Muslim community from authentic representatives and spokespeople of Islamic tradition. The gusto for ‘fixing Islam’ from the West is misplaced, insincere, uninsightful and comes loaded with malafide agendas and political interests. Tarek Fatah’s exhortation to Western leaders to take on the Jihadic ideology and defeat it, is a fatal nonsense.

Having said that, Fatah’s disappointment with liberal Muslims rubbing in the fact that ‘Islam is Peace’ and keeping mum about the doctrine of physical Jihad as part of Islam, is valid- but for different reasons. Liberal Muslims desperately try to deny and eclipse this aspect of Islam and in so doing, implicitly accept the ignorant allegation that physical Jihad is a violent doctrine. Mr. Tarek Fatah too shares this inability to understand and appreciate the concept of Jihad with its contemporary ramifications in a holistic and insightful manner. This explains his enthusiastic call for rejecting Jihad altogether, and his great disappointment that Islamic scholars are not too excited about jettisoning the murderous idea once and for all.

Liberal Muslims often either deny or denigrate Jihad, as if it was an embarrassment. Jihad, standing for struggle spanning all means to resist injustice, evil and falsehood is to safeguard and protect the sanctity of human life, not to violate it. It aims at protecting the weak, the suffering and the sinned-against. Jihad purged the concept of war from excesses. The first Quranic exhortation to fight came with the emphasis to ‘be not aggressive.’

The Quran and the example of the Sunnah clearly and categorically lay down the conditions when Jihad should be resorted to. Simply, all is not fair in war, and rulings for protecting non combatants and those not directly engaged in confrontation are explicit. Besides, its objectives are clearly laid down: it is neither for territorial aggrandizement nor national power nor spreading the faith, but for resisting oppression and injustice and helping in the establishment of a just and peaceful social order. Fatah makes an ignorant and misleading connection between the senseless butchery at Woolwich and the concept of Jihad: the same criminal mistake that the perpetrators themselves made.

Mr. Fatah makes a pathetic attempt to validate his claim that Jihad is a savage expansionist ideology by quoting an inaccurate and false definition of Jihad from ‘A Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam’ which makes the unforgivable error or defining Jihad as ‘the spread of Islam by arms’, a claim unsubstantiated by any Islamic text or source of authority.

The need of the hour, contrary to Mr. Fatah’s prescription, is to rediscover and elucidate the concept of Jihad in contemporary context and expose its distortion, misperception and abuse by those hostile to Jihad as well as those claiming to wage it. The silence on this from Muslim scholars leaves the misconceptions and confusions to proliferate and hence provide justification to fringe extremist and criminal elements like those who carried out the brutal display at Woolwich in the name of Jihad.

This said, Mr. Fatah needs to be reminded that resistance to wrong and defence of the weak and marginalized against oppression and injustice is a basic virtue attested to by all spiritual and moral doctrines, hence the Jihadic philosophy is not an invention of Islam even though it may be a culmination of this universal idea. Stripping Islam off this beautiful crowning glory is a preposterous and revolting idea he can never find any support for. Both Mr Fatah and his ilk as well as sheepish Liberal Muslims need to be reminded of the fact that Islam extols and idealizes peace but also accepts the idea that when the rhetoric and pretense of peace hides the demons of injustice, it must be exposed and rejected and resisted.

Farid Esack writes, “When peace comes to mean the absence of conflict on the one hand and when conflict with an unjust political order is a moral imperative on the other, then it is not difficult to understand that the better class of human beings will be deeply committed to disturbing the peace and creating conflict.”

What is important to realize, however, is that in the absence of this understanding of Jihad and the spineless, fragmented state of the Muslim world, resistance to the great wrongs by Western nations at present is febrile, maniacal and as vicious as the actions of the powerful perpetrators. Yeats lamented, ‘The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.’ Esack writes, ‘The problem with Muslim fundamentalism is that it is as totalitarian and exclusivist as the order that it seeks to displace. It seeks to create an order wherein they are the sole spokespersons for a rather vengeful, patriarchal and chauvinistic God.’ That is a judicious and vital understanding we as Muslims must acquire in order to reclaim the Jihad for our time.

Incidents like Woolwich as well as the great wrongs that engender such sickness – stemming from both Western policy as well as Muslim degeneracy- are to be rejected and actively opposed. The underlying logic of wars of powerful Western nations against “terrorism” and terrorist attacks provoking or provoked by them is the same: both punish human beings for the actions of their governments or of individuals or groups sharing religious or ethnic identity. We are left with an important question: If terrorism is the direct and intentional killing of innocent people with the purpose for achieving a greater goal they are not directly linked with, are not both terrorism? While we correctly acknowledge Woolwich as savage terrorism, why are similar instances in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Yemen or Iraq also not recognized as equally unacceptable, intensely provocative and deeply damaging? As long as contemporary politics continue to operate on the premise of ‘some are more equal that others’, such ugly outrages will keep happening at the hands of the psychologically vulnerable. The need is an all-out struggle- a progressive ‘Jihad’ (struggle) if you will- against all wrongs that fuel the vicious cycle, regardless of who the perpetrators may be.

Woolwich and the Muslim Response

The murder in Woolwich has shocked everyone, no one was prepared for such a killing on the streets of the UK. The response has been of disgust and condemnation. This incident has raised some questions that politicians and the mainstream media have conveniently dodged. I am disgusted and appalled by what has taken place, but why should I have to apologise for such a crime, it had nothing to do with me.

Why is it that Muslims and Muslim organisations are expected to apologise for actions of two individuals? Why is it that Muslim organisations do not even need to be prompted to condemn; they are readily condemning actions that have nothing to do with them. There has been no attempt by Muslim organisations to discuss the causes of the attack, no attempt to question the mainstream media narrative that imposes labels on Muslims.

I was born and brought up in a majority Muslim area of Birmingham. I have travelled the country and the world. I have come across thousands of Muslims, spoken, debated and challenged opinions. Radicalisation is not a religious problem, it is a problem of society, and specifically, in this case, British society.

Muslim leaders have been scared into silence. Prevent officers visiting mosques and community leaders frighten them. They are told that if Muslims display any political opinions outside the mainstream then they are extremists, that if they do not inform on them, that their bank accounts can be frozen, mosques closed and they could face prison. Muslims are afraid. Muslim organisations and leaders are subservient to the state, scared to mention foreign policy as a radicalising factor just in case they are harangued for justifying the murder. It has got to such a state that we do not even realise that our minds have been conditioned through years of media misrepresentation and widespread Islamophobia. Questioning the reason for a murder does not mean condoning or justifying it. Condemning something that has nothing to do with you feeds into the narrative that this is a Muslim problem, that this is something that the Muslim community are responsible for, at least in part.

In turn so-called Muslim leaders stifled debate and discussion in mosques, too afraid to discuss anything political. For too long they have played a subservient role to the state, asking for a seat at the table and hoping for crumbs to be passed to them. I have not met a Muslim that has condoned the actions in Woolwich, but let’s not ignore what radicalises. British foreign policy radicalises, double standards radicalise, making Muslim youngsters feel like their opinions are not legitimate radicalises, stifling debate and discussion radicalises, not giving people a conduit to vent their opinions and frustrations radicalises, a lack of identity in Britain radicalises, we are either extremists or moderates.

We are told that Muslims are equal citizens in this country but the reality is something very different. If we say we don’t drink, we are labelled anti-social or not willing to integrate, if we drink we are labelled moderate, if a Muslim wears a hijab, she is oppressed, if she doesn’t she is liberated, if we express an opinion outside of the mainstream narrative, we are angry, if we join a mainstream political party we are passionate, if we sing the praises of the British establishment we are liberals, if we object to foreign policy we are extremists or Islamists. I for one am fed up of this apologetic and subservient tone. I have nothing to apologise for, I should not be asked to condemn the actions of two men that had nothing to do with me just as a white man should not be asked to condemn the murders committed by Anders Brevik or for the violent actions of the English Defence League.

Have Muslims not proved their worth to this country? Muslims have bled for this country during WWI and WWII, they have fought for Empire, they have served as colonial subjects, they have waved the flags, sang the anthems and anglicised their names –Mo and Ed. But still we are not accepted; we still hear ‘Muslim appearance’ in the mainstream media, which basically means non-white, not one of us.

I am privileged, I went to university, I had an abundance of left-wing white friends that never questioned my opinions because of my religion or ethnicity, that accepted me as an equal, and made me feel that I had a place in society, we shared our politics as well as our battles.

My parents still fear that I will be arrested for writing and expressing an opinion as a journalist. I have been inundated with calls since the attack from Muslims that are afraid of a backlash, one even asked me if there would be ethnic cleansing. I told them not to be afraid because I had faith in the British people to see through the fog that politicians and mainstream media perpetuate.

Why is it that Joe Glenton can say that foreign policy is a radicalising factor but our so-called Muslim leaders tiptoe around the issue? Why is it that George Eaton can say that Muslims should not have to distance themselves from the attacks, but our so-called leaders are falling over themselves to do it? Why is it that Glenn Greenwald can question whether the attack is terrorism, but my fellow brothers and sisters are afraid to do the same?

I was born here, I am British, I am standing in the tradition that says that my opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s, that I have a right to object to the hypocritical treatment vented out to Muslims without being accused of condoning or justifying such attacks. There are Muslims that will disagree with me, that is fine, we must understand that we are not a homogenous group, Anjum Choudry and his motley crew do not represent me, neither do the Muslim Council of Britain with their 400 affiliated mosques run by old men in committees. Unfortunately non-Muslims in the public sphere represent my views more than our so-called Muslim leaders.

To be ‘leaders’, senior Muslim figures must lead. Whilst politicians and the media carry on scapegoating Muslims, a true community leadership must face up to the reality of foreign policy and suppression of Muslim communities over the last decade, and call it out for what it is.

Courtesy: AssedBaig.com

The Quranic Concept of Truth and Journalism

“We need not be theologians to see that we have shifted responsibility for making the world interesting from God to the newspaperman.” (Daniel J Boorstin)

This article could have begun with an example of Yellow Journalism. A sensational headline bound to attract, opening lines to chill the spine, spicy factoids sugarcoated as facts, an agenda to shame the devil and shocking pictures as icing on th e cake. The only reason of opening it with this quote is to highlight what has become of journalism in present times. But to think better of it, surely the Quran must lay down guidelines for ethical reporting and that ought to form the preamble to this article. Although a list of Quranic principles which could serve as an ethical code of conduct for journalism could be exhaustive, there is one principle that is vital to any such list: Truth. It is to be kept in mind that the canvas on which this Quranic standard is boldly painted is God Consciousness, which is indeed the underlying principle governing all actions of a Muslim. Naturally, the implication of Divine accountability for all our actions must lead to a natural sense of self accountability.

O you who have attained to faith! Remain conscious of God; and let every human being look to what he sends ahead for the morrow! And [once again]: Remain conscious of God, for God is fully aware of all that you do. (Quran, 59:18).

Truth is a concept that has been repeated in the Quran umpteen times to highlight its importance. Words like “Haq” and “Sidq” have been used repeatedly and all aspects of Truth have been expounded upon in various contexts. The Quranic notion of Truth is absolute, ultimate and definitive. Indeed one of the names of Allah is “Al-Haq”. The Word of Allah, the Quran, is an absolute truth, being a criterion to judge between the true and the false. The Messengers have been sent to guide to the Truth, validate and establish it. Believers are acceptors, upholders, adherents and supporters of the Truth. Truth has been likened to as the light while falsehood as the dark. Death, the Day of Judgment, the Hereafter, Paradise and Hell are expressed as being the ultimate Truths. Truth is, indeed one of the central themes of the Quran and thus one of the basic tenets of Islam.

Say: “The Truth has arrived and Falsehood neither creates anything new, nor restores anything.” (Quran,34:49)

Once Truth assumes the place of one of the guiding beacons in Islam, its role in an Islamic Society or amongst Muslims becomes doctrinal and it assumes the foremost place in the Islamic code of conduct. Thus, by application, accepting, professing, adhering, supporting, expressing, searching, spreading, upholding, validating, establishing, manifesting and revealing the Truth is part of the Muslim way of life and its manifesto. Linking up with reporting and journalism, Truth is the one fundamental principle that translates as the prime objective of journalism. Accurate, uncompromised and unaltered reporting of Truth with no strings attached.

And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is). (Quran, 2:42)

“Why do you mix Truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know?”. (Quran, 3:71)

Truth has to be the scarlet thread of all reporting. In this era of information operations it is necessary to elevate reporting and free it from the shackles of the overall information strategy which tends to subjugate it to the role of a mere tool for the extension of a grader schema. This is only possible when the prime objective of reporting is the broadcast of Truth. News has to be authenticated before being broadcasted and the responsibility lies on the reporter to confirm the accuracy of a report before spreading undue fear or thrill. Confirming a report’s authenticity is necessary lest that report causes damage or unwarranted loss. Reporting should never be speculative or based on mere conjecture. A part of the truth or incomplete facts should not prompt to jump to conclusions or lead to fanciful thinking. However, it is to be kept in mind that the responsibility of communication of Truth does not rest with journalists or their kin alone. The overall system has to be tailored so that Truth can flourish and can be freely propagated.

O you who have attained to faith! Remain conscious of God, and [always] speak with a will to bring out [only] what is just and true. (Quran, 33:70).

Guesswork, spying, slander and backbiting are all vices to be avoided. No paparazzi spying on celebrities. No speculation on what someone might have done. No unfair means to make glitzy headlines. No debate on the meaning, constituents, form, nature and context of Truth, as what Truth means is clear. No indirect implications, subtle insinuations, hidden agendas, prejudices and ulterior motives. No incorrect, adulterated, partial and extra-contextual quoting from sources or references. No factoids, semi-truths or pseudo-truths and one sided coverage No fear of repercussions, pressures of protagonists or antagonists.

When there comes to them a matter, be it of security or fear, they broadcast it; if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them, those of them whose task it is to investigate would have known the matter.(Quran, 4:83).

O you who believe! if an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done. (Quran, 49:6).

For, most of them follow nothing but conjecture: [and,] behold, conjecture can never be a substitute for truth. Verily, God has full knowledge of all that they do. (Quran, 10:36).

O you who have attained to faith! Avoid most guesswork [about one another] for, behold, some of [such] guesswork is [in itself] a sin; and do not spy upon one another, and neither allow yourselves to speak ill of one another behind your backs….(Quran, 49:12).

Can you, then, hope that they will believe in what you are preaching – seeing that a good many of them were wont to listen to the word of God and then, after having understood it, to pervert it knowingly? (Quran, 2:75).

Truth is indispensable when it comes to reporting and journalism. Imagine an era of journalism where the golden principle of Truth as illustrated by the Quran form a code of conduct. Where media is free from its inherent evils because of adherence to the cardinals of Truth and honesty. Where no color can be ascribed to journalism signifying its ills. Where conscientious and conscious reporting is the norm and Truth is the only ulterior motive and hidden agenda and is clearly manifest. The hope for such an era is not Utopian, not in the least for Muslims.

And say: “Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish.” (Quran, 17:81)

Letting Shadows Fall Behind

When a friend from Bangladesh gifted me a jute bag with the Bangladesh flag motif painted on it, I asked her to explain the symbolism. She told me it stood for the rising sun over the green fields, reddened with the blood of liberation martyrs.

After the terrible atrocities in 1971 in which many innocent Bengalis lost their lives, retributive justice to the perpetrators of brutal crime needed to be carried out by Pakistan. This was never done, consumed as the country was in an unseeing jingoism. George Orwell wrote in his memoirs of the Spanish Civil War, ‘Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side.’

Resultantly, in Bangladesh, these atrocities have become over the years part of the collective memory and the national narrative. The hurt and anger has festered to the beat of nationalistic fervour and has turned into an unrelenting, bitter hate and hardened prejudice against the enemy.

On the backdrop of this charged nationalistic sentiment, in 2010 the International Crimes Tribunal was established by this government, though its legitimacy and capacity to deliver justice have been put to question by objective observers.

There is also the concern that the much-awaited decision announced recently was more a political than judicial decision. The Jamat e Islami is an important part of the political opposition against the current regime. The primary accused belong to the Jamat, widely considered to be complicit in Pakistan army’s violence against the Bengalis in 1971.

Justice is a great thing and often a vital part in healing and reconciliation. The events in Bangladesh carry the pretence of a justice that gratifies the strong national desire for vengeance. Whether real justice can be delivered given the lack of integrity and transparency about the proceedings, is open to question. The presiding judge Nizamul Huq resigned following questions over the publication of private conversations which cast doubt on the court proceedings. The Economist writes,

“The e-mails and phone conversations we have seen raise profound questions about the trial… the government tried to put pressure on Mr Nizamul… he worked improperly with a lawyer based in Brussels, and that the lawyer co-operated with the prosecution_ raising questions about conflicts of interest. In Mr Sayeedi’s case (head of JI, given a death sentence this week) it points to the possibility that, even before the court had finished hearing testimony from the defence witnesses, Mr Nizamul was already expecting a guilty verdict.”

Held under the thumb of mass public furore and the voracious appetite for vendetta, the verdict seems to have been preordained. Justice is blinded under pressure of emotionally charged public sentiment, and the hand of blind justice has a fell sweep. George Orwell adds,

“As far as the mass of the people go, the extraordinary swings of opinion which occur nowadays, the emotions which can be turned on… are the result of newspaper and radio hypnosis.”

Doling out death sentences in such an environment is a travesty of justice. In a conversation of October 14th, between Mr Nizamul and Ziauddin, the Brussels-based lawyer of Bangladeshi origin, the judge refers to the government as “absolutely crazy for a judgment. The government has gone totally mad. They have gone completely mad, I am telling you. They want a judgment by 16th December…it’s as simple as that.” December 16th, known as Victory Day in Bangladesh, is the anniversary of the surrender by Pakistani forces in the war of independence. (The Economist)

While the demand for justice to war criminals is understandable and legitimate, the concern is about whether this public sentiment has been used for political opportunism. Given the traumatic birth of Bangladesh and the horrific memories haunting public imagination, a regime credited with bringing offenders to book will win hearts. Given the many failures and weaknesses of this regime as well as the fact that the Jamaat is a vital member of the opposition alliance, there seems to be a method to the madness.

The social consequences have been grave with violence spiralling out of control. The long-term repercussions are graver still. Opposition to the verdict has been brutally crushed by the state machinery and violent reprisals have victimized hundreds. The crowds calling for a death sentence are led by secular-liberal segments of the society and have massive support from members of the civil society. The opposition to the death sentence comes from the Islamists led by the Jamat e Islami which has sizable following. The scars this will leave will drive a wedge between these two segments along ideological lines. It will accentuate and intensify a dangerous polarization which in the long run shall be in the interests of none. With the two opposed camps locked in confrontation against each other, a state eager to use force and one or both groups- having deep roots into the society- often violently lashing out against the other, the future looks grim. A gaping split across the social spectrum with a spattering of violence is the perfect recipe for disaster- the same disaster that Pakistan is mired up in. This dampens down the hopes for a stable, peaceful, progressive Bangladesh.

In this wider context, it becomes apparent that it is not vengeance but clemency that Bangladesh needs. Violence begets violence and sets off a vicious cycle. That vicious cycle needs to be broken. Forgetting bitter memories is hard, but sometimes, a bit of voluntary historical amnesia makes the future clearer and brighter for us. Justice and peace are great ends to be striven for. But the tribunal and its decision is at best a pretense and at worst a grave travesty of justice. Bangladesh is a rapidly progressing country and has risen out of the blood and fire it was born in- I hope its great people would prefer to look ahead, refusing to let their sentiment be used for political purpose. For, when you look towards the sun- which, as my friend explained- is the proud national symbol of a country that deserves to rise out of a bloody past- you let the shadows fall behind you.

Spitting Against The Winds

Much ire has been unleashed against an awareness drive in Karachi that highlighted the concept of modesty in Islam using Quranic and Prophetic references on billboards and handbills, in the context of the February 14 celebrations. The rejection of the idea of singling out a day for the expression of amorous sentiment as odious to the spirit of true love is a common theme in various sources. Mark Vernon writing for BBC laments the romantic onslaught of another Valentine’s Day: “Romantic love is… marketed as the peak experience… the signs of its allure are everywhere on Valentine’s Day… as if couples make a direct link between romantic value and cash value. We are being blinded by a hyper version of romantic love… I think that the romantic myth is one of the most pernicious of our times.”

A headstrong dogmatic ‘liberal’ writing passionately advocated the celebration of Valentines Day in order to stand against the ‘anti-Valentines Day lobby’- ironically, however, in the same article he conceded to the fact that the event is highly commercialized and the celebration devoid of meaning. Call it double standards, shall we?

The fabric of society is woven on the basis of a consensus of values. Since the majority in this society subscribes to the Muslim faith, this social consensus is on the values that derive themselves from Islamic tradition. The concept of Haya (modesty) is central, essential and pivotal to Islam. The Prophet (SAW) said, ‘Every religion has a distinguishing quality, and the distinguishing quality of Islam is modesty.’ The campaign in Karachi by Tanzeem e Islami (TI) highlighted this fundamental aspect of the Muslim lifestyle through ways that neither involved coercion nor vigilantism.

However, this was targeted by a well-thought-out slander campaign sneering at the message in uncouth ways. This only signifies intolerance of free speech and incapacity to stomach the exercise of freedom of expression by another who differs in opinion from the self-appointed gallant crusaders of liberalism.

The liberal fanatics went overboard, flying off the handle with a vicious attack on the vision and mission of TI and its leadership, including the late Dr. Israr Ahmad. The allegations levelled at the deceased scholar often veer into the personal domain. Given the fact that the target of this slander is no more there to respond to these, makes the attempt foul and malevolent.

Noticeably, the real issues at hand were dexterously skirted, instead veering off into a paroxysm digging up dead ghosts to somehow prove that the TI and its work is discredited for its misogynistic, imperious, regressive tendencies. This was ‘proven’ by some isolated, obscure incidents from the early eighties that involve Dr. Israr Ahmad. Not only was this an attempt to trivialize and slight the vital message of the campaign, but in fact the entire vision, mission and work of TI and Dr Israr Ahmad.

The TI is not a political organization, but believes that the social mission of Islam seeks culmination through the use of political power with responsibility for the service and welfare of human beings. Like any organization working for reform, the TI also believes in the ideal of a globally ascendant paradigm of justice and peace overstepping schisms and boundaries. The universal maxim of ‘think globally, act locally’ that the Tanzeem seems to have adopted, does not imply imperious, expansionist or violent political agendas. Instead, the TI is committed to work at the grassroots through spiritual and moral rejuvenation which alone can be the basis for any larger social reform programme.

The issue of Dr. Israr Ahmad’s views on televising cricket matches seems to have been brutally manipulated and greatly exaggerated. Interestingly, the misrepresentation of Dr. Israr’s suggestion to not show cricket matches on T.V was addressed by the late scholar in 1983 in a widely published public statement. On page 85 of the monthly ‘Meesaq’ of March 1983, Dr. Israr Ahmad explains his stance. He clarifies that his objection was based on the fact that these sporting events are spread over five days and often viewers abandon more important duties and become negligent towards religious observations. It interferes with the daily routine taking away precious time. He moves on to suggest that such long sporting events should not be televised and that those interested should visit the venue to watch it live. However, if cricket matches could be of a short duration comprising a few hours in a day, it could provide healthy entertainment on T.V. This public statement does not mention the issue of women watching males on T.V even implicitly, because that had never been Dr. Israr Ahmad’s grounds for objection.

The writer exaggerates this episode and Israr Ahmad’s insistence on promulgating the Islamic dresscode for women to the extent that it comes across as the primary reason why he eventually lost favour with General Zia ul Haq and fell out with him. This claim is absolutely ludicrous. While it is true that the scholar held high the sanctity of the modest Islamic dresscode and propagated the idea, it is false that his stubborn and relentless insistence made him impossible to deal with, leading to differences with the President and exit from PTV. In the Meesaq issue of February 1983, Dr. Israr Ahmad’s address to the president on this issue has been transcribed. The tone in which he suggests the observance of the Islamic dresscode on TV is merely advisory, humble and at best persuasive but never dictatorial, stubborn or threatening. Sincerity and hope rings clear out of it, which commands deep reverence for him- even if one does not agree with the import of it.

The actual reason why Dr. Israr Ahmad eventually parted ways and refused to appear on the state-owned media was because the President-General had hoped Dr. Israr’s political rhetoric would justify and lend strength to his authoritative rule. He hoped for his dictatorship to somehow fit into and be sanctified by the ‘Khilafah’ ideal of Dr. Israr Ahmad. The late scholar however eventually saw through this and realized that religion was just being used to prolong the autocratic regime. There was little sincerity in actually making the values and principles of Islam prevail. Not only did his TV appearances finish, he also resigned from the ulema council, refusing to be part of an autocratic regime using religious rhetoric to maintain its hold.

While it is true that Dr. Israr Ahmad stressed on gender segregation and the need to abide by hijab regulations, but the writer has used his views on the subject and attached them to his advice against televising cricket matches to suggest a retrograde sexism and misogyny which is absolutely uncalled-for. What is created in the process is a skewed-up, distorted account that is far from the truth. I am compelled here to quote from Dr. Israr Ahmad’s book ‘Islam mein Aurat ka maqam’:

‘Men and women are the two wheels of the vehicle of society and culture. Their physical and psychological make-up is different; however, this is due to the needs and requirements of human society and civilization. As human beings, both are from each other sharing their common humanity. However, religiously and morally they have distinct identities and roles and are responsible for carrying these out within their spheres…’ (translated)

At the end the writer refers to an incident in which Dr. Israr Ahmad was witnessed to have hurled an abuse at a woman who was not covered in the way he would have wanted her to be. While I am not in a position to categorically refute this, whatever little I know about the late scholar and his impeccable personal morals, belies the likelihood of this. However, having said that, bringing up an issue that challenges the personal dignity and integrity of a deceased scholar who can no longer explain, clarify or refute it, and then using the dubious episode to discredit the overall message of the campaign promoting a basic Islamic value is a filthy tactic. It is hitting below the belt. I wouldn’t bother digging into this one.

The malafide intent behind this self-defeating endeavour lies bare. While the audacious claims against Dr. Israr are highly dubious and quite dispensable, this much emerges clear: the writer’s own moral condition is pathetically abysmal. A sage warned that when you spit against the wind, it comes back into your own face.

Imported Revolution

The bullet proof, bomb-proof, container-led revolution of Dr Tahir-ul-Qadri has concluded, thankfully without any loss of human life, but needs some reflection on its course, its aims and results.

Dr Tahir-ul-Qadri claimed to bring an overnight revolution because people are sick of current corrupt system. The idea seemed fascinating but the problem remained that the concept of changing the system from outside didn’t fascinate many. Unless there is a strong urge of change from within, no one from outside can impose a change. No matter how catchy the slogans are, people don’t bother if they don’t feel an attachment towards it. When he quoted people like Imam Khumeni who were abroad and came back for revolution, he simply forgot to have a look at his popularity and credibility back home. Also, even in exile, Imam Khumeni was actively leading the movement. Nation would always be sceptical about someone who disappeared for good five years and came back to munch away a fruit which has been ripened with a struggle and misery of years. The tag of support of establishment/hidden hand also proved detrimental for Qadri saheb. His demands and agenda had nothing new and people doubted his real agenda.

A lot has been shared and said about the personal record of credibility of Dr Tahir-ul-Qadri. It’s in bad taste to do character assassination; but still it’s a reality that character of a leader does matter towards his words, slogans and ultimately leadership. Commitment of a leader towards his cause is also very important. Security might be a burning issue, but revolutions don’t come in containers. Also, Qadri took several U-turns from his initial stance and virtually he had to end up with a face-saving agreement. He clearly failed to give a clear vision to his followers and didn’t tell them what the real goal was. People stayed in confusion and lacked proper direction. They still might not know what they were out for in biting cold for 4 nights while the leader and his family stayed in a heated room throughout.

The role of media is disgraceful in this entire situation. Pakistan media lacks direction, professionalism and ethics This revolution drama got passionate coverage further confusing the nation. People were ‘captivated’ for 5 days and entire media was hijacked by the long march but no clear picture was shown to the country. Sensationalism was at its peak which is ruining the society by creating hypes out of nothing, wasting time, nerves and energies. But few exceptions can be seen, where journalists were very clear in their stance and gave remarkable analysis of the long march.

Thousands of people spent 5 nights in cold weather of Islamabad without proper arrangements and the crowd comprised of people from all walks of life. It signifies that supporters of Dr Qadri, no matter what their number was, were committed to the cause. They were blindly following their leader which is another problem in Pakistan; blind following and no questioning of the leader even if it leads to a blind well. The followers of Qadri sb didn’t listen to any dissenting opinion and they still claim victory despite the fact that they have virtually achieved nothing.

Again, it is very important that what shape we want to give to our movement. If someone compares himself to Hazrat Imam Hussain (RA) and then shamelessly goes and bows down to those whom he calls yazeedis, nation is simply not going to forgive him. Dr. Qadri was very vocal in calling people names and swearing a lot of times; but all this was actually weakening his cause.

This long march indicated a ray of hope that people are willing to bring change but shallow slogans and inappropriate leadership is the biggest hurdle. Specific goals, thoroughly chalked out agenda and committed leadership is required to bring people back on streets. Also, a lot of people still believe in democratic process and are willing to give it one last chance. If the upcoming elections are rigged and same corrupt politicians appear, we could see the entire episode of long march repeated with much more enthusiasm and probably that will be the final blow to the current system.

But then again, the leadership should be crystal clear about its objectives and should have a strong character, integrity and credibility unlike Dr. Qadri, to whom we can dedicate this urdu verse

عشق قاتل سے بھی، مقتول سے ھمدردی بھی
یہ بتا کس سے محبت کی جزا مانگے گا
سجدہ خالق کو بھی ، ابلیس سے یارانہ بھی
حشر میں کس سے عقیدت کا صلہ مانگے گا

So following conclusions can be derived safely from the entire episode.

No one from outside can forcefully impose a revolution unless the people of country want it that way
The character of leader is of prime importance.
Establishment always misused used the slogan of religious emotionalism and/or political corruption to intervene but now majority of people think , we’ve had enough of boots.
Media can be manipulated by creating a drama with huge funds, but the impact of media is not the final blow.

The Elusive Last Straw

I am such an idiot. I thought we should get that out of the way early.

Remember September?

When the whole blasphemy video issue happened? When the PPP “capitulated” to the religious right?

I remember certain people, who hold sway in the media, people who claim to be on the left, being deeply scarred by all of it. I remember their anger and outrage, and I remember them finally running out of patience with their beloved party.

I remember it being “the last straw”. And I remember believing them.

Silly me!

Corruption, poverty and just plain slaughter that goes on in Karachi every day is not of much concern for the intellectually gifted. It’s the pandering to the religious right, the targeting of minorities and the evil machinations of the military that fuel their fury.

Admirable! And perhaps, why September seemed like a turning point; a last straw. It was and it wasn’t.

September was a last straw that came after many last straws, and many last straws have come after it. Many will come. What will change? Nada.

There might be some noise made when the circumstances don’t allow otherwise, like in September, but most last straws don’t even register. The camel quite obviously is on steroids and the last straw is but a myth.

Proof, you ask me?

Well, what do you know about the Sunni Ittehad Council? Forget that religious parties are inherently against the “we want a secular state” brigade, the SIC also openly supported Mumtaz Qadri. Mumtaz Qadri, in case you have trouble recalling, is the man who killed Salman Taseer. Salman Taseer, in case you have more trouble recalling, is the man certain people remember every day as the hero who fought darkness, the knight in shining armour and other stuff in that category.

Now, there’s been an alliance involving the SIC and a “liberal” party Salman Taseer called his own. Et tu, anyone? Well, no one, at least no one in the “independent” media and hence; no last straw.

Moving on we observe that the independent media doesn’t only exercise its independence by giving the PPP a free pass. Enter Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz, hail Nawaz Sharif, the lord and owner of Punjab. There’s a strange kind of love for his highness Nawaz Sharif in our “leftist” press, despite his very Zia-ish roots.

It so happens that the saviours of our Shia community never question PMLNs shady links with Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, past or present. And whilst PMLN might have entered into a declared alliance with ASWJ again, during the by-polls, chances are that the anchors will talk about the weather when Mr. Sharif graces her show.

Here too the last straw, needless to say, remains unattainable.

What about the military then?

“Military = Evil”. So, Military+PMLN+PPP = Outrage. This is just simple math, right?

Not quite.

All of you will be pleased to know that in light of Supreme Court’s Asghar Khan case judgement, which stated that military was indeed involved in rigging elections, PPP have done the honourable thing.

The party proudly announced that they will not be probing Punjab owner Nawaz Sharif for taking ISI money and the Asghar Khan case was, their words not mine; buried.

The military interference and the ISI money and the stealing of the people’s mandate; all forgiven. Surely this is the bloody last straw?

In your dreams!

So to recap, in the space of a half a week, the PPP and PMLN have combined to

1) Protect election rigging, the famed will of the people.
2) Give cover to military interference and protect culprits in this regard.
3) Form alliances with sectarian outfits blamed for much of the violence against Shias in the country.
4) Form alliances with religious outfits supporting the murder of a sitting governor over the blasphemy law.

And yet no last straw! Actually, no straw at all!

Since 3rd December, when SIC-PPP alliance came to light, till today, here’s how the honest and upright, the “dissenters”, have reacted:

The English media, famous for their knack of spotting ASWJ flags, did not have an editorial on ASWJ-PMLN, nor did these teary-eyed Taseer fans give space to PPP-SIC. The newspapers also abstained from commenting on PPPs general amnesty for military interference.

Not a single one of “always excellent” op-ed writers was bothered by these trivial happenings. In fact the folks in these “newspapers”, God bless their unbiased heart, did not even report the SIC-PPP alliance.

Beyond pathetic isn’t it. Depressing even!

All is not lost though, for these people will find their voices again once the PPP and PMLN are not in the picture.

Now when that happens, and it will happen, I would be thankful if everyone, respectfully, tells them to take their appreciation for Taseer, their concern for the Shias, their disdain for the deep state, alongside that elusive last straw and bury it all for good.

Why is My Hijab, Your Problem?

I am a woman, not a sexualized commodity; I am a human being just like you are.

I am a Hijabi and Hijab is my identity and my ideology.

I wasn’t a Hijabi by birth, nor did it come from an oppressing ‘Mullah’ father or brother. Oh no! No one can force me to do something which I do not want to do. It only came when I came to explore the message of God which I had been reading since childhood in Arabic and never knew what it meant as it’s not my first language. It started to make sense when I decoded it into a language which I could understand; Thanks to those scholars who made it a mission of their lives to transliterate the word of God for our convenience.

The importance of observing hijab for me gradually became connected to my belief in God and the question I asked myself often.

“I believe in God and His word, I love the Prophet (SAW) and for me the characters and dress code of Aisha and Fatima (Peace be upon them) are role models, then how come whenever I see a Hijabi, I relate it to backwardness.”

All these claims don’t fit into one frame and there began the war of ideas in me:

“You tell me Hijab is backward and you still are a proud non-apologetic Muslim, it can’t be true!”

It’s a part of my personality just like a Jewish kippah and Christian and jewish ‘hijabs’, my message of peace that I wear with pride. It’s about letting the world know, not to mess around with me as I (try to) keep my chastity and obey my Lord.

I am no slave of the corporate capitalistic industry which is bent upon publishing a naked woman to sell everything from a cigarette to a racing car.

It gives me liberation; freedom from being judged on a scale of inches, skin colour and figure details. I am free from the shackles of man, eyes of the evil world who evaluate women according to the length of her skirt and depth of her neckline; intelligence and character being secondary. (Ask a competent man who was rejected by a multimedia company in an interview and his beautiful and sexy but dumb competitor got the job).

With this piece of cloth on my head, I feel empowered as a woman. But a section of our society seems to have a problem with it. Some self-proclaimed Pakistani liberals labelled Hijab as a “dinner table napkin “or “solution of a bad hair day”.What is the world scared of, I wonder?

Think!

If you think my hijab tapered my IQ and threw me into the desert of Arabia some 1400 years behind, I seriously doubt yours. Remember how the prehistoric man lived?

What was the killer of Marwah Al Sherbini scared of? Was this 32-year old, three month pregnant pharmacist, a loving wife and a mother of a two year old, a threat to the world? Oh, mind you she was called a whore, a terrorist and stabbed 18 times in the German court and killed.

Was Shaima Alawadi a hazard? The loving mother killed and turned into a pool of blood in her house in America with a note next to her saying: “Go back to your country, you terrorist.”, was she a terrorist? No; her killers were! Racists and myopic terrorists scared of a defenceless woman with a piece of cloth on her head.

Are Hijabis the biggest threat in the French and other European societies that are banning hijab? Think!

Oh you thought I don’t have a choice? No! I have one and hijab is my choice just as obeying Allah and disobeying Him in rebellion is my birth right due to being a human being and I choose the former.

And in case you didn’t notice, some very successful women in the West are turning to Islam and opting for covering their bodies with modesty and have found peace.

I quote Yvonne Ridley, a journalist who reverted to Islam after she explored the Quran as a promise she made to Taliban, her captors in Afghanistan.

‘My dress tells you that I am a Muslim and that I expect to be treated respectfully, much as a Wall Street banker would say that a business suit defines him as an executive to be taken seriously. And, especially among converts to the faith like me, the attention of men who confront women with inappropriate, leering behaviour is not tolerable.’

Think rationally and decide! Why is my Hijab, a problem for the world?