The Red Mosque (Lal Masjid)
Events in the last week in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, have once again raised questions about the meaning of the “War against Terror” in Pakistan. Commentators have been quick to see in the Mosque saga yet another illustration of how Muslim radicals are undermining the rule of law, and dragging Muslim societies into cycles of violence and confrontation. In this picture, US President Bush and Pakistani President Musharraf deserve sympathy and support.
But this is not the only game in town. Many Muslims, particularly those based far from the centre of the conflict, see the saga in a completely contrary light. For them, the War against Terror has become a pretext for attacking Islam and Muslims whenever the opportunity presents itself. All over the world, it is the same story. The attack against Islam is consistent, even though it comes in different forms. Sometimes it is through Israeli occupation, sometimes through American occupation of Iraq, and sometimes even through Muslim politicians.
The two visions are mirror images of each other. And there is something wrong with their simple black and white presentations.
The weeklong Red Mosque saga can be better understood if we take a longer historical view. Founded on the idea of Islamic nationalism, Pakistanis have been at odds about what Islam might mean in a modern state. But in the 1970s matters began to change. When General Ziya al-Haq too over power in a coup in 1978, Islam as an ideology became part of state power. By this I mean that, in addition to religious groups, the military and bureaucrats also realized that there was benefit in playing Islamic politics.
In the next two decades, Pakistan foreign policy used the support for the Mujahidin in Afghanistan and Kashmir to pursue its interests. Inside the country as well, party politics were also divided on religious lines. Islam became a basis on which to gain votes, and therefore authority and power.
The Red Mosque fits directly in the power play of Islam in Pakistani politics. Through its first Imam Abdullah Ghazi, the mosque played a central role in the Afghan Jihad in the 1980s. And it has become the centre of opposition to Musharraf’s policy post 9/11. As Pakistan turned against its former allies, some of them turned against the new general and the new president.
Islam continues to be wielded as a powerful weapon for position and authority. The various divisions and factions that run through Pakistani state and society play with Islam as it suits them.
The War against Terror fits in perfectly with the religious politics in the country. The Good Muslim - Bad Muslim framework that it imposes on society provides support for both President Musharraf and his opponents. The former gets the support of Bush, while the latter can ride global Muslim sympathy.
Such politics provide no way of addressing the many problems that Pakistan faces. Religion/Islam provides a smokescreen for other interests. The veil and the beard are apt symbols for its principally mystifying contribution. It does not not really promise anything better than what the military general generals and the autocrats have promised in the past.
But this is not the only game in town. Many Muslims, particularly those based far from the centre of the conflict, see the saga in a completely contrary light. For them, the War against Terror has become a pretext for attacking Islam and Muslims whenever the opportunity presents itself. All over the world, it is the same story. The attack against Islam is consistent, even though it comes in different forms. Sometimes it is through Israeli occupation, sometimes through American occupation of Iraq, and sometimes even through Muslim politicians.
The two visions are mirror images of each other. And there is something wrong with their simple black and white presentations.
The weeklong Red Mosque saga can be better understood if we take a longer historical view. Founded on the idea of Islamic nationalism, Pakistanis have been at odds about what Islam might mean in a modern state. But in the 1970s matters began to change. When General Ziya al-Haq too over power in a coup in 1978, Islam as an ideology became part of state power. By this I mean that, in addition to religious groups, the military and bureaucrats also realized that there was benefit in playing Islamic politics.
In the next two decades, Pakistan foreign policy used the support for the Mujahidin in Afghanistan and Kashmir to pursue its interests. Inside the country as well, party politics were also divided on religious lines. Islam became a basis on which to gain votes, and therefore authority and power.
The Red Mosque fits directly in the power play of Islam in Pakistani politics. Through its first Imam Abdullah Ghazi, the mosque played a central role in the Afghan Jihad in the 1980s. And it has become the centre of opposition to Musharraf’s policy post 9/11. As Pakistan turned against its former allies, some of them turned against the new general and the new president.
Islam continues to be wielded as a powerful weapon for position and authority. The various divisions and factions that run through Pakistani state and society play with Islam as it suits them.
The War against Terror fits in perfectly with the religious politics in the country. The Good Muslim - Bad Muslim framework that it imposes on society provides support for both President Musharraf and his opponents. The former gets the support of Bush, while the latter can ride global Muslim sympathy.
Such politics provide no way of addressing the many problems that Pakistan faces. Religion/Islam provides a smokescreen for other interests. The veil and the beard are apt symbols for its principally mystifying contribution. It does not not really promise anything better than what the military general generals and the autocrats have promised in the past.
Information and Links
Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.
Comments
Re: The Red Mosque (Lal Masjid)
Celia | 10/09/2007, 19:44
Again, a stimulating read. And refreshing in not being bludgeoned by a propagandistic diatribe from either side.