Find peace now

The Americans are treating us as if we are habitual borrowers, given to begging, when, in fact, we are being used by people for their own ends.

Fakir S Ayazuddin

With the American dream team in place in Islamabad and Rawalpindi to oversee the American policy in Pakistan, the US can now draw comfort that its policies will be followed in letter and spirit. The US ambassador to Pakistan has also been given an extension, so that even the exit strategy will be overseen at every step - nothing should be left to chance - or without the careful eye of a trusted guardian.
To witness the signing ceremony of the Afghan Trade Accord between the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, under the watchful gaze of the second most powerful figure of the United States, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who had flown twenty thousand miles to add her importance to the occasion, one wondered at the manner in which the Pakistani government was being coerced (gently?) into prioritising - certainly not in our best interest.
In this entire exercise no one has considered the effect on Pakistan: the millions of people displaced, and the money required to feed them, as dependents on an already poor government, whereas earlier they were eking a living, however meagre. But now they are wholly dependent on handouts. This, then, is the material cost which has not been addressed.
The traffic flow from Pakistan to Afghanistan is approximately 500 trucks a day. This huge number of trucks has destroyed whatever primitive road system we had, and no steps have been taken to address this crucial aspect. Our government should have insisted on the building of our infrastructure, such as roads and power stations, for without these important components, no country can function, and we will be in a truly sorry state when the Americans leave, with our war-ravaged roads in their present pathetic state.
The Americans are treating us as if we are habitual borrowers, given to begging, when, in fact, we are being used by people for their own ends. The US has launched its war on Afghanistan through Pakistan attracting the ire of the entire Islamic world, and the remaining warriors of the Taliban.
The American people have visibly tired of this unwanted and purposeless war, while the poor Afghans and Pakistanis seem to have no choice. This foot-dragging over the Kerry-Lugar Bill must stop. In fact, the Pakistani leadership should tell the US that it must now reimburse to Pakistan all the cost that has been incurred by us in this war - patently not of our own making. We must simultaneously start a peace dialogue and start a road-building strategy expanding and upgrading the facilities that do exist. And if the area passes through the Taliban's territory, all the better, for the Taliban will be much more appreciative.
The Pathan dislikes fighting, and only fights if paid. So the source of the Pathan-funding should be stopped, or alternate-income sources should be encouraged other than heroin. The Pathan has managed over the years to develop a highly sophisticated trucking system, and he has replaced his rifle with truck, and is doing a remarkable job. The entire passenger and cargo movement throughout Pakistan is under the control of the Pathan, and they are managing it very efficiently, at the lowest possible cost. They have also replaced the NLC trucks which were imported by an affiliate of the army at ridiculously expensive costs. Today, by their inefficiency, they are virtually out of business leaving the Pathan to provide this vital service industry to Pakistan. From the American treatment to the Pakistani government, we should encourage a separate initiative without the American stranglehold, and talk to other governments, maybe even India, to break the corruption that seems to have brought the Pakistan Railways to a grinding halt. Without an efficient railway system we will keep struggling with using more expensive modes of transport. Perhaps the railways should be privatised, and let somebody else be given the chance.
It is now time to shut down the Afghan war, and if the US does not come to terms by compensating Pakistan then this spiral of poverty that already has a stranglehold on us will see an increase in attacks on the US convoys, draining the US economy even more. The US position is un-winnable, and the costs will increase dramatically - dream team or not. We, the people of Pakistan, have suffered for too long and are at a war watching buckets of good money being thrown without purpose, while our children have to do without water, education and electricity. Let us talk peace - that may bring the Americans to their senses.

  This is not a Muslim cause, please!

Muslims must stand, hand in hand, with people from different backgrounds, not as exclusive owners of the Palestinian struggle, but as proud contributors to a global movement that wishes to ensure that justice is served, rights are attained and peace for all is realised.
 
Ramzy Baroud

Thousands of faithful assiduously listened as I outlined the challenges facing Palestine and its people. Cries of 'Allahu Akbar' - God is Great - occasionally resounded from a corner of the giant South African mosque. Many whimpered as I described the tragedy that had befallen Gaza as a result of the Israeli siege.
They cheered, smiled and nodded as I emphasised how the will of the Palestinian people would not be defeated. A few older people at the front simply wept throughout my talk, which preceded a Friday sermon in Durban a few months ago.
If passion and kindness were powerful in and of themselves, then the compassion that poured from those faithful could surely better the world in a myriad ways. The sheer love and concern displayed by men and women of different races, age groups, class affiliation and languages was most uplifting and validating. As a collective, Palestine and its struggle for freedom and justice is closer to the hearts and minds of Muslims all over the world than any other group I have reached out to. To garner support among Muslims, one is never obligated to make a case, to justify, or to respond to accusations heralded from the left and right. Needless to say, Muslim affinity to Palestine is historical, based on Islamic principles articulated in the Holy Quran and the Prophet's traditions.
But over time, something went astray. While the sentiment remained strong, there was little unity in the way in which the energy was harnessed, or the consensus galvanised. In their attempts to reach out to Muslims, many manipulated the genuine feelings of ordinary Muslims for personal, political, ideological and even financial reasons. Various Muslim leaders, organisations, and individuals presented a limited understanding of the situation in Palestine, and offered an exclusivist roadmap as to how the agonising conflict could be resolved.
The result was most disappointing. There was no clear strategy, no attempt at relevance, and no tangible difference to be yielded from the support of hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide. In a way, such failure is symptomatic of a much greater ailment that has long befallen Muslims. After the demise of the Ottoman Empire, the concept of Muslim Ummah (nation)-demarcated by real spatial and political lines-was replaced by references to a nation that existed within indefinable intellectual boundaries. This concept was shrewdly patronised by various Arab and Muslim leaders throughout history, who insisted that they -and they alone-represented the political centrality of that impalpable Muslim body. Therefore, owing to the centrality of the Palestinian cause to Islam, these leaders also adopted the Palestinian cause as there own, even if that relationship remained confined to fiery speeches and heart-rendering Friday sermons.
In other words, Palestine, for many Muslims existed as part of a collective imagination, solidified with unifying symbols such as al-Aqsa Mosque, and references to specific verses in the Holy Quran. Such tactics worked wonders, as helpless but fervent Muslims donated generously, or chanted the name of whomever posed as the saviour of the 'Islamic land of Palestine' and its holy mosque. Ultimately that rapport yielded three distinct groups. The first group is largely content with the mere designation of Palestine as a 'Muslim cause', which they can serve through the occasional donation and regular supplication for Muslim victory in Palestine. Another group comprises those who have grown cynical of the mainstream Muslim interpretation of Palestine, and who have become increasingly radicalised and isolated. The third group is completely disenchanted, and thus removed.
Predictably, none of these groups was effectively involved in contributing to a long-term strategy of bringing the Israeli occupation to an end, or to empowering the Palestinian people in their resistant to achieve such an outcome.
Meanwhile, the Second Palestinian Intifada (uprising) of 2000 defined and successfully galvanised a growing international movement around Palestine. In this movement, Muslims, as a group, were no longer a primary contributor. There were a few resulting gains, such as depriving Israel and its allies from reducing the conflict to that of religious war, with Israel naturally serving the role of the bulwark of Judaeo-Christian values. But there was also much to lose, as millions of ardently passionate supporters of the Palestinian cause reverted to their role of mass protest, flag-burning and angry chanting. That image too, was cleverly manipulated, especially after September 11, to link Palestine to Muslim extremism. Many were driven to believe that every bearded Muslim was somehow linked to Al Qaeda.
The rise of Hamas as a political power in the Palestinian elections of 2006 once again reaffirmed the Muslim relevance to Palestine. Hamas' attempt at exploring its 'strategic depth' by reaching out to Muslim countries did not translate into the desired political gains, but it did enliven the more or less dormant Muslim link to Palestine and to the conflict as a whole. More, thanks to Hamas' ability to impress itself as a long-term actor in the conflict, some Muslims outside Palestine began exchanging sentimentalities with real political language. Meanwhile, many Muslim communities tried to find practical platforms to express their solidarity and to aid the Palestinian people, with Gaza representing the primary rally cry.
Unfortunately, some resorted to the same exclusivist language of the past, itself rich in religious positivism. This may not always be intentional, but it is likely to weaken international solidarity, or, at best, relegate Muslim relevance to a group of people whose link to Palestine is merely religious.
At this advanced stage of the solidarity, which shows Palestine once again at the top of international agenda-including in civil societies around the world-Muslims must redefine their link to Palestine, based on the values and principles reflected in Islam. But they must also present it in universally shared ideals, speaking a unified and unifying language. While they must proudly embrace their symbols, they should also understand that the fight is one for freedoms and rights, and not specific corporeal locations.
Muslims must stand, hand in hand, with people from different backgrounds, not as exclusive owners of the Palestinian struggle, but as proud contributors to a global movement that wishes to ensure that justice is served, rights are attained and peace for all is realised.

Ramzy Baroud is a distinguished Arab American commentator and author, most recently, of 'My father was a freedom fighter' published by Pluto Press.

 A mosque near Ground Zero?

The proposed project is organised by the Cordoba Initiative, a New York City organisation focused on improving Muslim-Western relations.

Parvez Ahmed

The proposal for a Muslim community centre called the Cordoba House, two blocks from where the World Trade Centre stood, has unleashed a torrent of emotions.
The New York Times described some of the speech emerging from debates in the media and during protests against the centre as "vitriolic commentary, pitting Muslims against Christians, Tea Partiers against staunch liberals, and Sept. 11 families against one another".
The proposed project is organised by the Cordoba Initiative, a New York City organisation focused on improving Muslim-Western relations.
Organisers describe the Cordoba House as a 'community centre with Islamic, interfaith and secular programming'. Though frequently described as a mosque because it will have an Islamic prayer room, the Cordoba House will be more of a public space that will celebrate our common humanity and further community harmony. Such a message seems to be the perfect antidote to the hate and anger that fuels fear and violence.
Several other mosque-construction projects across the country, including in Brooklyn, Staten Island and Dayton, Ohio, have encountered similar acerbic opposition in recent months. This suggests that something more is going on than just outrage over the proposed centre's proximity to Ground Zero.
Fears of terrorism and its erroneously perceived links to Islam are cited by detractors as their most common concerns. However, the detractors either ignore or are ignorant of the fact that those who perpetrate terrorism betray the teachings of Islam, which is why 9/11 has been unequivocally condemned by all major Islamic scholars, organisations and countries. One only needs to Google the phrases "Islamic statements against terrorism" or "Muslims condemn terrorism" to read a sampling of the many condemnations issued by Muslims worldwide.
Linking Islam, a faith practised by over a billion people worldwide, to the terrorism being committed by a handful of fanatical and misguided Muslims is absurd. This absurdity is perhaps best exemplified in the signage on display at one of the protests near the Cordoba House site that read, "Building a mosque at Ground Zero is like building a memorial to Hitler at Auschwitz."
Former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has only added fuel to the growing fire by asking "peace-seeking" Muslims to protest the building of this centre. Yet she fails to repudiate the hate of Mark Williams, former leader of the Tea Party Express, an umbrella organisation of several Tea Party groups, who angered Muslims nationwide when he claimed on his web site that the centre would serve as a "monument to the 9/11 terrorists, and be used for the worship of the terrorists' god?"
Certainly, we should preserve the memory of the Sept. 11 tragedy and be respectful of those who lost their loved ones. But this does not mean that as a nation we can succumb to fear mongering about Muslims. A commentary in the New York Post further stoked such fears by stating, "where there are mosques, there are Muslims, and where there are Muslims, there are problems."
On NBC News, Pamela Geller, one of the Cordoba House's lead protesters, objected to the building of the 13-story community centre because they will then be able to look down at Ground Zero from the upper floors of the building. By Geller's logic then, building churches near the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City should not be allowed. After all Timothy McVeigh, a US Army veteran who was convicted of detonating a truck bomb in front of the Murrah Building in 1995, was influenced by the Christian Identity movement.
The opposition to Cordoba House near Ground Zero is being led by some of the most intolerant elements in our society.
Thankfully, well-reasoned voices, such as Rabbi Darren Levine of the Jewish Community Project Downtown, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, are consistently decrying such fears. But New York Mayor Michel Bloomberg summed it up best when he stated, "What is great about America, and particularly New York, is that we welcome everybody."
The ability to practise your religion was one of the real reasons America was founded. Such voices of reason are triumphing over the voices of discord.
Despite orchestrated opposition, mosque projects are gaining regulatory approval. But overcoming misguided fears about Islam and Muslims requires gaining the trust of neighbours. Mosques and Muslim-run community centres ought to go beyond their usual religious functionality and undertake a leadership role by becoming sanctuaries for dialogue and understanding, which the Cordoba House aims to do. Only then will the voices of paranoia be relegated to the footnotes of history.

Professor Parvez Ahmed is a Fulbright Scholar and associate professor at the University of North Florida. Distributed by the Common Ground News Service.