2003-qnotes

"My Lord, give me the capability to tolerate an opposing point of view. My Lord, keep make me wise and aware, so that I may not judge someone or an idea until I have understood completely," thus prayed Dr Ali Shariati, who is, for many, the ideological father of the Iranian revolution and who was martyred in London on June 19, 1977 by the ubiquitous SAVAK, just three weeks after his escape from Iran. I invoke this poignant prayer, uttered by a man who had spent his life in the cause of Iranian people and the Revolution, to explore the position of the fifth President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mohammad Khatami (b 1943) on the question of dialogue between civilisations, the topic of his address delivered at the National Library of Pakistan, Islamabad on December 24, 2002.

What Mr Khatami said was nothing new; he has expressed more or less the same views on a number of occasions and with such consistency that one is sure to say that these views are not the product of any political expediency. What was new in the National Library address, however, was the inclusion of Mohammad Iqbal as the point of departure for his views. Mr Khatami not only used Iqbal to express his views, he also attributed many of his own ideas to Iqbal. This raises certain fundamental issues.

"Iqbal's bright and sophisticated mind explicitly distinguishes between two problems when analysing and criticising the development of Islamic thought in the past five hundred years," he said. According to him, Iqbal distinguishes between the uncritical and ignorant view of Western culture and the view that recognises the scientific and rational aspects of Western culture and civilisation. "Iqbal's approach was, thus, not in any way tantamount to negating or totally rejecting and ultimately becoming hostile to the culture and civilisation of the West," he stated.

"The Western culture," Mr Khatami further said, "is the conveyer of the spiritual, artistic and philosophical creations. We therefore, cannot and must not deprive ourselves of it, simply because of our dislike of the oppressive political and economic measures taken by the Westerners against the non-Western world, a fact which the fair and judicious political and economic thinkers and politicians of the West candidly confirm. Nor, of course, we can reject or discard our own cultural and spiritual heritage in the name of facilitating our scientific and cultural development." This, in a nutshell is the foundation of the "Khatami philosophy": We must separate the good and the bad of the Western civilisation, take the good and leave the bad. This is, indeed, a remarkable construction which conceives a civilisation like a cake which can be sliced according to one's wishes, taking the desired piece and leaving the rest.

Mr Khatami is not alone, nor the first one to take this position in reference to the Western civilisation. In fact, from Muhammad Ali Pasha of Egypt to the Young Turks of the pre-Kamal period and to our own Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, all Muslim reformers of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries have prescribed the same medicine for all the ills of Islamic polity. This prescription is especially recommended, in bold letters, when it comes to science and technology.

What is rather disturbing in Mr Khatami's most recent articulation of his position is the total inversion of Iqbal's message and philosophy. Iqbal's central message is that of integration of the inner self and his poetry is full of images of soaring eagles, flying above all dichotomies. But Mr Khatami's Iqbal is someone whose "tenderness of poetic spirit, profoundness of philosophical thought, and the enlightening warmth of religious doctrine have induced me to view the world through two separate pairs of eyes". Note the construction, "two separate pair of eyes" and examine it in reference to Iqbal's philosophy of integration!

Mr Khatami perceives the individual components of the Western civilisation, such as the arts and sciences, as exportable parts which can be imported without importing the central vertical axis from which these individual components emerge as branches from a tree. The fundamental flaw in this argument, which Mr Khatami and scores of other "Muslim Reformers" fail to see, is in their understanding of how civilisations give birth to their constituting components and the relationship between these individual components and to the whole.

In "The Spirit of Muslim Culture", the fifth lecture of The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Iqbal had argued that the Islamic civilisation came into existence on the basis of Revelation, a Revelation that was final and that completed the cycle of previous Divine Revelations. He argues that the central element of the Islamic Civilisation is a transcendent unity that is infinite. Iqbal had criticised the piecemeal approach to reality that was the hallmark of Greek thought and that would, later, become the foundation of Western civilization. "But the universe, as a collection of finite things, presents itself as a kind of island situated in pure vacuity to which time, regarded as a series of mutually exclusive movements, is nothing and does nothing. Such a vision of the universe leads the reflecting mind nowhere...The finite, as such, is an idol obstructing the movement of the mind...". He then quotes the Qur'aanic verse, "And Verily toward thy God is the (ultimate) limit" and points out that "the thought of Islam appears to have moved in a direction entirely different to the Greeks."

The second fundamental flaw of the Khatami doctrine is that it confuses the contemporary Western civilisation with that of its 16th and 17th century version as if time has stood still for the last four hundred years. The contemporary Western Civilisation has no place for Revelation. This is not to say that the West does not have religious people; quite the contrary, millions of human beings in Europe, UK and North America hold strong religious beliefs. But these beliefs are founded around the person of Jesus (may Allah's peace be upon him) and even when certain beliefs stem from the Bible, they arise out of a text which is construed on the basis of human experiences, not as a book revealed by God.

This fundamental difference between the Islamic civilisation and the contemporary Western civilisation cannot be overlooked in any formulation of the dialogue between civilisations. This does not mean that the two civilisations must clash. But for a dialogue to take place, the dialogue partners must recognise, honour and respect the fundamental belief systems of the other party. Mr Khatami and many so-called "modernist" Muslims bypass this tricky issue by appealing to an idealised version of the Western civilisation.

The dilemma faced by Mr Khatami, and a lot of so-called "modernist" Muslims is rooted in the contemporary social reality: While the Western civilisation has been marching from one peak of material wealth, military power and scientific and technological advances to another since the Scientific Revolution, the Islamic civilisation has produced nothing comparable. This leads them to believe that there must be something in the Western civilisation that can be appended to the Islamic civilisation so that it comes out of its static reek and start producing comparable marvels of science and technology.

But the flaw in this approach is, once again, the notion that science and technology produced in the West is something separate or separable from the rest of it. They take the grand civilisational process of appropriation of material from another civilisation as a simple act of appendage. They forget that in order for such a grand process to occur the appropriating civilisation has to first create a fermenting process, based on its own matrix, in which material from the other civilisation then flows, is transformed and is, finally, recast, in its own mould. This is what the Islamic intellectual tradition did to the Greek, Persian and Indian scientific and philosophical material that flew into its currents during the 8th to 10th centuries and this is what the Western civilisation did to the Islamic tradition that it appropriated and transformed during the 15th to 17th centuries.

This fundamental flaw in understanding the process then translates into practical approaches and gives birth to meaningless transfer of technology programmes which lead no where. This obscures their vision to the only proven route of renaissance of a civilisation that has existed since the beginning of history. This route demands the awakening of the inner force of the Islamic civilisation, independent of all borrowings from any other civilisation, beginning with the fermentation process that alone is capable of appropriating whatever knowledge it needs from whichever source it can find. Without this inner process, without this re-awakening of the Islam tradition of learning for which Iqbal yearned with all his heart, all dialogues are facile. What is most needed at this point, is a dialogue within the components of the Islamic civilisation and most of all, a self-reflection on approaches to revival. We have been stuck with this prescription propounded by Mr Khatami and numerous other reformers for the last 200 hundred years; it is time to leave behind this simplistic approach and seek deeper, more certain remedies.

Friday, Januray 17, 2003

Ziqa'ad 13 1423 A.H

The All-American World Order

Dr Muzaffar Iqbal

The new world order that came into existence in the wake of the Second World War is about to change. The new century can no longer carry the weight of the old. The old order was established when millions of people in Asia, Africa, South America and the Malay archipelago had risen from their slumber to drive out the overweening English, Dutch and French colonisers. Yearning to take control of their own destinies, these people demanded freedom. They were granted freedom but in the very process of giving, it was also taken back without their knowledge. Thus, the political map of the world was redrawn and the new map was quickly legitimised through a web of "international" institutions, the chief among them the United Nations. Thus, an organisation came into existence that was based on the law of inequality, brute power and that was designed to hold the desperate freedom movements.

The inequality was built into the UN Charter. All nations were not equal. Some were granted the veto power; the UN not only accepted the existing power structure that had come into existence after the World War II, it legitimised it. Instead of seeking equality, justice, honour and freedom for all segments of humanity, the UN "legitimated" a new world order based on the brute Law of Power. In the ensuing decades, the United Nations created numerous "international institutions" to expand its net over the entire globe. Thus, the only certain nation-states were permitted to develop modern instruments of "power": weapons, technologies and industries that provide a nation the muscles to exert force in the international arena. Thus, the right to develop nuclear weapons was annexed by a handful of countries in the name of world safety and peace. Although there exists no logical and moral basis for numerous monopolies established through the UN system, the new world order was proclaimed to be the most just and moral choice available to humanity.

The single most important country that dictated the new directions was a new player on the global scene: the United States of America. During the course of the next fifty years, this new power was to overshadow all previous colonisers and become the "sole superpower" through a most fascinating process that remains unparalleled in history.

This unique rise of America to its present position in world affairs is a fascinating phenomenon in world history. It is built on a relentless pursuit of clear goals, backed by powerful institutions and supported by a grand economic, political and social structure that is built on internally coherent and unifying principles. The single most important characteristic of these principles is an insatiable hunger for change.

The desire for change is such an integral part of the American makeup that if one were to describe the American civilization in only one word, it would be "Change". This central moving force of the American civilization projects itself in myriad forms: from the seasonal changes in the inventories of the marketplace to a vast and complex scientific research system that seeks to discover ever-new facets of the physical cosmos in order to replace the old. This same internal need for change, when projected on the social plane, translates into a polity in which everything is always on the move: from marriages to jobs to careers. The daily number of Americans on the move far exceeds any other nation. This also explains why America is home to the world's largest airlines.

It is this relentless inner force in the American psyche, this voracious desire, so integral to the "American Way", that generated the resources to build a new world order after the Second World War. But the same inner need for change has now outlived its own creation and demands the creation of yet another, far greater and far more American world order to suit the needs of the new "American Century".

This unquenchable desire for change, which is now demanding a re-drawing of the economic, political and cultural map of the world to suit its needs, has also become more fierce in the wake of 9/11. This is reflected in its lack of patience with all static orders, old regimes, institutions, individuals, ideologies, religions and ways of life that stand in its way.

At the most mundane level, this ruthless new face of America shows itself in the form of humiliation it heaps on visitors from certain countries who arrive at its borders only to discover that they are guilty of untold crimes unless they prove otherwise. At another level, this impatience has been enacted in tyrannical laws that border on apartheid. But these are merely the outward expressions of the wounded pride; the inner dynamics of the unappeasable need for change seek far greater changes not only at home, but globally.

Seen from their perspective, the American desire for "Change" is the most healthy, most dynamic and the most important aspect of human nature. After all, what could be more abhorrent than a static and unchanging order of things? And since success needs no further justification, America can rightly point out to its vast institutional infrastructure which has provided global leadership in science, technology and economic spheres.

But this self-righteous litany starts to shred into pieces when the American civilization is compared to the other civilizational orders that have existed for centuries and that continue to provide spiritual and moral solace to billions of people. And that is exactly where the new, impatient American zeal for change runs aground and becomes a threat to humanity, a harbinger of calamities and disasters that would be recorded in the darkest pages of human history.

It may not be possible for anyone to prevent the monstrous calamities that await the world in the making of a new "All-American World Order" but this does not mean that those concerned with the state of humanity should accept it as fait accompli; far from it. The minimum that is required from every man and woman who holds certain basic moral principles is to examine, elucidate and proclaim the repressive force of change that seeks to "Americanise" the rest of the world.

This is a moral imperative because at the root of the current tragedy faced by the entire human race is neither the oil nor the weapons of mass destruction hidden in any presidential palace but a moral dilemma that arises out of the very unjust world order that is being replaced with a far greater and far more reprehensive world order. It is this intolerant, myopic and self-centred vision of humanity that seeks to replace all other modes of existence that is to be resisted because in the very process of enacting itself as the only viable order, this new All-American world order would impose upon the rest of humanity a way of life that has its own destruction built into its genetic code: change.

Thus it is not only the moral and the spiritual heritage of humanity that is at stake, it is the very existence of human race on this planet that is being threatened with the dispatch of each new aircraft carrier and each new military unit to the war front. It is not merely the madman of Baghdad who would be replaced, the new World Order seeks to replace all "other" orders, all other modes of being.

In this struggle to resist the imposition of an All-American World Order, anyone who knows the lethal power of daisy-cutters and the immobilising effects of chilling euphemisms like collateral damage, must have faith in powers far greater than human. He or she must understand that the bells are indeed tolling, but keep asking: for whom?

Friday January 31, 2003-- Ziqa'ad 27 1423 A.H.

Sanctioning the spilling of blood

It should surprise no one that the Bush-Blair crusade against Iraq is about to launch its final round. It should also not surprise anyone that this deadly attack will be, somehow, sanctioned by the United Nations. After all, the United Nations is the brainchild of President Franklin D Roosevelt, who first used this phrase in his "Declaration by United Nations" issued on 1 January 1942. This declaration, let us recall, was a pledge not for peace but to continue fighting against the "Axis Powers".

Let history be our guide. Read the chilling order signed by President Truman to annihilate 200,000 human beings in Hiroshima-a city he calls "a military base"-and compare the present-day euphuisms such as "collateral damage" with those used during that horrible period: the Enola Gay plane that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, dubbed the 9,000 pound bomb, "Little Boy". Then look at the logbook of US Army Air Corps Captain Robert Lewis, co-pilot of the Enola Gay plane (sold in New York on March 29, 2002 for $350,000): "I am certain the entire crew felt this experience was more than anyone human had ever thought possible. It just seems impossible to comprehend. Just how many did we kill?" And finally, have cast a glance at the statement issued by the White House sixteen hours after the atomic bomb was dropped.

This statement, issued by the President of the United States expressed no remorse or sorrow for killing thousands of innocent human beings-just triumph: "Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army base. That bomb had more power than 20,000 tons of TNT. It had more than two thousand times the blast power of the British 'Grand Slam' which is the largest bomb ever yet used in the history of warfare... We have spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history -- and won."

Now compare the current Bush-Blair rhetoric against Truman's triumphant statement of August 6, 1945: "We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power...It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware."

If this sounds like a deja vu, one should not forget other crimes committed by the United States since that terrible day of August 1945. Just three days later, it dropped another atomic bomb on Nagasaki-an action that is considered by the most historians a totally unnecessary act of aggression against an enemy already at its knees.

But what is most important for us today is the emergence of the new mechanism of unilateralism through the agency of the United Nations that has repeatedly sanctioned acts of terrorism by the United States in the post-World War II era at a scale never witnessed in human history. This product of infamy has not only presided over successive acts of violence against weaker nations, it has also been instrumental in passing and imposing selective resolutions when it suited the United States and its allies and forgetting about all resolutions when it did not suit them. Thus, it is not surprising that the resolutions pertaining to Kashmir and the Palestine could never be implemented while those which suit the needs of the US are approved and implemented with rapid speed.

That the attack on Iraq would be eventually actively or tacitly sanctioned by the United Nations is a forgone conclusion. The end-game now being pursued at the UN headquarters is merely a matter of debate on details. It is the product of minds who see no human element in their deadly plans; all they see is money, power, oil. Blinded by rage, hatred and ignorance, they have already planned a post-Saddam scenario. They are desperate to carry out their plans, in part, because they quickly need to recover the enormous amount of money that has been spent since September 2001 on their War on Terror; this vast apparatus of cruelty needs to be fed. Obviously, Afghanistan cannot provide any returns except for whatever can be harvested through its now flourishing poppy fields. Iraqi oil, on the other hand, is another story.

But no one should think that those who are bent on spilling the blood of thousands of human beings will stop after Iraq. This blood-thirst can never be quenched as the record of the last fifty years amply demonstrates. As soon as a new puppet regime is established in Iraq, the next targets would start emerging: Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia being highest on the list.

The most important question for those who see these designs clearly and in the light of history is: how can this aggression be stopped? What is to be done to effectively stop those who are bent upon killing thousands of innocent human beings? One thing should be clear: there is no help to be expected from the international mafia consisting of puppet regimes, the United Nations, the CNN and other North American media outlets because all of these are, in fact, a partner in this deadly game.

As for the recent call by Pakistan's so-called "religious parties" for an OIC meeting on the issue -- even the most elementary knowledge of the history of OIC should be enough to convince anyone that this puppet organisation can only serve those who are partners in this terrible crime against humanity. The leadership provided by these so-called religious parties of Pakistan during the American war against Afghanistan should have been enough evidence for their lack of competence in such matters. But the voters in Pakistan found nothing better and made the same lot a partner in the dirty facade that has put together a puppet regime in Islamabad. In any case, one should expect nothing from them.

In contrast, there are those who have already sent the first convoy of Western "human shield" volunteers from London to help prevent this criminal aggression. Organisers of this unique idea say they will take hundreds, possibly thousands, of anti-war activists to Iraq.

Other than the Divine help, the only hope one has to avert this disaster is precisely in such innovative actions. No one can fight the weapons of mass destruction in the arsenal of the United States. Only a massive support by a volunteer force consisting of citizens of all nations, most of all of those coming from the aggressor states, can help to stop the spilling of innocent blood.

What is needed is a grass-root action, organised on similar lines as the Human Shield initiative. But the recent worldwide demonstrations against the war have shown that Muslims are passively watching the destruction of their brethren in faith. This amounts to tacit approval of the coming attack. While streets of London, New York, San Francisco, and Tokyo were full of anti-war demonstrations, Makkah, Madinah, Cairo and Lahore were immersed in their dreadful lethargy. This numb, inactive and silent response to an aggression that would annihilate thousands of human beings is not only deplorable, it amounts to being partners in sanctioning the spilling of blood.

That the United Nations will actively or tacitly approve the attack against Iraq should not surprise us because the UN owes its existence to the US-British policies. Established in 1945 in San Francisco, the UN provided a cover to those who had committed the most barbaric acts against humanity during the Second World War. Even a glance at the historical facts is enough to ascertain that the attack on Iraq comes from a country that has committed crimes against humanity at a scale no other country has ever reached.

February 14, 2003, Zil Hajj 13, 1424

Signs of Our Times

The reverential silence around the pilgrims was only broken by the chants, Allaho Akbar, Allaho Akbar until the Prophet began his farewell sermon with the praise of Allah. He was sitting on his camel and all around him, men, women and children stood in a sublime state, listening to the words of the Prophet which were being repeated by different men so that the whole crowd of more than 1,24000 could hear what was being said. It was a Friday, 1413 years ago. The place was the same where last Tuesday, more than two million men, women and children repeated the actions of the Prophet of Islam who himself performed the Hajj following the rites established since the time of Ibrahim—may Allah’s Mercy and Blessings be upon him.

This year the annual pilgrimage, that marks a high point in every Muslim life, took place amidst a menacing shadow that can only be compared with the clouds over Europe before World War II. Then it was a man named Hitler who had built his draconian dreams of a superpower and was about to launch his offensive against a powerless neighbor. Now, it is a cartel of men and women, intoxicated with the desire to dominate the whole world and impose their writ, floundering all customs of comity of nations.

Today, the world stands united against the US plans to attack Iraq, that is, all but the paid puppets of the Muslim world and a handful of Blairs who have aligned themselves with the Washington Cartel with the hopes of sharing the pie. The looming attack against Iraq is now only waiting for the story of incubator babies to arrive and they may arrive any minute. It will not be difficult for the CNN, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times to run such a story when the White House signals; they did exactly that for the Gulf War I. Then, this trump card, which starred the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States, had been used so successfully, that not only the Americans, but the whole world was engulfed in an outrage against the regimes whose soldiers had allegedly committed that barbaric crime of killing innocent babies in hospital incubators. By the time truth was disclosed, it was already irrelevant. The Gulf War had quickly achieved what was needed to be achieved and the outrage and the anger against the dishonesty and moral depravity of those who had concocted the story meant nothing.

But while we await for the arrival of the incubator babies, let us not forget that the present crisis is not merely about an attack against Iraq and its cruel and almost mad ruler; it is a much deeper crisis that stems from a much deeper root: the severance of the spiritual from the worldly, the disconnect between values, ethics, morality and the transcendent reality which alone can provide any real value to human existence.

In the absence of such a transcendent reality, all values, ethics and morals become relative, allowing the likes of Bush to parade the Satanic plans of the Washington Cartel in a religious language and the likes of Blair to pose as a crusader against evil. This relativism, that reigns supreme today, not only in the Western civilization which has gone through a deep severance from its spiritual roots, but also in many other parts of the world. The result is a world full of turmoil, suffering and constant clash.

Let us not forget that the terrible events of our times--conflicts, wars, deaths and destruction--are merely the outward signs of the callosity of the hearts that occurs when the hearts are severed from their nourishing springs and when the spiritual is removed from the temporal. Once this severance has been allowed, then anything is possible.

This severance is now the most fundamental dilemma of the human race. We have, on the one hand, a dominant and menacing power in the form of the Untied States of America and numerous smaller but equally evil regimes that control much of Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Together, they form the real axis of evil that is responsible for the suffering of billions of human beings. Their mutual relationship is logical and deep, not accidental and superficial. Numerous parallels run through both arms of this axis: Just as the puppet, client-regimes of Africa, Asia and the Middle East do not represent the will of their people, the Washington Cartel does not represent the will of the people of the United States as the millions of “peace marchers” have amply demonstrated. Just as the client-regimes have to continuously deceive their people, the Washington Cartel has to do the same and it does it through a most insidious mechanism by manufacturing public opinion through a media that is controlled by a handful of allies of the Washington Cartel. And lately, the Washington Cartel has started to use other tactics: harassment, attacks on civil liberties and a total disregard for numerous internationally recognized laws, obligations and duties.

So far, the tiny segment of humanity living outside the sphere of this real axis of evil has watched the drama from outside, often in helplessness. The recent stand of France, Belgium and Germany against the US plans to attack Iraq are the first signs that it may not be possible for this tiny segment of humanity to remain a spectator to the suffering of the rest of the humanity. But a veto in the EU is merely a weak, albeit significant, beginning; it only addresses a pressing issue at hand.

The real need of the present times is much more than a stand against the Washington Cartel’s plans against one attack; the real need of the humanity is for an alternate vision, an alternate plan of action and an alternate leadership that can eloquently and successfully rally support for a new World Order that is not rooted in relativism. The only possible candidate for the emergence of such a leadership is Europe, a united Europe that can save us from the tyranny of the Washington Cartel and the puppet-client regimes.

One shudders with despair when the true dimensions of the present global crisis are understood. The continuous suffering of millions of human beings through AIDS, famine, hunger, disease and poverty, the terrible atrocities being committed against the Chechans and the Palestinians on a daily basis, and the violent disruption of spiritual dimension of all civilizations are but a few expressions of this crisis.

While millions of dollars are being spent to feed a global war machine designed to produce ever-more sophisticated weapons of mass destruction, the daisy cutters and the smart bombs, a large segment of humanity drowns further and deeper into an abyss. While those who are obsessed with dominating the world, see nothing barbaric in their plans to bomb Iraq with the most lethal weapons, those “experts” who are brought on CNN and the other media outfits in this prelude to attack, keep talking as if the looming attack was merely a version of star wars and the Iraqi men, women and children mere caricatures of a Hollywood artist rather than real human beings with blood, bones and flesh, emotions, desires and hopes.

This terrible reduction of human beings to an abstract entity, this callous response to the daily suffering of fellow men and women, is in itself a sign of our times about which we have been forewarned not only by the Prophet of Islam who spoke on that Friday 1413 lunar years ago while sitting on his she-camel at the Mount of Mercy but also by Jesus, the Word of God, who reminded us that no man can serve two masters.

Friday February 21, 2003-- Zil Haj 19, 1423 A.H.

Sorry, Mr President

Dr Muzaffar Iqbal

But for the millions of ungrateful people who filled the streets of world capitals on the day of Sabbath, when it was best for them to stay indoors and watch your sermon, I would not have written this letter so soon after thanking you for your Eid message to the citizens of your would-be kingdom (The News, December 6, 2002). The uncharitable crowd does not seem to see what you do so clearly with your visionary eyes, Mr President; please forgive them and know that in the end, they would all see the wisdom and courage that you personify and which now is being seen only by the blameless Blair.

The crowds seem to have all but spoiled the grand potpourri you and your faithful men have so carefully cooked for so long. And to be frank, Powell's pathetic performance at the UN did not help matters at this crucial junction when you needed something more than a grade twelve C minus performance. But take heart and rejoice that all is not lost yet.

Of course, no one seems to buy the arguments for unleashing the ever-so-itchy men with their lethal weapons against the man you have called "the true enemy of the Iraqi people". In one terrific day, all the fear you and your men have so carefully implanted in the hearts of people seems to have disappeared. All talk about the "outlaw groups and regimes", "cells and camps, plotting further destruction and building new bases", and of "terrorists finding a shortcut to their mad ambitions" seems to have evaporated.

How sad, Mr President, that at this crucial moment, when you are just five days away from raining blankets, supplies and those irresistible made-in-America peanut butter cookies, which made such a successful show in Afghanistan, for the people of Iraq, millions of people have lined up on the streets to say: "No". Of course, they do not understand what it means to receive these goods along with the freedom to wave the "Thank you America" placard. They have no experience of the ecstatic delight that comes with the fulfilment of a dream nourished for long in the secret chambers where you now sit alone with your inner circle. Tired and frustrated, held in check, but not defeated.

Let them call it a war for oil and the control of the Middle East, or a war for Israel. Be assured, my dear President, that it is indeed a war necessitated by necessity itself. And take courage from the fact that streets of Makkah and Madinah, which were still filled with the pilgrims on that fateful Saturday, remained quiet. And except for a pathetic crowd of 600 Egyptians, surrounded by 3,000 security men, every citizen of your pal's country understood this necessity. Likewise, your most faithful Mullas in Pakistan kept aloof from the rest of the world and, unlike their unruly fury during the Afghan war, their shameful stomachs did not require more American food at this decisive time. Rejoice Mr President, that streets of all the cities in the rest of that wasteland called the Muslim world also remained barren on that momentous Saturday: no one came out on the streets of Kuwait City, Bahrain, Dubai and numerous other capitals where your devoted Presidents, Prime Ministers and Kings await your next phone call in earnest.

Go ahead, Mr President, a new world of opportunities and a truly global empire is only at an arm's length. History awaits your phone call.

I am sure, as you have so rightly said, that your smart boys would soon work out the dollar figure for the Turkey's Generals and then it will be time to pick up the phone and make your calls. On that fine morning, the world would surely understand.

Then it would become clear to the whole world what you see so plainly. And those who would still have doubts would soon be overpowered by the rapidity of events and by the wonderful capabilities of your new weapons which no one has ever seen before. After all, who would be able to resist watching the brand new munition that spews tank-hunting bomblets with lethal speed and the electromagnetic-burst weapons that can roast the innards of computers. And when, within the first twenty-four hours, your boys would have smashed Iraq's military communications networks and your Air Force's "bunker busting"' bombs, designed to penetrate the concrete shelters, would have produced such awesome images that even the most zealous of "No War demonstrators" would say: ah! here is a lesson for them.

I am so heartened to read the address that you have prepared for the second day of war and you were generous to share with the boys in the inner circle. With your foresight, you have already taken the wind out of the most crucial criticism. And I am sure, no one will be able to hold back their applause when you announce to the whole world that in order to minimise the civilian casualties, you have ordered that the Air Force must use its brand new cruise missiles tipped with a high-powered electromagnetic-pulse emitter -- the E-Bomb -- which fries the electronics without killing the people.

By the time the world's attention is diverted to the Pentagon's new "Penetrating Bombs", aimed not at blowing up but incinerating, make their debut, you would be almost close to the end. The rest of the task can be completed by the precision-guided "agent defeat bombs" and the new laser weapons, designed to blind opponents. And you can finish off with the spectacular arrival of Bradley Fighting Vehicles, with laser weapons waiting to see action since the 1991 Gulf War; that would, indeed, act like icing for the cake.

Let the world say what it says now, but it would see the wisdom behind the Iraq War once it begins to witness live, courtesy of CNN, the vast array of new bombs such as the Sensor Fuzed Weapon which can blow up vehicles across 30 acres by distributing numerous bomblets that float toward earth on parachutes.

Mr President, I wish to reassure you in your hour of need that when it will be all over before the weekend, a shocked world would just have to accept the fait accompli. And when Rumsfeld arrives in Baghdad to the welcome of cheering Iraqi children and is greeted by another Hamid Karzai, all eyes and ears would be set on the reconstruction plans. Then, even the most diehard skeptics would be won over. Soon, all would forget the devastated and pulverised ancient land, then you can start talking about the billion-dollar contracts for reconstruction. Just remember to repay poor Blair!

So, let no one deter you from the glory that is now only five days away. Let no one stop you from finishing what father Bush started; history awaits your arrival in the city where in 1258, your comrade in thought arrived from the steppes of Central Asia to bring to an end a civilisation that had given us Avicennas, Razis and Birunis. Let no one stop you from landing on the newly reconstructed runway of Baghdad to etch your name on the history of that city where your distant comrade in arms had built a minaret of human skulls. No, history does not repeat itself. You will not build a minaret of human skulls because your men leave no human skulls; their laser-guided weapons would efface all minarets.

Friday March 07, 2003-- Muharram 03, 1424 A.H.

UN-Gate

The new Hijrah year has arrived so quietly that some newspapers in the Muslim world have not changed the date to 1424; this includes Arab News, the official newspaper of the custodians of Islam. More than a mere slip, it is a potent sign of our times. The cultural schizophrenia that marks the contemporary Muslim world can hardly be expressed more eloquently than this numerical indicator. But more than a sign of a great chasm, the new quiet arrival of the year 1424 is a reminder that while the Muslim world languishes in its deep slumber, a new script is unfolding elsewhere.

Just beyond the realm of this languishing siesta, there is so much sound and fury that one wonders how can a whole people be so callous about what is being done to them. The puzzle becomes even deeper when one realises that in this black and absurd tragedy, the script consists only of monologues, spoken by different actors but written by the same hand. From the pathetic utterances of those who are proposing a safe exit to the cowardly dictator in Baghdad to the equally wretched peace plan thought by sick minds rotting in their luxurious palaces, it is the same hand that inscribes this appalling play, act after act.

The latest twist in this cryptic script is a secret plan "leaked” to Times of London which states that "the UN is breaking a taboo, and arguably breaching its charter, by considering plans for Iraq's future governance while it deals daily with President Saddam Hussein's regime as a legitimate member”. This confidential and top secret plan, spread over 60 pages and ordered by Louise Frechette, the Canadian deputy of Kofi Annan, was drawn up at the UN's New York headquarters by a six-member pre-planning group. It envisages the UN stepping in about three months after a successful "conquest” of Iraq, and steering the country towards self-government, a la Afghanistan.

Seen in the light of recent developments, this "UN-Gate” leads us to believe that the script is being followed line by line. Over the last few months, what the United States has so successfully established is this: as long as the war is authorised by the UN, it will be a legitimate war. This has now become a common theme that is being repeated by all governments in the Muslim world as well as by many European states and Canada.

Repeated over and over, this common denominator has been made into an accepted axiom. This was the first step. With this sanction, the looming war is already a legitimate act as long as it has the UN stamp. Thus the killing of thousands, perhaps millions, of human beings would become "legitimate” as long as the UN has said so.

But what if the UN is privy to the plan right from the beginning? What if those who decided the fate of Iraq in their secret chambers wrote it into their script to first establish the credibility of the plan through a "B-Script” which would remain behind the front line until all had agreed that as long as the war is sanctioned by the UN, it will be acceptable? The secret document published by The Times on March 5, definitely points to a "B-Plan” in which the UN is as much a part as the UK and the US. The secret plan revealed by The Times calls for UN involvement in the post-Saddam Iraq in consideration of the interests of the United States and UK. It also says that the UN should avoid taking direct control of Iraqi oil, rather, it should establish a UN Assistance Mission in Iraq, to be known as Unami, to help to establish a new government.

This new government-in-waiting, about which President Bush has spoken more than once, is, in fact, already in place. Lieutenant-General Jay Garner, the retired US Army general who is in line to be the US governor of post-war Iraq, and who now heads the Pentagon office of reconstruction and humanitarian affairs established in January 2003, is assembling potential candidates for the various tiers of this "government-in-waiting”; these consist of Iraqi exiles, American advisers, and of course, some "international” consultants.

The US plan also calls for the launching of a major media blitz for the post-Saddam Iraq which would quickly erase all memory of the human cost of the war and divert the attention of the world to the new heads of Iraq's major ministries and public works agencies who would start uttering their lines as soon as the green signal is received.

The final act is not too far now. Already, it has become immaterial whether the first step is taken with a UN sanctioned war or without UN approval; what is important for the US is to quickly finish the first act and to move to the second phase where a senior UN official would become the UN special representative in post-war Iraq to provide an international cover to a fait accompli.

Jay Garner is already in contact with the UN officials for this "post-first-step” part of the script. According to the Times, General Garner told Ms Frechette that he wants to get out of the job "as quickly as possible” to be replaced by a respected international figure. He foresees Iraqi exiles in the transitional administration being replaced in one to six months. "Everyone can swallow up to three months of US government in Iraq,” one UN official said. The UN plan predicts that, despite the acrimonious divisions in the Security Council, it will inevitably be called on to play a role in post-war Iraq.

"The considered opinion of the pre-planning group is that, while public statements assert that the coalition forces will be responsible for military and civil administration in the immediate period following the conflict, the likelihood of a more substantial involvement of the UN in the transition (post-three month) phase cannot be discounted,” the document says. "As the extent of coalition force control becomes apparent, the Security Council and, indeed, members of the coalition forces may feel that UN involvement may be welcome in certain areas.”

The details revealed by the secret plan also tell us about the debates within the secret chambers where the plan was finalised. It tells of British reservations about a direct occupation of Iraq because of its colonial history. Instead, Britain insisted on "a full-blown UN administration along the lines of those in Kosovo and East Timor, and a UN agency to control Iraq's oil. But UN planners insisted on respecting Iraq's sovereignty and said that it could not run a country 33 times the size of East Timor,” the document says: "The group found that, although a UN-led transitional administration may seem more palatable than an administration by the occupying power, there are key drawbacks to a transitional administration: the UN does not have the capacity to take on the responsibility of administering Iraq.” Instead, the UN favours a political process like that in Afghanistan, where Mr Brahimi worked with US officials to organise the Bonn conference of prominent Afghans to set up an interim government.

This UN-Gate should not come as a surprise to anyone. After all, the United Nations has a history of sanctioning plans that suit the new Tsars of a brand new world order. This history of infamy includes, among others, the sanctioning of the state of Israel, which continues to brutalise a whole people in broad daylight while the UN does nothing about it. It also has a history of selectively implementing its own resolutions; thus its resolutions on Kashmir remain in cold storage. That the UN is an instrument of the new imperialism is now an established fact; a war sanctioned by UN would be just as illegitimate as one without its sanction.

Friday March 21, 2003-- Muharram 17, 1424 A.H.

A Requiem for Rachel

“Hi friends and family, and others, I have been in Palestine for two weeks and one hour now, and I still have very few words to describe what I see. It is most difficult for me to think about what's going on here when I sit down to write back to the United States…

The hand that wrote these words on February 7, 2003, is no more; Rachel Corrie was crushed to death on 16 March 2003 by an Israeli bulldozer driver in Rafah, occupied Gaza. The Caterpillar D-9 bulldozer that killed Rachel was made in America and it had arrived in Gaza through a $2.2 billion military aid package granted to Israel by the United States government.

On that final day of her life, 23-year old Rachel and her friends from the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) had been in the area where houses were being demolished for more than two hours. They had clearly identified themselves as unarmed volunteers.

Rachel was sitting in the path of the bulldozer as it advanced towards her. When the bulldozer refused to stop or turn aside she climbed up onto the mound of dirt and rubble. She waved to the driver and yelled: Stop! Stop!

The driver saw her fluorescent jacket and defiant eyes, looking directly at him but he did not stop. With the next push of the blade of the bulldozer, the mound of rubble on which Rachel was standing, gave way and Rachel was pulled under the pile of dirt and stones. Greg Schnabel, who was standing close by, and other five ISM volunteers started to yell: Stop! Stop!

The driver looked at them but kept driving. He did not lift the bulldozer blade and within the next few seconds, Rachel was crushed to death. Then the driver backed off. Greg and other ISM volunteers rushed forward and pulled her out. An Israeli tank, accompanying the bulldozers, fired a smoke grenade but one of the volunteers had already taken several photographs. Someone called an ambulance which took Rachel to al-Najar hospital but Rachel had already crossed over to a land where no one could hurt her anymore. Not even the dreaded bulldozers which had been haunting her lately.

“Mama,” she had written to her mother in an email just 18 days before her death, “I really miss you. I have bad nightmares about tanks and bulldozers outside our house and you and me inside. Sometimes the adrenaline acts as an anesthetic for weeks and then in the evening or at night it just hits me again - a little bit of the reality of the situation. I am really scared for the people here. Yesterday, I watched a father lead his two tiny children, holding his hands, out into the sight of tanks and a sniper tower and bulldozers and Jeeps because he thought his house was going to be exploded. Jenny and I stayed in the house with several women and two small babies.”

“This is in the area where Sunday about 150 men were rounded up and contained outside the settlement with gunfire over their heads and around them, while tanks and bulldozers destroyed 25 greenhouses—the livelihoods for 300 people… I thought a lot about what you said on the phone about Palestinian violence not helping the situation. Sixty thousand workers from Rafah worked in Israel two years ago. Now only 600 can go to Israel for jobs. Of these 600, many have moved, because the three checkpoints between here and Ashkelon (the closest city in Israel) make what used to be a 40-minute drive, now a 12-hour or impassible journey. The count of homes destroyed in Rafah since the beginning of this intifada is up around 600… I think it is maybe official now that Rafah is the poorest place in the world. There used to be a middle class here - recently.”

“If any of us had our lives and welfare completely strangled, lived with children in a shrinking place where we knew, because of previous experience, that soldiers and tanks and bulldozers could come for us at any moment and destroy all the greenhouses that we had been cultivating for however long, and did this while some of us were beaten and held captive with 149 other people for several hours - do you think we might try to use somewhat violent means to protect whatever fragments remained? I think about this especially when I see orchards and greenhouses and fruit trees destroyed - just years of care and cultivation. I think about you and how long it takes to make things grow and what a labour of love it is. I really think, in a similar situation, most people would defend themselves as best they could. I think Uncle Craig would. I think probably Grandma would. I think I would.”

“…no amount of reading, attendance at conferences, documentary viewing and word of mouth could have prepared me for the reality of the situation here. You just can't imagine it unless you see it, and even then you are always well aware that your experience is not at all the reality… Nobody in my family has been shot, driving in their car, by a rocket launcher from a tower at the end of a major street in my hometown. I have a home. I am allowed to go see the ocean. Ostensibly it is still quite difficult for me to be held for months or years on end without a trial (this because I am a white US citizen, as opposed to so many others). When I leave for school or work I can be relatively certain that there will not be a heavily armed soldier waiting half way between Mud Bay and downtown Olympia at a checkpoint—a soldier with the power to decide whether I can go about my business, and whether I can get home again when I'm done. So, if I feel outrage at arriving and entering briefly and incompletely into the world in which these children exist, I wonder conversely about how it would be for them to arrive in my world.”

“They know that children in the United States don't usually have their parents shot and they know they sometimes get to see the ocean. But once you have seen the ocean and lived in a silent place, where water is taken for granted and not stolen in the night by bulldozers, and once you have spent an evening when you haven’t wondered if the walls of your home might suddenly fall inward waking you from your sleep, and once you’ve met people who have never lost anyone-- once you have experienced the reality of a world that isn't surrounded by murderous towers, tanks, armed "settlements" and now a giant metal wall, I wonder if you can forgive the world for all the years of your childhood spent existing--just existing--in resistance to the constant stranglehold of the world’s fourth largest military--backed by the world’s only superpower--in it’s attempt to erase you from your home. That is something I wonder about these children. I wonder what would happen if they really knew.

On February 28, Rachel wrote: “Thanks, Mom, for your response to my email. It really helps me to get word from you, and from other people who care about me. After I wrote to you I went incommunicado from the affinity group for about 10 hours which I spent with a family on the front line in Hi Salam… I sleep on the floor next to the youngest daughter, Iman, and we all shared blankets. I helped the son with his English homework a little, and we all watched Pet Semetery, which is a horrifying movie... Friday is the holiday, and when I woke up they were watching Gummy Bears dubbed into Arabic... this family has really wholeheartedly adopted me. Nidal's English gets better every day. He's the one who calls me, "My sister". He started teaching Grandmother how to say, "Hello. How are you?" in English.”

“You can always hear the tanks and bulldozers passing by, but all of these people are genuinely cheerful with each other, and with me. When I am with Palestinian friends I tend to be somewhat less horrified than when I am trying to act in a role of human rights observer, documenter, or direct-action resister. They are a good example of how to be in it for the long haul… I am nevertheless amazed at their strength in being able to defend such a large degree of their humanity - laughter, generosity, family-time - against the incredible horror occurring in their lives and against the constant presence of death…I should at least mention that I am also discovering a degree of strength and of basic ability for humans to remain human in the direst of circumstances - which I also haven’t seen before. I think the word is dignity. I wish you could meet these people. Maybe, hopefully, someday you will.”

Farewell and peace Rachel, and may the flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.

Friday April 04, 2003-- Safar 01, 1424 A.H.

The fate of empire builders

First comes a massive aerial attack, destroying cities, killing men, women and children, uprooting trees and ancient sites. Cities shake. Houses are destroyed, leaving behind huge craters where innocent children were playing a few hours ago. Then comes a ground assault launched by an army equipped with high-tech weapons and supported by an air force that has no rival. But even before all of this, there is a media blitz of tyranny that promises shock and awe, threatens annihilation and demands surrender.

In the pre-war period, there is much talk of American might by experts and victory is considered fait accompli; it is just a matter of days. Then comes the actual invasion, bringing death and destruction. The invasion of Iraq fits so well in the overall plan, which has already been in operation for more than a decade that its particular timing and the reasons to justify it are of little relevance. But just as the invasion of Iraq was a sure thing, so is the fact that it is only the first step in the remaking of the world map. No one should think that it is the last country which will be attacked in this process of building a new empire.

The re-colonisation of the world by the United States of America is seen by the architects of this plan as a God-given mandate. Some see it as their religious duty because God, "who continues to bless America", wants them to share their blessings with the rest of the world. Almost a decade ago, Newt Gingrich, the ex-Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, had called it "America's right to world leadership"; his successors are more blunt. For them, the twenty-first century is the American century in which the whole world must submit to America.

Such ambitions are not new, and the military power of the United States of America is now self-evident. Hence, it is but natural for such a powerful state to do what America is doing: write its own laws for its behaviour and change them when it suits it.

Thus, when it did not suit its plan, it totally disregarded the flimsy hodgepodge of an organisation which the USA had itself helped to create in order to bring harmony to the world, and went ahead to use its shocking pile of new weapons. When its soldiers are captured, it calls for observance of Geneva Conventions and when it captures soldiers of another nation, it shows no respect for any convention; they become illegal combatants destined for a camp on a remote island where they continue to suffer the most degrading treatment. It calls for freedom of speech and press, but when variables change, it bombs al-Jazeera's offices and imprisons its journalists. It voices outrage at the destruction of Buddhist statues at Bamiyan and pulverizes the artefacts of early civilisation in the Fertile Crescent. And this list can extend to cite numerous other violations of civil norms and international laws. But that is merely repetitious.

That there is no moral or legal justification for this war is obvious. But it is also obvious that this war had to be waged. Why? The pundits have given us all kinds of reasons -- from oil to protecting Israel. Perhaps all of these have some validity and none of these is the only reason. There are, in fact, no reasons other than the self-serving internal logic of building of a new empire. Everything else is secondary and amounts to nothing but justification. The distinction between justification of an invasion and reasons for it must not be blurred.

The reasons are to be sought in the overall plan, in the greater vision of America as seen by those who control this unique state which has risen to achieve such a remarkable level of material wealth in merely 300 years that one would be hard pressed to find a comparable example. The combination of this material wealth and an awesome military power is of course intoxicating and those who have now taken effective control of the United States of America are thoroughly inebriated on this potent mixture. Their bellicose lexicon, their demeanour and their aggressive postures reflect this without doubt. They are not only oblivious to the history of tyranny, they are also insolent toward their own poorly educated and apolitical millions who have so far lived a life of material comfort and high consumption but who now face a world where no one respects them and where they are not safe beyond their own borders. This small group of individuals consists of men and women who are highly motivated, aggressive and, some would say, ruthless. But no matter how one defines them, there is little doubt that they have a very sharp and clear plan for the future of the whole world.

The coming together of this group is, in itself, an event of historical importance. The uniqueness of this event is the lack of any central charismatic personality that historically brought individuals of such diverse background and temperament to a single platform. From Genghis Khan to the Nazis, it has always been a dynamic and charismatic individual who brings desperate glory-seekers together. In the present case, there is no such person. Rather, it is a shared vision of the new America that has brought the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Douglas Feith together.

They emerged in the post-Reagan era from various think tanks and policy study institutes and have gathered around a certain vision for America in which Israel looms large. Most of these neo-colonists have ties with the Zionist state. They all are interventionists with a strong and aggressive language that advocates use of overwhelming force and pre-emptive strikes. There is also a strong tendency toward the use of religious language: "a struggle between good and evil", "the moment of truth" and the "day of reckoning".

After the humiliating fall of the Soviet Union, the only force standing against the ambitions of this group was what it calls "militant Islam". But they know, and so does the rest of the world, that this "militant Islam" is not something that can be located in a physical sense and wiped out. Therefore it had to invent physical targets. Afghanistan was most certainly not the gold mine this group needed to finance its ambitious plan but it served as a test ground and as a prelude to what was to come.

Iraq, with its oil resources and strategic location, was the ideal choice right from the beginning. Once Iraq is under control, Syria and Iran will be next. With Egypt and Jordan already under firm control through puppet regimes, this would effectively amount to an expansion of their domination right up to the centre of Arabia, where an increasingly submissive Saudi regime would continue to serve the interests of greater Israel for the foreseeable future.

Abstracted from real life and human suffering, this cruel plan is built upon an ambition that is not new in human history. Neither, however, is the terrible fate of such men and women, whose ambition and self-proclaimed glory make them blind to all that is human.

Friday April 18, 2003--Safar 15, 1424 A.H.

A state gone mad

The day after Iraq was "liberated", the German embassy in Baghdad was trashed, the headquarters of Unicef was stormed by looters, and every government ministry in the city was ransacked while the liberators turned a blind eye, indeed expressed joy over "liberation" of this property. But none of this is likely to survive in history beyond a trivial mention. What is likely to survive through a perpetual recall in the mass psyche is a scene from the bridge at Daura.

On the second day of liberation, US soldiers had set up a check point at the bridge and hundreds of Iraqi men, women and children were queuing; they all wanted to leave Baghdad and find security in the surrounding villages. But there was huge jam at the bridge because at the check point, each man had to raise his shirt and lower his trousers to prove that he is not a suicide bomber. It is this image of a forty-year-old Iraqi man raising his shirt and lowering his pants in front of other men, women and children that has now been etched on the memory of every living soul of that fabulous city that is likely to stand in historical records as a testimony to the ultimate humiliation.

It is likely to find its place in history because beyond the borders of Iraq this and similar scenes of humiliation of pride and honour and dignity have now become the most powerful reality for more millions of human beings. Plunged into a state of pain and helplessness, millions of people around the world have seen young children with blown off limbs being brought to hospitals which lack even aspirin. No one can forget young Omar who was murdered in view of cameramen by an American marine; no one will be able to erase the memory of blood-soaked and dismembered bodies of his father, mother, sisters and brother. And as if these horrific crimes were not enough, the blood of 80 men, women, and children who lived in the village of Furat before they were rocketed to death by the US planes will cry out forever: murder most foul. And who would ever forget the footage of small children holding up their hands in terror while Bush's thugs forced their families to kneel in the street?

Bush and Blair, their cluster-bombing army and their media Mughals cannot change the truth that has been now etched on millions of pain-filled hearts. Their great crime in Iraq is now a matter of record, understood as such by the majority of humanity. It is now clear that for Bush and his war party, Afghanistan was a test case; Iraq the first real encounter requiring show of vehemence and power and Syria will be a roll over. Then the process would spread to the rest of the Middle East.

Those who have put together this plan to rule the world are not ignorant of history; they are shrewd men and women who understand what they are doing. It is an act of genocide at a scale never witnessed before; it is a crime against humanity that surpasses all other crimes.

The arrival of the US army in Baghdad amid the crack of gunfire is a historic event only matched by the arrival of General Allenby in Jerusalem in 1918. The difference in the manner of arrival of the two armies is indicative of the difference in the nature of two processes of aggression. While Allenby had walked into Jerusalem in "respect of Christ's birthplace", Americans arrived in Baghdad on their tanks and armoured personnel carriers, shooting in all directions. True, the waters of Furat (Euphrates) and Dajla (Tigris) have been coloured with blood before, but the craters left by 2000 lb bombs and the new scars on this ancient city are of a different magnitude of order. The pale green waters of these most ancient of rivers have now witnessed the arrival of a Western army in the heart of an Arab city with a plan that is far more sinister than any one could imagine.

The US Marines and special forces are there to stay until a proxy government can be established, "reconstruction" (read plunder) contracts have been signed and the Iraqi oil is flowing to enrich the coffers of the colonizers. But that is merely the tip of the iceberg.

The invasion of Iraq must not be seen as a result of non-compliance of any UN resolution. Even Hans Blix has finally admitted that "there is evidence that this war was planned well in advance" and that "he knew that there were people within the Bush administration who were sceptical and who were working on engineering regime change. By the start of March the hawks in both Washington and London were getting impatient," he said.

But who are these people? What is their plan? There is now enough evidence to establish, beyond any doubt, the presence of a small group of like-minded men and women who have emerged in Washington to take charge of the US policies. They are men and women with direct links and ties to Israel. This should not be read as mere conspiracy theory; there is incontrovertible evidence that the so-called War Party in Washington has been successful in putting into practice its plan conceived by Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and associates. That this plan has an "Israeli connection" is equally without doubt.

In Jews and American Politics, published in 1974, Stephen D. Isaacs wrote, "Richard Perle and Morris Amitay command a tiny army of Semitophiles on Capitol Hill and direct Jewish power in behalf of Jewish interests." In 1983, The New York Times reported that Perle had taken substantial payments from an Israeli weapons manufacturer. In 1996, Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser wrote "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," for Prime Minister Netanyahu, in which they urged Netanyahu to adopt a new aggressive strategy. "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq-an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right-as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions." Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish "the principle of preemption," has now become official policy of the United States.

The plan to invade Iraq was already clearly mentioned by US Undersecretary of State John Bolton in February when the Israeli daily newspaper Ha'aretz reported Bolton had told the Israeli officials that "he has no doubt America will attack Iraq and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards". This small group of radical Zionists have now taken charge of US policies. Their planning has matured and become focused since their emergence in the post-Reagan years. In 1992, Barton Gellman of The Washington Post had called a leaked document from Paul Wolfowitz's office a "classified blueprint intended to help set the nation's direction for the next century"; that document written by Wolfowitz and associates has now become American policy through the 33-page National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by President Bush on Sept 21, 2002. "We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defence by acting preemptively," Bush had warned.

The question now is not if the United States will attack Syria, rather, the question is when will this crime be committed. The most logical answer to this question is before adrenaline runs out and soldiers now in Iraq become homesick. The new era of regime changes America has launched is a process envisioned on a grand scale but this Pax Americana the neo-cons have wrought has also made the United States the most hated country in the world. For some Americans, this is the most disturbing thought but they are helpless citizens of a state gone mad.

Friday May 02, 2003--Safar 29, 1424 A.H.

Lahore: the eternally haunting city

Lahore does not haunt me as it used to; I do not incessantly layout elaborate plans for it anymore, nor do I allow myself to be carried away by a nostalgic return to the city of my youth. Years of absence from this beloved city, a gradual shift in my own interests and concerns and a wilful abandonment of literature have blunted the desire to recreate this fabulous city through any artistic expression. But as I write these lines in Lahore, its heartbeat draws me into an irresistible symphony.

I had come to Lahore to attend the International Iqbal Conference (April 21-24) which attracted more than forty Iqbal scholars from all over the world. The Conference was inaugurated by our very dear General who arrived 65 minutes late and left us with a new understanding of Iqbal, albeit one in which the sheer mention of mard-e momin is blasphemy. Neither the soaring eagle of Iqbal's poetic imagery, nor his passionate reconstruction of a vision of life, which demands awakening and reorientation of the personal and collective self towards the lofty heights of Qur'aanic ideal, were the subject matter of his speech.

His realism only drew our attention towards the mundane, the ephemeral and the grimy state of the country and the Muslim world. This is indeed, a pragmatism bordering on hypocrisy and a wilful distortion of Iqbal's most abiding concerns. Taking the present situation of the ummah as his point of departure, he could only lament, as everyone else does: there is no unity among the believers, we are weak and cannot take on the enemy. But he, along with all the others who lament, failed to take the next step, an attempt to understand why we are in this predicament. And of course, he is, along with all those who have usurped power, part of the problem. After all, the immoral and illegal dispensation that he has wrought through a military coup has only added to the already murky waters of a state envisioned by Iqbal. And during the last three and half years, his self-appointed role has lost all moral authority, if there was any to start with.

But let no General take away the blissful joy of reconnection with this glorious city of so many faces. During the last few days, I have walked through the streets of Old Lahore, miles and miles of winding streets which still pulsate with a life steeped in another era, another time. It is this ancient Lahore which deserves to be celebrated in this column. The return to the city of my birth coincided with the annual urs of Ali Usman Hujveri, who arrived in this city a millennium ago, following the directions of his spiritual master. His shrine/mosque complex, where I offered the Friday prayer, was filled with thousands of men, women and children. Once inside the now greatly extended shrine/mosque complex, one leaves behind the world and enters a different reality. The khateeb reminded us that for more than 1000 years, this place has been providing free food to all, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This, in itself, is a remarkable tradition.

But it was after the prayers that the most enchanting scenes were observed. Here was a group of men, reciting the traditional salutation to the Prophet (PBUH), there, in a corner by the pillar, a single devotee was immersed in zikr. Spread throughout the courtyard, groups of men, women and children had created so many little worlds of their own. I stood by a circle which had formed voluntarily and was being directed by a master in a zikr session. Men, and a group of women behind them, were glorifying their Creator through a centuries old method of remembrance. Allah, Allah, their chants grew into a rhythmic pattern, several men started to enter the inner reality of things and soon everything else was washed away for them; only the face of their Lord existed for them in that intense moment of concentration that lifted their hearts from the mundane levels of existence. I thought of Baghdad and of Junaid Baghdadi, who is reverentially mentioned in Hujveri's wonderful book, Kashf al-Mahjub. I thought of Imam Abu Hanifa whose shrine has now achieved a new significance. And of Hallaj whose ashes were scattered in the river where American checkposts now ask Iraqi men to lower their pants and raise their shirts to prove that they are not suicide bombers. I thought of the desecration of a tradition, a tradition that has always sought to live in remembrance of the Creator, by men and women who hold no respect for the Everlasting and whose arrogance, brute power and tragic deprivation has led them to a land where posterity will remember them along with Halaku and Changiz.

As I walked through the narrow, winding streets of the Old City, I recalled a walk through similar streets in Isfahan, where traditional artisans were crafting their beautiful artefacts, just like the goldsmiths, the embroiderers, and the block makers were busy in their daily routines in this beloved city. This spiritual link of Lahore to Baghdad, Isfahan and so many other Islamic cities remains as strong as ever; no occupation army can take away these ties.

But along with this ancient Lahore, there are so many others, cities within cities. I walked on the lower Mall and found my old school in more or less the same exterior form as it was forty years ago. Nostalgia took me to my grade 5 classroom where once Mrs Farasat used to teach us things they do not teach anymore. Then there was the memory of the first mass movement in Pakistan led by ZA Bhutto. I recalled his address to the lawyers in the small open space of the courts and the subsequent movement which would lead to the downfall of Ayub Khan. Then there was the Nasir Bagh, then called Gol Bagh, where Ayub Khan's henchmen had flooded the ground and let electrical current run through the water while Bhutto was addressing the crowds.

There are still some buildings on Old Campus which look as they did fifty years ago, but many others have changed; even the General Post Office has a new face. The tea-house, where I expected to find Zahid Dar, was empty; no one has time to sit for hours and discuss everything under the sun. Lahore's literary scene is no more what it used to be. With so many of its writers and poets dead or gone, there is hardly a semblance of a culture rooted in literature.

Instead, there is the rat race. The rush. The loss of Lahore's ancient relaxed ways and the intrusion of an alien culture is visible everywhere. Plastic things literally attack one's senses as one walks through Anarkali bazaar. There is so much plastic in the city that it seems to be drowned in it. Then there are the food joints. Lahorees' most favourite pastime is, of course, eating, and the latest rage is the food streets. Along with the Big Mac and so many other Western food outlets, there are the desi karahi gosht and the like. The most dramatic change, however, is the timeframe in which Lahore operates. Once it used to be city of early risers; now people sleep at 2 am and food streets are crowded well past midnight.

Lahore may have lost some of its traditional styles but its people remain distinctively Lahorees. Their frankness, direct and personal approach to everything is apparent in all their dealings. The onslaught of westernisation may be taking its toll, but Patras Bukhari would still say, Lahore Lahore hai.

May 23, 2003

Quantum reflections

On May 14, 1998, when the first "Quantum Note" appeared on these pages, Pakistan was being misruled by Nawaz Sharif and his hand-picked associates. By the time the second column appeared, nuclear tests by India and Pakistan had forced open a new era in South Asia. Writing a month later (June 19, 1998) "Autocrat in the Making", reflected on the recent moves by Nawaz Sharif aimed at gaining a total control and absolute power and warned of the dangers inherent in this pursuit. Within a short span of time, the man with the overwhelming majority in Parliament was sitting behind the bars and a military General had installed himself as the Chief Executive of the country, as if the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was a California software company.

Five years after the publication of first "Quantum Note", we are living in a different world. This new era is being shaped by the emergence of a global conflict in which individual states are fast losing their sovereignty. This is, in fact, a new and more dangerous form of colonialism that is being imposed on the poor, weak and helpless states from the Sudan to Indonesia. The same fate is in store for oil-rich countries whose ruling elite has become thoroughly dependent on the United States for its survival.

In this new era, the nature of war, peace and politics has changed. And so have the rules of building the empire. As a helpless international community silently watches the unmaking of the world as we know it, the United States of America is writing a new chapter of world history through its policy of global intervention at an unprecedented scale.

A new world order is, indeed, in the making. This brand new, made-in-America political and economic order comes as a full package. It brings with it a perpetual state of dependence, a loss of cultural and moral fabric of the traditional societies and a submission to the whims of those who wish to build a new empire at a scale never realized before by any empire. Partly aided by technological advances, this new global conflict has pitched the United States of America against a small number of committed individuals who govern no state and who have no army per se, but who have nonetheless emerged as a global threat to the relentless pursuit of power and influence by the most powerful state in the world.

This small group of individuals consists of Muslims who belong to no particular country. In Europe, the opposition to this process of empire building has not yet taken any definite shape although a large part of population is deeply troubled by it. China, Japan and Russia are likewise still not in any direct and open conflict with the new empire builders. Hence the process of imposing a new world order has become a war between the United States of America and those Muslims who see it as a direct threat to their way of life.

There is no precedent in human history of such a conflict, therefore, it is impossible to seek help from history to understand the parameters of this new conflict. What is clear, however, is the presence of an overwhelming military force on the one side and overwhelmingly powerful faith on the other. Against the devastating power of B-52 bombers and daisy cutters, one has individuals who fear nothing, not even death. This strange conflict, with its imbalance of power and resources, is a war without end, a conflict without dimensions. It grows and expands in all spheres-from cultural to philosophical and from military targets to civil institutions.

In this new conflict, th