“20 years since the destruction of the Mostar Bridge – The Siege of Bosnia”
As the world remembers, in hush hush tones, the 20th yearly rememberance of the atrocities that unveiled themselves in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the topic continues to retain fresh connotations. In May 2013, six former army and political Croat leaders were sentenced to lengthy prison terms by the International Criminal Court at The Hague, for “a plan together by the JCE (Joint Criminal Enterprise) members to remove the Muslim Population”. The charges related to a variety of heinous assaults but one perpetrator, Slobodan Proljak, received a 20 year sentence for his command of the destruction of the Mostar Bridge and the subsequent siege of the Eastern Quarter of the city. This piece will focus upon a short history of the Mostar Bridge, the development of the aforementioned siege and the lessons for Muslims, specially those living in the West.
The Mostar Bridge was originally built upon the Neretva River and linked the Eastern and Western quarters of the city of Mostar, named after the guardians of the bridge Mostari (Bridge Keepers). This bridge was a wooden structure allowing travel for the soldiers, traders and other travellers. The Ottoman Caliphate took over Mostar in 1468 and the city’s two distinct districts, on opposing banks of the Neretva River were unified into one administrative polity. The town acquired the name Köpruhisär (fortress at the bridge) and the vast majority of the population reverted to Islam. Interesting narrations about this process detail that the Christian inhabitants of this town had previously belonged to the Unitarian belief system, denouncing the idea of Trinity as a erroneous innovation. They had faced persecution at the hands of the surrounding Eastern Orthodox Christendom and saw, in Islam, a perfect embodiment of their belief, namely the unity of the creator and the status of Jesus Christ as messenger rather than The Divine. Their reversion to Islam, therefore, came relatively smoothly.
Suleman the Magnificent (known as Suleman Al-Qanooni within the Islamic world) commissioned for a stone arch to be built linking the two quarters of the city together more cohesively. Mamar Hayruddin completed the architecture and design and the bridge was completed in 1566. It came to represent the splendour and magnificence of Islamic architecture and advancement, being named a World Heritage Site in the 20th century. It’s position, in modern day Europe cut off from the traditional Islamic world, continued to illuminate upon the imprint Muslim civilisations had left upon territories far and wide away from its Arabian birthplace.
At the beginning of the 1990s, the city had a vibrant and dynamic mix of Muslims and Christians and consisted, primarily, of Bosniaks and Croat ethnicities. There was also a claim to the land from the Serbs allied to the neighbouring Yugoslavia. The Yugoslavians launched an offensive against the newly independent Bosnia, as recognised by the European Community, following a vote for independence, in 1992. Following the Yugoslav invasion, the aggression continued with varying degrees of fluidity until 1995, three years of disastrous war crimes, genocide, bombing of civilians and ethnic cleansing.
In the midst of this development, the city of Mostar came under The Serb bombing campaign in April 1992. The Croat forces (HOV) and the Bosnian resistance forces (ARBiH) were allied in their resistance at this juncture and attempted, rather unsuccessfully, to hold their positions as, over the course of the following weeks, the Serbian forces (JNA) attained control of large swathes of the city. By June 1992, the Bosnians and Croats had managed to force the Serbians back out of the city and the struggle for the city moved to an aerial bombing campaign and along with shelling again. Within this campaign, many monumental structures were destroyed including thirteen mosques.
The complexity of the strife did not just pit the above parties against one another in the traditional sense. Eventually, the city of Mostar was divided by the Croats and Bosnians on opposing sides, having been allied in their repulsion of the Serb aggression. The Croats drove out the Bosnian Muslim population of the city out of the Western quarter, dividing the city into the Eastern and Western encampments, upon the banks of Neretva River. Having forced Muslims into the traditional Ottoman Quarter, or Mahalla, the Croats proceeded to shell and siege this area over the next 18 months. During this bloody siege, the Mostar Bridge, the primary display of Muslim architecture in the Balkans, was destroyed by the Croats’ targeted bombing, starting on the 8th November 1993. The bridge was hit by 60 mortar shells directly before it finally collapsed. The Croats, after much evasion, accepted that the bridge had been deliberately targeted as it held “strategic importance”. These claims have been rubbished as it held no strategic relevance and the aim was to make a statement. In actuality, this was a major symbolic moment, being described as an act of “cultural barbarism” by the judiciary at The Hague. The bridge was rebuilt, initially by the Royal British Engineers, replacing the stone arches with a iron structure and opened in 2005.
However, the bridge represents a symbolic point within an unmitigated disaster which unleashed itself upon the Muslims of Bosnia. The world witnessed the horrors of the racial supremacy and the inherent Islamophobia, deeply entrenched long before the horrors of 9/11. The Bosnian war dragged on for three years and claimed the lives of many thousands of innocent civilians (estimates range from 40,000 to 325,000). As Bosnians in Mostar dealt with the repercussions of a lengthy siege, many perished from the shelling, hunger and disease. The UN and the world powers watched on, having taken the step of enforcing a no-fly zone, as the Croats and the Serbs continued with their Nazi-esque plans for the development of super states, representing their respective ethnicities. The Croat leader, Franjo Tudjman, dreamed of an ethnically pure Croat land carved out of Bosnia and Herzegovina and met with the Serb leader, Slobodan Milosevic, at a hunting lodge as they finalised plans for Greater Yugoslavia and Greater Croatia. The targeted expulsion and extermination of Muslims, “the most secularised Muslims in the world”, highlighted the enmity of the western world towards those seen to represent the remnants of Muslim and Ottoman heritage. These thought processes were highlighted vividly at the deliberate massacres, such as Srebrenica, slaughtering, raping and pillaging helpless ‘European’ Muslims.
The lessons from such episodes must not be forgotten, specially by the Muslim world. Sacrificing one’s identity as a religious entity is not a sufficient token of appeasement to those who see Islam as an alien ideology belonging in the Dark Ages. The inaction of Muslims, and more notably their inability to act, in the face of the tragedies at Mostar (and Bosnia in general) continue to be displayed with the political and tangible apathy towards the hideous situation in Syria. This Ummah must retain it’s heritage, both cultural and ideological, and ensure unity to avert travesties of such nature unfolding upon any Muslim anywhere. As the Prophet Mohammed Sallalhu Aleyhay Wasallam said, whilst performing tawaf around the Ka’ba, saying to it “how pure and good you are! how pure and good your fragrance is! how great and exalted you are! and how great and exalted your sanctity is! But by Him in Whose hand is Muhammad’s soul, the sanctity of a believer’s blood and property in the sight of Allah is greater than your sanctity”. (Targhib wa’ l-Tarhib).
We have all recently read and watched with astonishment all the incoherent conjecture being spouted across the western media, discussing the option of possible military intervention in Syria by the Western armies. Apparently, a so-called red line was crossed on the 21st August 2013, when the Syrian regime forces utilised chemical weaponry, in an attack that led to close to 1500 deaths of innocent civilians. Subsequent tests revealed there were significant traces of Serin amongst the corpses, confirming the use of the deadly weapons in the outskirts of Damascus.
This article will discuss issues which are self-evidently blatant yet so conspicuously missing from Western discourse that it borders on the tragic. There are a plethora of issues questioning the morality and policy of the forces conspiring to intervene in Syria. It would be unrealistic to cover each such issue comprehensively. However, the discourse will grapple with some relatively basic issues at play, to highlight the hypocrisy of the Western political thought.
The Syrian uprising began as a popular movement demanding constitutional reform, back in March 2011. The situation escalated into a direct armed confrontation between the government forces and the rebellious factions, with varying loyalties. The following 2 and a half years have led to a horrific development of tragedy, death and destruction. According to official figures, which are always excessively conservative, there have been 110,000 deaths, 2 Million cross border refugees and close to 5 Million displaced within the country itself. It is a human tragedy upon a scale unknown, at least within my memory. The heart bleeds at the situation that has developed and the inability of true justice to be established within the nation, by the termination of such a heinously hostile situation.
In this context, the claims, discussions and arguments of the Western powers seem laughable. Use of chemical weapons, as a red line, is a ridiculous notion. The death of many scores of thousands is not a red line. The suppression of the people’s desire is not cause for action. The loss of livelihood and homes for millions doesn’t stir our souls into action. However, as soon as one makes use of a ‘type’ of weaponry that the West disproves of, that is the point at which we feel a moral obligation to save and protect fellow human beings. Kill all the people you wish, destroy their lives, ruin the country but make sure your arsenal consists of ‘normal’ mortar shells, bombs, tanks and machine guns. What an absurd notion.
This leads me on to explore the very notion of a red line. Assad is deemed to be in breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention, through use of banned weaponry. This, in the considered opinion of the USA and its allies, represents an affront to internationally agreed standards on warfare and combat, the sanctity of which must be upheld. The killing aside, no one should be able to flaunt international laws with impunity. This situation thereby merits intervention from the international community, to uphold the observance of laws agreed between the nations of the world, surely? If a nation breaches these standards, it should be immediately punished in the severest manner, of course? Let us examine the reality of this development thus.
The first traces and evidence of the use of chemical weapons in Syria stem back to 2011, there being evidence of 12-14 attacks since then, in various places across Syria, according to British intelligence. There was no so much as a condemnation of any of these attacks and the world kept a sturdy silence over these breaches. This evidence is more starkly considered when assessing the conduct of the very upholders of these absurd international laws. One would imagine that those pontificating the abhorrence of such attacks would not be guilty of the same crimes. Quite the contrary.
The USA took the lead and continues to hold the unique place as the only nation to ever unleash nuclear weapons upon the innocent civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What punishment does the world’s leader of democracy and civilisation deserve? This does not cover the basis of the story. Having played a major role in the development of The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the USA made use of chemical weapons as far back as the First World War. Mustard Gas and Phosgene were used to devastating effects in culling enemies and causing mass destruction. The Americans also displayed the depths of their moral leanings by using the infamous ‘Agent Orange’ in copious quantities in Vietnam, where they were ultimately humiliated. The Korean War and the aggressions against Iraq and Afghanistan provide further damning evidence of the USA making use of chemical and biological weapons, including bunker busters, clusters bombs and napalm. Who is going to hold the USA to account over these attacks? The morally corrupt and flawed structure of the UN? Or should there be an international force to ‘intervene’ and destroy American military capabilities? What a preposterous situation.
In addition to this, the illegitimate friend, protege and protectorate of the USA, Israel has made use of chemicals weapons, including White Phosphorus, in Gaza as recently as 2009 and 2012. What occurred to an attack on the illegal occupying entity, to bring it in line with international law? It is still not too late. How is this sordid rhetoric sold so easily to the residents of the Western world? How do the politicians not flinch when weighing up their hypocrisy?
This leads me on to the focal point of this discourse. The USA, UK, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Hezbollah have all been involved in this conflict, from the early stages. They have all played the old rules of a proxy war, attempting to gain leverage and affect the outcome to their own ends and desires. This situation continues. The USA is not interested in the welfare of the people of Syria, that is not a misunderstanding anyone amongst the Muslims holds. The West would like to ensure that Assad, having outlived his utility and become too close for comfort with Russia and China, will be replaced by a government of their choosing an design. The talk of regime change is not even hidden. The intentions of the western world should not be confused. The West seeks to ensure its own financial and imperial interests and hold in the Middle East, as do the Russians and the Chinese.
There is no guarantee that Western intervention, if the token gesture of chemical weapons control should fail, will ensure a swift end to the conflict. Rather, it risks causing more death and destruction on an already battered populace. Muslims should wake up and find a solution to this problem, without Western guidance. The wolf never guards the sheep. If there must be military intervention or diplomacy, it is the onus of this once great Ummah to regain control of this disturbing scenario.
In the land of Egypt, events have unravelled at breakneck speed over the last few days, catching most external observers off-guard. Anti-government protestors’ gathering in Cairo had led to a stand-off between the Muslim Brotherhood Presidency and some select masses (despite the dichotomy, this seems factual upon first review). The Egyptian Army, funded by yearly US aid, stepped in and pronounced a warning that, failing resolution of the issues raised by the protestors (in effect dictating to the government that they must accede to public pressure) within 48 hours they would be left with no choice but to remove the President from his post. Lo and behold, that process was exacted upon termination of this deadline and Mohammed Morsi was removed from the Presidential Office, the Chief Justice Adli Mansour being installed as the transitional Interim President.
This dynamic and fluid situation can be assessed from such a vast array of angles that it requires strict literary discipline to limit the discourse to a selection from that range. Thereby, this article will focus upon the few facets of the discourse which are the most conspicuously self-evident.
The most glaringly obvious is the bearing of this event as an indictment upon the mutually juxtaposed axioms of liberal democracy. The idealist adherents and proponents of democracy would be well served to remember that the theoretical aesthetics rarely match the practical realities. The so-called ‘Islamist’ government of Egypt compromised on many of the Islamic ideals it was set up to espouse, participating in and strengthening the facade of democracy, ensuring the continued protection of the illegitimate entity of Israel, seeking the pleasure of the USA and its western allies and approving many anti-Islamic stances within legislation (nightclubs, nude beaches etc). As expected, however, this did not prove a sufficiently deviant gesture to the godfathers of democracy in the West and their secular agents within Egypt. They continued to see the ‘Islamist’ government as an inconvenience, which did not represent the true liberal values that democracy is geared to serve and advance. Liberal, secular, capitalist thought is of paramount importance and democracy is merely a protective tool. This is evident in the attitude of the USA, UK and other bastions of this corrupt ideology upon the news of the fall of the Egyptian government. The fact that a democratic government was deposed by the military is of little relevance to those pontificating the virtues of the system. It is imperative that democracy select a ruling class which preserve and protect the interests of the West within the country. Muslims have certainly not forgotten the democratic experience in Palestine over the past few years. Hamas’ election by the masses meant very little whilst they continued to present an anti-Israel stance. Democracy is nothing but a sham unless it serves the geopolitical purposes, as the West’s continued support for many despotic, dictatorial regimes across the Muslim world continues to evidence. The Egyptian people would be well served to remember that as a harsh lesson from this sorry episode.
The protesting forces have included some interesting entities, quite baffling for a neutral observer. Firstly, the Salafi Al-Nour party have displayed despicable opportunism amidst the unfolding troubles. They were the second largest party during the election last year and formed an important component of the Ikhwan led government. They have swayed from referring to the former President as “our brother Mohammed” to joining the opposing forces in calling for Morsi’s ouster, within a year. The epitome of this scenario culminated in the presence of the Al-Nour party representative on the stage directly behind the Military Chief during his announcement of the replacement of Mohammed Morsi with an interim government. The political manoeuvring, stemming from a thought of protecting vested interests rater than pursuit of and adherence to principled truth, is clear evidence of the corrupting influence of democratic politics which ails even those entering the arena as promoters of sincere virtue and strict Shar’a.
The second saddening protagonists within this scenario have been the guardians of the Al-Azhar University in Egypt. An institution, which used to take rightful pride of place amongst the bastions of knowledge, advancement and academic prestige for many centuries, a hub of intellectual thought and a foundational centre of Islamic discourse has sided with those calling for the removal of the ‘Islamist’ government. The seculars, Coptic Christians and a few sincere Muslims duped into this opposition represent a toxic ideology based upon economic and secular liberties. Al-Azhar has chosen the wrong side in this battle, in opposition to its traditional values. Yet this does not come as a surprise. Al-Azhar has been a tool and mouth-piece for the army establishment for many decades and have once again towed the line it was instructed to follow. A sad occasion!
The above discourse leads one to investigate, very briefly, the factors and influences of Western powers, and their puppets, within Egypt. It is interesting to note some of the major trends of discord across major Muslim nations. The Western idea, as outlined above, is the establishment of friendly, secular governments which continue to take their inspirations and orders from the West, perpetuating the intellectual and economic imperial hegemony of the West over them. Three nations stand true to this analysis more acutely than most. Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt, not blessed with oil wealth to tamper the economic woes of people as easily, have seen the smacking hypocrisy of international democrats over the past few decades repeatedly. Nearly half of Pakistan’s post-creation history has been spent under military dictatorship rule. These dictatorships operated with the total blessing of the USA and its allies, serving their interests in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), Afghanistan (twice), Kashmir and Kargil amongst others. They were never pushed to install democracy whilst the West continued to groom potential democratic leaders for transition such as Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. Turkey presents a startlingly similar example. After a lengthy period of dictatorship, democracy was reluctantly enforced upon the people. The AK party of Erdogan now faces the exact scenario that has transpired in Egypt. Thousands have recently protested, allegedly angered by the plans for developments over a park, behaving in a vile manner attempting to dethrone the democratic government. The West has issued statements in favour of the “people’s wishes”, despite Turkey being an important member of the NATO alliance. The Egyptian story has been detailed above. The major comparison between these three vibrant nations is the large armies they all have, all funded by the USA considerably. These forces continue to exist as loyal allies of their funding masters and democracy is a negotiable insignificance so long as Western influence can be exerted through any method over these large Muslim powers. The anti-government protests in Iran in 2008 present further evidence of the same.
Finally, the major cause of sleepless nights in the West is ‘political Islam’, the ideology that the deen of Islam provides all solutions including the political and governments should be moulded in this format when governing Muslim nations. The downfall of Ikhwan and Hamas is presented to advance the notion that Islam’s influence over the political sphere is a recipe for disaster. However, let us not be ambiguous in our discourse here. These were not Islamic governments. They were democratic governments and the dichotomy between the pragmatic democratic and principled Islamic values they held led to their downfall. Let us not be duped into an erroneous belief. Islamic governance can, and only will, be established on the footsteps of the Prophethood of Mohammed (Peace and Blessing Upon Him) and in the model of the Khilafah Rashidah that followed thereafter. Let us direct our energies into the correct channels. The Muslim people hold great power, as the brave Islamic revolutionaries of Syria continue to display, which should be directed at shaking the thrones of the unIslamic leaders across the Muslim world. This article will conclude by relaying an anecdote that one may take heart from in the current unfolding of events.
Yasser Arafat recounts that he was on a tour of the UAE and there was a large demonstration in Gaza as part of the ‘Intifada’ against Israel. He watched the state television which made no mention of the event. In his lunch with the Emirati head of state the following day, Arafat described his irritation at this and questioned the omission of this from the news stories. In response, the Sultan smirked sheepishly and asked “would you like us to teach our people how to protest and throw rocks when they are unhappy with those governing them, so they may take us down one day?”. It is high time Muslims awoke to the reality of their true power and installed Islam in the lands held by them on trust, from the Creator of the heavens and the earth.
Today as the land of Al-Sham is drenched with Muslim blood, we live our lives of luxury, going about our business without showing proactive concern for the heinous crimes of the Syrian regime which would make the heavens shake. Wake up as this land, the most blessed situate outside of the three holy mosques, is a representation of Muslim unity, power, fraternity and justice. The purpose of this article is a short rebuttal to those who posit that Islam was spread by the sword, forcing millions into the religion as Bedouin Arabs went on a looting and pillaging spree. I will detail one event which highlights why we were once the role models for humanity and what convinced the populaces of far away places to live under the shade of the Khilafah.
Umar Bin Abdul-Aziz (may Allah be pleased with him) is considered by a majority of Muslims as the best example of Muslim leadership after the Khailafah Rashidah. Many often refer to him as the 5th Khalifah Rashid. He reluctantly took on the duties of the Khalifah in 717AD. There is some ambiguity as to the exact characters involved within this occurrence but I will detail the most authentic narrations.
A short while before Umar’s accession to the seat of Caliph in Damascus, Muslims had conquered and took control of an important city in Central Asia. The city of Samarkand had been a very stringent expedition and took much struggle and strife to control. The leader of the Muslim armies had been the famous General Qutaybah bin Muslim (May Allah grant him Firdous). A hugely successful leader, he had led the Muslims into control over all of modern day Central Asia (Turkistan) reaching into Xinjiang, China.
Samarkand had been a prosperous and naturally gifted area and this, along with the other important cities of Turkistan (Balkh, Bukhara, Tashkent etc), became the heartbeat of Islamic tradition and learning. This area boasts a long list of dignified scholars including Imam Bukhari and Tirmidhi. However, at the time of Muslim conquest, Samarkand had been an idol worshipping city with the priests holding the elite positions ala Catholicism in Europe post-Reformation.
Qutaybah devised the strategy of occupation in the night prior to the attack on the city. He hid his armies in the hills behind the city so they could remain unnoticed. Whilst the city was barely awake, a sea of Muslims descended upon them and successfully rode into the city centre, quashing any resistance. Upon seeing this, the populace retreated into their homes and the religious elite escaped to the great temple in the mountains. Being aware of the horrors of war and occupation, the people of Samarkand felt anxious and stayed entrenched within their homes. As supplies began to thin, they sent their children out to replenish stocks. The children came across a friendly people speaking in a different tongue in polite manners and the city showing no signs of a war having taken place a few days ago. The children returned home and relayed the news back to their parents and family members. Surprised by this unexpected turn of events, they began to come out of their homes, cautiously, to assess the situation themselves. They found the children’s accounts to be accurate and faced no hostility from the occupying armies.
A short while later, the priests in the temple heard of this news and devised a strategy. They assigned an individual (a delegation according to some narrations) to appear in front of the Muslim leader and make an application for what we refer to as a Judicial Review in the English legal system. The complaint was a procedural one and based upon an abuse of power by the Muslim General Qutaybah.
The appointed man arrived in Damascus and proceeded to where all the Muslims were heading. He arrived at the Umayyad Mosque of Damascus, the same symbol of Muslim majesty laying in ruins at the hands of the Assad forces. As we lay stunned as an ummah, this unbelievable event points to the justice that was once established through this historic establishment. The man sat around as the Muslims prayed Salah, prince and pauper shoulder to shoulder prostrating before the only Power worthy of mention.
Upon the completion of the Salah, he approached one of the Muslims and expressed his desire to see the leader of the Muslims. The man turned around and, whilst trying to locate some distant figure, relayed that he could not see him but he had just led Salah prayers. This represented such a stark contrast to the elite and royal ways of the priests back in Samarkand, untraceable for any ordinary citizen.
The Samarkand delegate, somewhat surprised, asked where he could find the man. He was given directions to Umar’s house. The man arrived at a clay hut with Umar busy mending a broken wall. Once he overcame his astonishment, he detailed his complaint to the Caliph. He recounted that, according to Muslim tradition, Muslims always gave the inhabitants of any city three options before the commencement of war. They would offer them brotherhood within the deen of Islam. If this was not acceptable, they were asked to pay Jizya and they would be left to their devices. Upon rejection of these two conditions, the war would be declared after the cancellation or expiry of all treaties with the relevant people. Qutaybah had failed to provide these options and attacked with stealth. Upon hearing this complaint, Umar wrote down a few lines and asked the man to hand the paper to the Governor of Samarkand.
The man returned to his native city and, sceptical that a piece of paper would achieve anything, consulted the priests. They advised that he should proceed and see what the outcome turns out to be. The paper presented to the Governor read “To the governor of Samarkand, peace and mercy of Allah be upon you. Appoint a judge between the priests of Samarkand and Qutaybah ibn Muslim….”, thereby correcting the injustice that has taken place.
The Governor appointed Jami’ ibn Hadhir Albaji as the Qadi to adjudicate the matter. Not wanting to decide the matter on one side of the story, he wrote to the Muslim General (a lot of narrations say that Quraybah had passed away by this point but there is no agreement) who was in China by now. He ordered that he return to face the court. The leader left his busy campaign and returned to the hearing two days later.
The court was set up and as the Muslim General walked into the court, the priests and local observers became fearful of the leader of such a dynamic force. He removed his shoes and his sword and walked into court where he was ordered to sit next to the complainants. The Priests went on to the detail the aforementioned charges and the judge asked the General to respond.
He outlined that this had been a very tricky expedition and one where Muslims expected to lose more life than would be suffered by the Samarkand armies. All previous cities in the region had rejected the options given to them and thereby, in light of this precedent, it was prudent that the Muslims proceed with stealth and preserve the Muslim army from harm. This had meant the liberation of the local peoples from the injustices of other religions and allowed Muslims to proceed swiftly in conquering further targets.
The judge, after listening to the defence, repeated the question. Did you provide the people of Samarkand with the three options as per Islamic tradition? The General, a little disgruntled by this, repeated that he had already answered the question and the answer was no. The Qadi detailed that this meant the court’s work was done. He said “Qutaybah, Allah supports this nation only by the deen and by avoiding treachery and setting up justice. We were out of our homes for jihad for Allah’s sake. We did not go out to conquer lands and occupy countries unjustly.”
He ordered that the armies wrap up their materials and free the land of Samarkand from all Muslim rule. They were required to await the expiry or cancellation of any treaties with the people of Samarkand and allow the people of the city to prepare for war. They would leave the city without anything, just as they came in. The Muslims must then provide the three conditions and proceed in the “application of the law of Almighty Allah and Prophet Mohammed may peace be upon him”.
The people watched as the Muslim armies, led by their great General and the judge in tow, left the city. The appointed delegate said “this proves that their path (religion) is the truth. I testify that there is none worthy of worship but Allah and Mohammed (may peace be upon him) is his Messenger. The Priests and the populace followed and the city returned to Muslim rule over a newly Muslim population.
This deen represented the best values amongst mankind. Muslim were, as a society, just and always stood by the Haqq even to their own worldly detriment. We are in urgent need of these lessons once again. To uncharacteristically quote a renaissance forefather Dante “The deepest recesses of hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality”. Do not sit on the fence vis-a-vis Syria. Let us work to establish the base which provided the foundation for such paragons of societal virtue, the Khilafah Rashidah as promised by the Creator of the heavens and the Earth.
A recent discussion on ‘Islam or Atheism’ triggered a vicious post-debate response from both parties, highlighting the chasm and deeply entrenched animosity between the opposing views. Sadly the discussion revolved around everything but the content of the discussion, which seemed evident Dr L. Krauss had lost in grand fashion. However, a few atheist/agnostic observers seemed to misunderstand the content of the discussion and held on to the belief that Krauss made sense in the discourse. This prompted me to submit to paper (or the digital format rather) the basic discourse within this arena, which seems clear cut for anyone willing to debate the subject with a sincere approach and an open mind. This paper will highlight the debate with regards the proof of a Creator, weighing up the major strands of scientific evidence presented to oppose this view. The aim is to highlight the simplistically beautiful nature of the view that there must, as a matter of fact, be a Creator for the universe, with the power to create. It is vital to establish that the major crux of the discussion within this paper is not to positively prove the existence of a Creator (this is a rational conclusion from the discourse but would require a greater degree of discussion to be expended to highlight its foundational basis). Rather, it will point to the irrationality of the view that there is not a Creator of this universe. Further, I must apologise in advance for synonymising the terms atheist and scientific. This is not strictly accurate. I hope the reader will appreciate that I am concerned with atheistic science when discussing this subject.
The Necessity of Rational Thought within Discourse
Rational thought processes require, by necessity, four vital elements. To posit a definition is this regard would be to suggest that rationality requires
1: an appreciation of one’s reality,
2: based upon a distinguishing mind
3: and the utilisation of the senses
4: in line with previous information that is held by individuals.
An absence of any of these factors leads to a deficiency in this thought process.
By way of example, fire holds the characteristic of burning. An individual who doesn’t appreciate the reality, ie. is unaware of a fire, may not hesitate in sticking his/her hand within a cauldron. The fact that the fire will burn that hand is not established, due to his/her ignorance of the reality.
To stretch the analogy further, one may appreciate the reality of a fire existing yet be devoid of a distinguishing mind, capable of acting upon this information about the reality. An individual suffering from such psychological ailment may be of a willing disposition about repeating the hand in the fire experiment. In fact, there are regular reports of self-harm caused by fire mishaps in many psychologically unwell humans. Again, this is due to the absence of a rational thought process.
Similarly, an individual may be aware of the existence of such a fire and possess the mental capacity to process such information but is unable to feel the heat and the subsequent damage due to it. Such a being may also be readily willing to bear the hazard of a fire, by sticking their hand into it. This is due to an absence of the sensory reality, unable to feel the sensations generated by a blaze.
Finally, even if the aforementioned pre-requisites exist, the absence of previous information can be a deal breaker. In the unlikely event that a human being is unaware of the dangers associated with fire, due to never coming across it, such a being would also readily burn their hand within a blazing inferno (however, one would expect them to be more reluctant if asked to repeat the experiment, as newly established previous information will deter such an action).
Within this context, a ‘normal’ human being, driven by their innate rationality, will not be willing to take part in such a harmful experiment, as their mind would provide a strong block against such self-immolation. The purpose of this analogy is to highlight that humans beings reach correct conclusions about decisions when their thought process follows this well-established paradigm of rational thought. To divorce oneself from such methodology, positing multi-verses or an absence of causality, leads to deformed and absurd conclusions being reached. It is imperative that all human discourse with regards to the existence of a Creator is conducted rationally, not allowing personal whims, desires, opinions and hunches to distort the discussion. Let us proceed within this context to look at this topic.
The Limited and Dependant Require a Cause
Once within the remit of discussion, we can ponder upon the magnificent universe we inhabit and pick anything at random within it. We will swiftly arrive at the conclusion that everything within is limited by its definition and depends upon something else for its existence. These two conditions necessitate that there is a cause for the existence of every individual thing we know of. The rule applies to the mundane like the iPhone (limited in its scope, dependant upon materials and electricity and created the Apple) or the abstract such as thoughts (require a mind, life and an ability to think) and colours (a certain wavelength of light, in the presence of light).
I will use a car engine to illustrate the point (for the purposes of keeping the discourse simple, I have asked a lay person sat next to me to choose something at random). A car engine is a limited piece of machinery, limited in its function and power and susceptible to breaking down (specially if it isn’t built by the Germans or Japanese). It is dependant upon its inherent processes to function, it requires a ‘car’ to carry out its commands, pedals to pass instructions to it and fuel to burn inside, generating power. It was created by human beings, or robots and computers created by human being. If we pick one of those ’causes’, it will follow the same pattern. Fuel will be limited in its scope of function, can be measured and will come from crude oil, more often than not (red diesel is illegal remember). The crude oil is a result of the fossilisation process of millions of years, which in turn is dependant upon dead plants, animals and other organisms. If we take plants from the example, they are dependant upon water, nutrients and sunlight for photosynthesis (generalising). The process of photosynthesis requires the sun, which depends upon the fusion of hydrogen, which requires nebulae, which in turn require supernovas and so on. It is relatively straight forward to display the limited and dependant nature of all of those separate rungs on the ladder, going all the way back to the big bang. Every single thing within such a chain will be limited by its existence, dependant upon something else for its existence or function and, consequentially, require something to cause its existence.
At the big bang, one of four events is possible. Namely,
1: the chain is cyclical,
2: the chain of causes arises out of nothing,
3: the chain goes on infinitely
4: the chain of causes was triggered by an unlimited and independent entity, possessing the power to cause or create.
The above assertion is in line with established scientific principles, namely the chain of causality and the inability of matter and energy to be created or destroyed within our universe.
Let us deal with the premises of the discussion detailed above.
1: The chain of causes is cyclical
There exists a school of thought within science that the universe is self-perpetuating. This rests upon the idea that the big bang is a cause for the eventual big crunch, the collapsing of the universe in on itself leading to the destruction of all within, reverting to the state of the quantum singularity. This big crunch, in turn, causes the big bang, through a random explosion as at the beginning of our universe. The big bang creates a universe which continues to expand over millennia, eventually collapsing to the afore-described big crunch. And the process repeats itself, cause becoming effect becoming cause becoming effect etc.
This process is sound when moving forward through the motions explicable in the broad sense. Yet, a question arises when moving backwards through the circle. Which came first? The classic chicken and egg question surfaces its head to general human perplex and confusion. The process would require an initiating point even if it, subsequently, adhered to the cyclical pattern. The absence of this initiating point erodes the credibility of the theory, putting it beyond the realm of rational thought.
2: The chain of causes arises out of nothing
This is the major point of contention when discussing the subject at hand with those of an atheist/scientific persuasion. Science relies upon an empirical method of thought within which causality is well established, nothing ever existing without a cause. So to hold any validity, this argument must make a decent fist of denying the existence of cause and effect within the universe, something beyond the capability of science. Let us look at this discussion more forensically.
Causality : Temporal/spatial by necessity?
The first major notion presented within this line of discourse is the scientific assertion that time began at the big bang. Thus, causality being dependant upon a time limited and spatial definition, there can be no valid talk of what existed ‘before’ the universe. ‘Before’ and ‘after’ are relative measurements within a time constraint so, in the absence of time prior to the big bang, there can be no question of cause and effect.
However, there is a major logical fallacy within there. Time, as a cause, can not be an absolute determinant of causality because time itself is created/caused and dependant. As Einstein described in his famous ‘theory of relativity’, time is a relative measurement of the movement, as assessed against the speed of light. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second and as one approaches this speed, time slows down. Inversely, if one was to travel at a speed significantly slower than that of light, time would speed up. In line with this, theoretically, if one was aboard a flight which continued to travel at elevated speeds for 20 years without break, time would have slowed down by close to a second. This could be one very impractical and near on impossible method for maintaining youth but I have a feeling L’Oreal will not be patenting this method anytime soon. It is an abstract notion (blame Einstein) but the salient point is rather straightforward. Something which is in itself caused and dependant upon the speed of light, can not the be ultimate basis of causality.
Time merely plays a causal role within the realm of this universe. To extrapolate this, and superimpose the physical laws of this universe beyond its remit, is logically inconsistent. The fact that limited and dependant things are caused or created is well established through our rational thought. What format this causality takes beyond the universe is not within our remit of knowledge. Attempting to align our limited knowledge with that of the entities beyond our universe is the epitome of irrational discourse.
The second school of discourse posited recently by the scientific community is even more absurd. It proposes that, whilst we can empirically establish causality all around us, the causal link is not a necessity at the quantum level. One such example of the absence of an obvious cause is presented within a small sample of radioactive matter. The sample will have a half life, an indicator of the point at which it will release its radioactivity. However, if we microscopically zoom in on the minuscule individual particles within such samples, causality seems to evaporate. The half life may be the same for the individual particle yet, observing it over a length of time may point to a lack of a causal link. The particles emit their radioactivity at random points, often not conforming to the half life of the sample. This may vary from a few seconds to billions of years and ‘nothing’ causes this emission of radioactivity. This is posited as evidence that causality is not a necessity at all levels within our universe.
This example displays an incredible absence of basic rational thought and is a damning indictment on the potential distortion of the inductive method of thought, insular and absolutely inward looking. I will raise a major strand of causality, defeating the scientific stance. This may seem obvious to any rational observer but what is the radioactive emission dependant upon? Would such an emitting process take place without the existence of the radioactivity within the particles? I need not go into the the causes of the existence of radioactivity within the particles because these are well established within scientific thought. The very fact that the above example would even be presented as plausible shows desperation and an incredible sense of incompetence or dishonesty (or both).
To round of the subject of something arising out of nothing, I will highlight the main line of scientific discourse. Scientists fall head over heel trying to present the universe arising out of nothing, pointing to the absolute non-existence of anything. Instead they posit that a vacuum existed before the universe. But the fallacy of this position is best summed up by one of the contradictory statements of Lawrence Krauss, a chief proponent of intellectual science. When questioned about whether, in his book ‘a universe from nothing’, he meant that a quantum vacuum was ‘nothing’ (a negation of the existence of anything), he replied “it is almost nothing” (this is ‘something’). This answer is illuminating for anyone attempting to justify this line of argument.
Based upon the above, we can safely conclude that something arising out of absolutely nothing is simply absurd and lazy intellectualism.
3: The Chain of Causes Continues Ad-Infinitum
This proposition is such that one would refer to it as a mathematical fallacy. The fact that we, limited finite beings, exist within this time, a limited finite phenomenon, and within the space of this universe, a limited finite entity, means we, by definition, cannot be part of an unlimited entity, chain of events or occurrences. Let us explore this statement further. Let us imagine a set of dominoes. This set of dominoes is infinite in quantity and arranged in an (infinitely) majestic arrangement. Would the last domino ever fall when triggered? In fact, would there even be a first domino? The answer to both of these questions is an unequivocal no. Aside from the mathematical technicalities, there is no first or last domino in this sequence. By definition, there is no beginning or end for anything that is infinite. Let us substitute our universe and existence into this scenario, replacing the dominoes. If this universe had no beginning, would we reach this point in time? We certainly would not. The fact that we sit here, today, in a defined place and go about our finite activity, means the chain of events and the universe we inhabit are finite. Thereby, they must have a beginning.
Further, let us imagine a container of tennis balls. The quantity of tennis balls within the container is, once again, infinite. If you divide this container down the middle (indeterminate in an infinite) , what are you left with? Two infinite(s). What if the container was divided into four equal parts? You would have 4 infinite(s). Finally, if you divide the same container into a billion equal parts you would be in possession of a billion infinite(s). Mathematically, every fraction within an infinite, must in itself be infinite. This points to one obvious fact. We live in a finite universe, as the entities and bodies that form it, eg the earth, the sun, the moon etc., are not infinite.
Scientists have proposed the idea of an actual infinite existing by pointing to mathematical infinities. For example, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter (PI – 3.14………..) is presented as an actual infinite existing in reality. This is linguistic trickery and intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. This is a number only established on pieces of paper or computer screens. In the actual world, we do not know of a single thing within our universe which holds the quality of infinity. Infinity does not exist in a tangible form anywhere in this universe.
Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the chain of occurrences which led to the formation and maintenance of the universe can not be infinite and must have a beginning or first cause.
4: An infinite entity must have caused the initiation
I must remind the reader that the argument in this paragraph would require a separate lengthy paper so it is a brief discussion. The afore-detailed discussion leads constructively to one conclusion. There must be an external cause which is not limited by anything, not dependant upon anything and one which possesses the decision-making capability to create. There is nothing to limit this entity otherwise the chain continues and we have the infinite chain problem detailed above. Similarly, such an entity cannot dependant upon something else, again leading to the same problem. Such an entity must be external to the universe, rendering it beyond the laws of the same. Finally, it must possess the ability to decide and create. If it doesn’t possess such capability, it is subject to factors or chances external to itself, again rendering it limited and/or dependant. Muslims call this entity Allah, other religions use a variety of terms for the same. That is a separate discussion. However, denying the existence of such a power is irrational and illogical.
In concluding, I must address two principles posited by the neo atheists in the advancement of their propositions. These will be discussed very briefly as, to my mind, the ideas are simple and easy to understand.
It is argued that because the idea of a Creator is not falsifiable, it cannot be maintained as true. In essence, this means that if one can not, through experimentation, falsify a notion, idea or reality, we are incapable of determining its truth or otherwise, empirically speaking. This is a ridiculous position for one to take. In simple terms, science is incapable of falsifying what I ate on 1st January 2013. This does not render the fact that I had a certain kind of food untrue. The idea of falsifiability only exists within the paradigm of scientific experiments and any application beyond such remit displays the limitation of such logic.
On the contrary, my testimony, if validated through consistency and my reputation, holds a significantly higher degree of reliability within the same matter. The dismissal of testimony as a totally invalid form of evidence is another absurd notion scientists indulge in without careful consideration. It must be noted that I do not attempt to suggest that all testimony is always valid. It must fulfil the criteria outlined in this paragraph.
Inductive v Deductive Reasoning
Science considers the inductive approach to be the pillar of defining truths. We experiment and learn new things. This approach allows us to substantiate and repeat results before we determine truth. It is of vital use in determining facts existent within the universe. However, the major flaw of this method is its insular nature. When establishing a result, it is inward looking, assessing all available data and circumstances but it’s introvert approach limits it to this. It seeks all truths about this universe from the data available within the universe, an extraordinary paradox. It fails to acknowledge or accept any interference from the outside as it isn’t able to quantify such a notion.
Once again allow me to analogise rather crudely. One is sat within a room and knows nothing of what exists beyond that room. The inductive approach would force one to explain the existence and sustenance of everything within that room from the data available within the room. This will lead to absurdities that science presents about the existence of the universe. The tables, chairs, humans, oxygen, light, floor, bricks etc must all be explained by the items or data within that room only. So, one may arrive at conclusions of evolution (for a thorough discussion see http://politicalideology1985.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/evolution-a-scientific-hoax/), existence out of nothing or theories even more absurd than these. It is evident that this method has its uses but only within a limited paradigm.
On the other hand, deductive reasoning reaches conclusions which are definitive if the premises are ascertained to be true. Let us review the main argument of this article. The premises are:
1: All things which come into existence have a cause
2: The universe came into existence
3: Thereby it must have a cause
To deny the conclusion (point 3), one must disprove points one or two. If points one and two are true, point three must be true in all circumstances. This displays the superiority of the deductive method of reasoning, allowing one to determine truths with certainty. It is a far superior approach to the scientific approach of induction.
To sum up, the purpose of this brief article was not to positively present arguments for the existence of a Creator. Rather, it sought to highlight major flaws within the approach adopted by neo-atheists. Without establishing sound grounds for philosophical discovery, one cannot attain the truth as displayed. The scientific approach is deeply limited and can not be determined a valuable resource in approaching the question of the existence of a Creator. Only deductive rational thought provides us with the correct answer.
Amidst much fanfare and media hype, “Mujaddid of the Century, Tahir ul Qadri“, graced the starving lands of Pakistan with his nourishing presence. “Sheikh ul Islam”, Dr. Allama Mohammed Tahir-Ul-Qadri (the limitation of time, space and mere mortal intellect does not allow me to detail his full titles and praises) landed at Lahore and, amongst the showers of adulation from thousands of mureeds (followers), gave the corrupt Pakistani government an ultimatum. They had until 14th January to make the necessary changes in the current rotten system, otherwise they would be besieged by a million of the destitute and frustrated Pakistanis, through a sit-in, which will culminate in the end of this PPP government.
The changes proposed were of a ‘radical‘ nature of course. The government must make reforms to the election commission to ensure a fair election, must hold elections within 90 days, must ensure that all candidates are vetted according to articles 62 and 63 of the Pakistani Constitution, must put an unbiased interim government in charge and must eradicate the electoral rigging conducted throughout Pakistani, arguably all, democratic elections. This agenda was supposed to represent the aspirations, and tackle the problems, of the people of Pakistan.
We must not see any irony in who decided to support and strengthen this call at all. It means nothing that Minhaj-ul-Quran, Sheikh-ul-Islam’s fiercely apolitical party by its own admission, was joined in this endeavour by MQM first of all. MQM does not have a terrorist background, has never made a trademark of stuffing the murdered corpses of opponents or dissidents in boris and certainly has nothing to do with the persistent wave of scores of daily targeted killings in Karachi. I mean it is not as if MQM has been a loyal component of the PPP led government over the past five years. There is no dichotomy in them publicly demonstrating against the rife corruption in the Pakistani government, whilst occupying many important cabinet positions.
The movement continued to gather momentum in this magnanimous fashion with a meeting between Qadri Sahib and the Choudhary brothers from Gujrat, Pakistan. They threw their weight, and that of their party PML (Q), behind these calls of ‘revolutionary’ change. Again, one must not be so rash as to try and rationalise how the sitting Deputy Prime Minister, Choudhary Parvez Elahi, could call upon the ‘government’ to put its house in order. After all it was a ‘noble’ movement, which needed to be supported in its positive aims. The opposition parties (of which there is a plethora in Pakistan) must have been short-sighted and insincere for not lending this Mujahid any support (PTI held talks but were too cowardly to take up the option of joining the ‘long march’).
Within this context, Allama Qadri set off on his historic march on the 14th January, 2013, to rid Pakistan of this cancerous government. There were hundreds of thousands bearing the harsh climes of winter and rain, joining their beloved leader in his mission, very appropriately labelled the ‘Hussaini Maqsid (in reference to Imam Hussain’s (RA) ‘march’ against the tyranny of Yazid). The crowd moved slowly, taking regular pit stops and being blessed with the wisdom of Shiekh-ul-Islam at every juncture.
In one such stop at Lala Musa, Allama Qadri delivered a rousing speech. The Punjab government had ordered their police force to take all necessary steps to deter Qadri’s ‘revolutionary’ advance. They spiked the roads, to puncture car tyres and douse the flames of the march’s passions. Luckily, they didn’t have the foresight to just detain the noble sheikh, which would have finished the whole movement in one simple step. At Lala Musa, Sheikh Sahib invoked memories of Badr and Uhud, where those fighting the Taghoot of their times had been forced to proceed on foot into battle. Why must these critics point to the fact that Allama Qadri was sat aboard his state-of-the-art Land Cruiser while delivering his motivational speech? What relation does that have to the situation?
Allama sahib reached Islamabad and ordered the stage to be set up in D-square, right outside the Houses of Parliament. He meant business and would say the ‘kalima of Haqq‘ to these tyrants directly. The interior ministry, overawed by the presence of the venerable sheikh, was forced to allow this demand and remove its police guards from their duties. How does one deduce from this that there was a more powerful hand behind this movement? Why do the Pakistani media and so-called intellectuals keep questioning the smooth movement of the Sheikh, without any obstacles of note? So what if the movement was against the government, the theoretical people in power? Why can we not just attribute this to the charisma and presence of such a popular Sheikh, rather than looking for answers like ‘the army or the West must be behind this‘?
The sheikh pronounced the president as the ex-president and the prime minister as the now ex-PM, in his first address from the scene of the legendary sit-in. He then hailed the Supreme Court for issuing an arrest warrant for the corrupt PM in the rental power case (the now infamous Raja Rental). After camping in his 10 million rupee tour bus (this sheikh is real rock and roll), whilst a million men, women and children slept in the freezing cold rain outside for two nights, the sheikh delivered a deadline to the government on 17th January. They had until 3 pm to fulfil his demands, and give the people of Pakistan ever-lasting peace, tranquility and process. Otherwise the masses would march on parliament and drag these amoral creatures out of power. Obviously, the government could not act so promptly therefore, in a testament to his grandeur, the sheikh kindly extended the deadline by 45 minutes. At 3:45 pm, the government’s negotiating party had the PM sign a document accepting pretty much all of the sheikh’s demands. This historic sit-in had attained its objectives and the people of Pakistan could celebrate this momentous success. Now Pakistan will be rid of all it’s ills and problems.
Despite all of the above, I do not possess the wisdom or knowledge that the great Sheikh effused in his persona and public addresses. This means I am left with certain unanswered questions, and would feel eternally indebted to anyone providing the answer to these troubling issues.
Firstly, what did the sheikh actually achieve? The government has agreed to stop its corruption. Are they not supposed to adhere to this anyway? Or will this be the timely reminder to these vile people? PPP have agreed to hold elections within 90 days, as demanded. Is the government’s 5-year tenure not over on 16th March in any case? Were these elections not due within 90 days anyway? Further, the government has accepted that candidates should be vetted in accordance with the Constitution.
Article 62 and 63 stipulate that those wishing to be elected to both Parliament and the Senate must be of at least 25 years of age and meet certain moral characteristics. They must be truthful and not engage in open Fisq (commission of sins according to Islam). This criteria is to be applied to all prospective candidates. Many elected members of parliament in the current chamber were disqualified for holding counterfeit degrees, in line with these articles. Have the government agreed to a radical change or maintenance of the status quo? After all this stipulation is always applied, in theory.
Finally, the government has agreed to consult Qadri on the two names it proposes to the election commission as heads of the interim government, in the transitional period. These people are supposed to be independent individuals, facilitating a smooth transfer of power. However, what happens if the government doesn’t consult him? What if they suggest two names for the interim government and resign from parliament immediately afterwards, as they are conventionally required to do? Who is he going to protest against at that point? If I can think of ways to neutralise this clause with so much ease, would the devious Zardari government really struggle with this demand?
A few issues were notable by their absence from Qadri’s discourse . There was no mention of the murderous drone attacks, the betrayal of the Pakistani army in killing their own brothers, the poverty of the people of Pakistan or even basic things like the energy crisis. Populist slogans, which rouse the emotions of the people, are a tool utilised to mislead people in pursuing short-sighted aims. Anything must be better than this government surely? However, do we not remember this exact same thought process when Musharaf was in power? And the sighs of relief when Musharaf deposed Sharif in 1999? Or the landslide win for Sharif in 1997, due to the people’s ire and anger at the conduct of the Benazir Bhutto government? This game of charades needs to be put to an end.
This soap drama would be comic were it not for the tragic reality of it. The people of Pakistan have been duped by agents of the powers-that-be once again. Whilst it is heartening that people are moved to take action against government for its failings, unfortunately their energy is misdirected. The Muslims of Pakistan need Islam. How can one claim to be a Muslim and not strive, day and night, to live by the Hukm of his Creator. Calling for the idiocy of democracy or the military rule which is so fashionable in Pakistan does not resolve the issue at heart. These systems, and the people they produce, are incapable of providing the solutions. This is the case even if they are sincere to the cause (which TUQ certainly is not). Any solution taken from other than Islam will always be a veil over the eyes of the masses. Allah’s deen must be established to govern all arenas of life, the only salvation for humanity. Otherwise the people of Pakistan will continue to twist and turn, running from pillar to post, in a perpetual cycle of disappointment and national humiliation. As a brother once analogised to me: imagine a society where there is a widespread social problem directly linked to alcohol and can be traced to the local pub. What would you think of appointing the most sincere and honest person in charge of such a pub? He will probably run a more efficient establishment. However, you still have the root of the problem, namely the pub. Even if you appoint your local imam in that position, the problem remains. Until you get rid of this root, you will be faced with its resultant ills. The problem in Pakistan is the corrupt capitalist, democratic, secular and liberal system. Stop face rotating within the system. Pull out these roots of the problem
To finish off, I must make mention of a TV show I happened to watch a few weeks ago. Imran Khan, the other ‘saviour’ of Pakistan had made a claim that the next election would be like the battle of Badr, with one side possessing all the material might coming up against those with nothing but sincerity and honest passion. Commenting on this (a comment that is very appropriate to Qadri’s speech in Lala Musa), Javed Choudhary, in his programme Kal Tak, forwarded some very sound advice to Imran Khan. He declared that politicians should quit the game of playing with people’s emotions. He should not equate his dirty politics to the nobility of Badr. He was not doing anything that those on the battlefield of Badr had been attempting to attain and he should refrain from distorting and misusing Islamic history for his own political gain. Very apt words.