Fmr. UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter Warns Against “Politically Motivated Hype” on Iran Nuke Program

Fmr. UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter Warns Against “Politically Motivated Hype” on Iran Nuke Program
Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter joins us to discuss what he calls “politically motivated hype” over Iran’s nuclear program. The Obama administration has warned of sanctions unless Iran allows inspections of a newly disclosed nuclear site. Iran insists the site has been used for peaceful purposes. The row comes just after Iran’s test-firing of medium- and long-range missiles and before Iranian officials are due to hold talks with the US and five other nations in Geneva.
Guest:
Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991-1998. He is author of Iraq Confidential and Target Iran and the forthcoming Dangerous Ground: America’s Failed Arms Control Policy from FDR to Obama. His latest article in the UK Guardian newspaper is Keeping Iran Honest.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Iran test-fired two long-range missiles Monday, just days before Iranian officials are due to meet with the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany to discuss a range of issues, including its nuclear program. Western powers condemned the Iranian test as “provocative” and “deeply destabilizing.” Iranian officials said the missiles were tested as part of an annual military drill and bore, quote, “no connection whatsoever with the nuclear program.”
Monday’s missile tests follow Iran’s disclosure last week of a second uranium enrichment plant.. On Friday morning, President Obama, along with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, accused Iran of building a secret nuclear fuel plant.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Good morning. We are here to announce that yesterday in Vienna, the United States, the United Kingdom and France presented detailed evidence to the IAEA demonstrating that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility near Qom for several years.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: French President Sarkozy warned that Europe and the United States would tighten sanctions against Iran unless it halted its nuclear program.
PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY: [translated] Everything must be put on the table now. We cannot let the Iranian leaders gain time while the motors are running. If, by December, there is not an in-depth change by the Iranian leaders, sanctions will have to be taken.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Iran, however, refuted Western fears and said its nuclear activities are purely peaceful. This is Iranian delegate Mansour Salsabili addressing the UN General Assembly Saturday.
MANSOUR SALSABILI: The delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran would like to put on record that these allegations, fears and concerns are totally untrue and without any foundations. Iran’s nuclear activities are, and always have been, for peaceful purposes and therefore pose no threat, pose no threat whatsoever. The IAEA reports bear witness to the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activities.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, my next guest was a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq in the 1990s. Scott Ritter is the author of Iraq Confidential and Target Iran. His forthcoming book is called Dangerous Ground: America’s Failed Arms Control Policy from FDR to Obama. His latest article appears in The Guardian newspaper in London; it’s titled “Keeping Iran Honest,” where he warns against, quote, “politically motivated hype.” Scott Ritter joins us right now from Albany, New York.


Welcome to Democracy Now!, Scott.
SCOTT RITTER: Thank you very much.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Begin by explaining why do you call it “politically motivated hype”?
SCOTT RITTER: Well, I think the answer is quite obvious. Look, on Thursday, this coming Thursday, the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China are going to sit down with Iran, ostensibly to discuss, you know, how to break through this impasse that exists between the Western countries and Iran concerning its nuclear program. But the Obama administration has come to a, you know, preordained conclusion that there’s nothing that can be done about Iran’s nuclear program, that Iran either has to get rid of it all, or there’s nothing to discuss about. That’s not much of a—much of a discussion.
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has a complete inspection regime conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency. It’s not been found to be in noncompliance. And yet, here we are condemning Iran for doing its job, declaring a facility, inviting inspectors in. And the conclusion it’s reached from this? That they’re producing nuclear weapons. This is politically motivated hype designed to create a situation this coming Thursday that will find the United States unable to reach any sort of agreement with Iran about its nuclear program.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: In his comments, President Obama said, “Iran is breaking the rules that all nations must follow.” You write that he’s technically and legally wrong. Why?
SCOTT RITTER: Well, again, Iran is bound by its agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency. These agreements are between Iran and the IAEA. You cannot compare Iran’s arrangement with the IAEA with any other nation, so it’s an absurd argument to begin with.
Second of all, Iran’s agreements with the IAEA are—you know, the current agreements go back to 2003 period, where Iran, in exchange for Europe and the United States recognizing the legitimacy of Iran’s nuclear aspirations—that means to enrich uranium for peaceful energy uses—Iran would voluntarily agree to what’s called the additional protocol of inspections, as well as what’s known as the Subsidiary Agreement. The Subsidiary Agreement requires Iran to declare any facility at the time that it intends to produce it, create it, to build it, as opposed to the old agreement, which said Iran must declare this facility 180 days prior to the insertion of nuclear material. Iran said, “We will abide by this additional protocol of inspections and the Subsidiary Agreement on a voluntary basis, until which time the Parliament of Iran ratifies these new agreements.” These have never been ratified, so this was a voluntary submission on the part of Iran.
In 2007, Iran withdrew from this voluntary arrangement, citing the noncompliance of its partners—Europe, the United States—in recognizing the legitimacy of Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s not in violation of anything. Iran is in compliance, and the IAEA has stated this. The IAEA has said that the fact that Iran was in compliance with the old Code 3.1, the Subsidiary Agreement, the old Safeguards Agreements, means that you can’t find them to be in noncompliance with this new set of arrangements.
The key here isn’t the technicality of the legal documents; it’s about the diversion of nuclear material. And the IAEA has a 100 percent accounting for the totality of Iran’s nuclear material. So, even if Iran produces this new facility, which, by the way, is not in operation and won’t be in operation for over a year, no nuclear material has been diverted, there still is a full material balance, and the IAEA is in complete control of the situation. Iran is not in violation.
This is not a reason to panic. This is much ado about nothing. But again, we come back to the original premise: this is about political hype, the United States hyping up a capability in Iran which doesn’t exist, and that is the capability to produce nuclear weapons.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And the issue of Israel reserving the right to launch a preemptive military strike against nuclear facilities in Iran, how does that play into the upcoming talks and how Iran is reacting right now?
SCOTT RITTER: Well, it’s not just the issue of Israel reserving the right, the issue of the United States reserving the right. Remember, President Obama said that the military option is not off the table. Now, if you’re the Iranians and you make a decision that you strategically require an additional source of energy, such as nuclear energy, to supplement your domestic energy usage so that you free up your oil production and gas production for exportation, so you can earn money, this is a big deal. This isn’t insignificant. And so, you’re building this capability. Israel and the United States say they want to bomb it. What do you do?
Well, the first thing you do is you build redundancy, and that’s what this new Qom facility represents. It’s redundancy. It’s a backup to the Natanz primary facility. Again, it’s been declared, no nuclear material has been diverted. But it’s there as a backup. The second thing you do is you fire off missiles in a warning that you have an inherent right and capability of self-defense.
Israel launched a massive air exercise last year, in which it demonstrated the ability to fly hundreds of aircraft, you know, the distance necessary to strike targets in Iran. The United States is carrying out exercises with Israel as we speak. You know, the bottom line is it’s the United States and Israel which are the more aggressive of the players here. Iran is not an aggressor. Iran has not attacked anybody. Iran is simply trying to do that which it is legally allowed to do: produce enriched uranium for the purposes of nuclear power. It’s Israel, which, by the way, is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, claims it will never be a signatory and has a massive nuclear weapons capability—it’s Israel and the United States which are creating a crisis out of nothing.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And what would you like to see happen right now, in terms of the talks coming up on Thursday? This is the first direct talks between the US and Iran in more than thirty years. What would you like to see happen? And what ultimately can come out of this?
SCOTT RITTER: Well, I’d like to see diplomacy succeed. The bottom line is, the more the United States and Iran talk with one another, the less likely it is that the two will engage in hostile actions against one another. But you can’t have diplomacy if it’s a one-way street. If the talks open up with the United States providing a whole list of demands that Iran must accede to or else the talks will fail, then the talks are doomed to fail.
The United States—you know, here we have a president who says he wants to get rid of nuclear weapons in the world today, and he recognizes that a key aspect of this is a viable, valid nuclear nonproliferation treaty. But for a treaty to be viable and valid, it must be applicable to all powers. That means that when Iran signs the treaty, Iran must not only abide by the treaty, but also to be able to operate fully within the context of the treaty. And Article IV of this treaty clearly allows Iran to have the right to enrich uranium for the use—for use in nuclear power. The United States, in citing the law, must be willing to abide by the law, not only in terms of its own actions, but also to allow Iran full obligations and rights under the law.


If this isn’t what’s going to happen, then these talks are doomed to fail. I want these talks to succeed. And I’m hopeful that the Obama administration right now is carrying out pre-game posturing but, once it comes time to sit down at the table, will actually let the tools of diplomacy work, which means it has to be a two-way street.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And Iran fired these two long-range missiles on Monday. Why do you think that it did that just days before these talks? It’s a sensitive situation.
SCOTT RITTER: Well, I think the answer is obvious. Iran is making it clear that it has its own deterrence capability, that at a time when the United States and Israel and France and Great Britain and others are calling the Qom facility evidence of a covert nuclear weapons facility, raising the specter of a nuclear weapons-armed Iran, creating an emergency-type environment where people are talking about the need and requirement for a preemptive strike, Iran is saying, “You do so at your own peril.” The bottom line is, if Iran is struck, Israeli cities will be struck in return with Iranian missiles, not equipped with nuclear weapons, but with conventional weapons. Iran is simply saying, “We are a sovereign state with our own inherent capabilities for self-defense. And if you attack us, you do so at your own risk.” Is this the ideal situation? No. But then again, it’s not Iran that started this game of saying, “We’re going to bomb you.” Iran is simply saying, “If you choose to attack us, we can and will defend ourselves.”
Again, this is an argument or discussion we shouldn’t be having. If the Obama administration was responsible here, they’d de-emphasize this hype, this politically motivated hype, and deal with the reality that there is no nuclear weapons program in Iran, that the newly declared Qom facility is not a threat to international peace and security, and that when Iran and the United States sits down this coming Thursday, that we will—you know, the United States hopes to find a way out of this morass, that we hope to find a way to peacefully coexist with Iran, an Iran that has a nuclear energy program fully monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Unfortunately, that’s not the premise going forward, and then you get both sides behaving in a precipitous and irresponsible manner. The Iranian missile launch is precipitous, it’s irresponsible, but it’s in keeping with the trend that all parties are participating in.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Scott Ritter, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Scott Ritter was a UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He’s the author of several books, Iraq Confidential, Target Iran. His forthcoming book is called Dangerous Ground: America’s Failed Arms Control Policy from FDR to Obama.

Importance of 'Quds Day' from viewpoint of Imam Khomeini

Importance of 'Quds Day' from viewpoint of Imam Khomeini

The Islamic revolution of Iran has set a long-term pragmatic strategy in a bid to launch a justice-based peace in the region and reclaim the rights of the oppressed Palestinian nation. The strategy aims at countering almost a century-long Zionist plot that has shattered the lives of Palestinians....

The Islamic revolution of Iran has set a long-term pragmatic strategy in a bid to launch a justice-based peace in the region and reclaim the rights of the oppressed Palestinian nation.

The strategy aims at countering almost a century-long Zionist plot that has shattered the lives of Palestinians. The proposed peace strategic plan predicts the delivery of justice to the Palestinians and maintains peace in their predecessors land. This would apparently uphold a balance of power in the Middle East region and its habitants would benefit from significant stability. As a result, the people in the region would undertake serious efforts in implementing the ideals of Imam Khomeini led greater revolution that intended a truthful liberated life by snubbing any eastern or western pressure.

Given that fact, an announcement by the founder of the Islamic Republic, Imam Khomeini, to mark the International "Quds Day" could be viewed as his comprehensive strategy aimed at confronting the Zionism' conspiracies which had sought the destruction of the Palestinians and eradication of the Islamic symbols form the holy land. The Zionists' unjust schemes are not restricted to this land but they have also been pursuing an expansion policy to other Muslim lands as well. The Zionists greed policies have posed serious challenges to the regional and global security. The declaration of the last Friday from holy month of Ramadan as an "International Qods Day" served greater interest of the Muslim community and Palestinians instead of serving limited national or ethnic visions.

Victory of the Islamic Revolution and the Palestine Cause

The revolution victory in Iran made evident that acknowledgment of the Palestinians' rights and return of land to its real inhabitants was sole solution to these historical crises. As a result, the people belonging to various lifestyles, including women, children, clergymen and intellectuals kick started a coordinated movement against Zionists' bullying and bullet policy after being inspired by the experience of the mobilized struggle of the Iranian masses against the Shah-led tyrant monarch system. The Palestinians boosted their combat against the Zionism to a significant level by benefiting from Friday congregations and using mosques as bases. The involvement of above-mentioned decisive factors and people's contribution to the resistance movement highlighted the issue on the international arena.

The very first resistance movement known as the 'Great Intifada' was launched in 1987 that continued until 1991. The second resistance movement, which began in 2000, became popular as 'Aqsa Intifada'. The latter movement emerged following the fruitless so-called peace negotiation between Arabs and Israel. The struggle reflected the frustration and disappointment of the Palestinians who became disappointed of any backing by the Arab regimes that were passive to the Palestinian issue. The negligence could easily be viewed among the Arabs head of states during the summit in Jordanian capital, Oman, in 1987. There, for the first time, the Palestinian issue became of its secondary nature, instead of that they threw their weight behind Iraq in its imposed war against the Islamic republic, and opposition to Iran was placed at top of the agenda. Meanwhile, the people of Palestine who had become frustrated of the Palestinian Liberation Front (P.L.O) performance since it had abandoned the resistance against the Zionist regime, and restricted itself to engaging in unproductive political games in order to settle the issue. Another decisive factor involved in formation of second 'Intifada' was the Islam and growing hope among the people that the resistance can deliver desirable results. It was obvious that without relying on people the occurrence of the revolution would be impossible. It happened after previous political games were not able to bring about a miraculous outcome.

Therefore, Imam Khomeini guidance and leadership influenced the occupied Palestine like many other countries. The influence of the Islamic revolution became evident than any other place since the Palestinian Muslims under the Zionists' savage rule had been turned more oppressed and downtrodden than other Muslim nations. Imam's support made them learnt that the Muslim community can rise up inspiring by Islam and can gain victory again. However, according to Imam, liberation of Quds from clutches of the Zionist regime would only require some span of time.

'Intifada' resistance movement did not remain restricted to the urban areas and refugees' camps, but spread to remote villages as well. In the past, the Palestinians struggle was limited to sole social reform and has had never characteristics of a revolution. The freedom activists belonging to 'Intifada' movement believed that the rulers and power retainers could not be representatives of the young generation's inspirations. The frustration among wandering Palestinian youth reached to such an extent, as they were forced to concluding that they had nothing to loose. This was the starting point for the launch of the resistance movement. As a result, the outcome of the Imam's practical politics and its influence on Palestinian nation's movement could be seen as in following events.1

Mobilization of the public and clergymen: Widespread mobilizations of traditional and non-governmental urban movements across Iran are considered a potential power effective in bringing about great social changes in the society. Moreover, by relying on people power, Imam did not pursue the existing norms such as formation of political groupings or guerilla movements with intention of pressing his agenda ahead.. However, by benefiting ordinary existing entities of society, he made the common people aware of the struggle's objectives. In fact, the ties among the Iranian masses were not cemented through organized combative institutions, but it happened through Imam's unprecedented courageous way of perceptive communication, which was understandable for all walks of society including illiterate people. On the same pattern, the Palestinian resistance was formed at the juncture of history when decades long, non-indigenous political and diplomatic efforts had reached to a dead end in reviving the Palestinians rights, and non-religious ideologies had suffered serious blow in organizing the masses and resources of the land. For instance, by relying on masses generated movements, the Islamic Revolution proved the ever-emerging weak points and contradictions among the bullying powers. This issue became more evident when the US threw its weight behind Shah-led regime against people-oriented and the most independent revolution of the century. In the same way, 'Intifada' has played the same role in highlighting the existing theoretical and practical contradictions among the pro-Israeli systems. Such contradictions become more obvious when so-called democratic systems throw their support behind the Zionists' crimes against the people who are willing to take destiny in their own hands.

The method of combat: the awakening process in Palestinians' resistance, as an initial step, resembles to the Islamic revolution in Iran. However, some of its motives were different from the Iranian revolution. This is while the generation of young Palestinians has stepped in the political and social arena after experiencing a humiliating life under the Zionists tyrant rule.

By means of military might, and spreading propaganda among the Palestinians, Zionist regime gave impression that any change in the current state of affairs was impossible. In such circumstances when Israel campaigned hard to earn acknowledgement of its existence, and undertook serious efforts to demonstrate the occupied land as a stable on domestic and regional level, in the meantime, the Muslim combatants in Iran toppled Mohammad Reza Pahlavi-led regime that was treacherous to the Palestine's ideals. The Shah oust in Iran tuned into an important event that helped Palestinians in setting their future strategy for struggle in the occupied land. The new generation had nothing except legacy of pains and sufferings, but they were gifted with particular talent, which helped in drawing new bright horizons for the nation. Muslims' growing senility toward Quds issue, wakefulness of regional nations and Imam and revolution's support for Palestine were positive signs for the struggle. Moreover, most significant was picking up of patterns from the people struggle in Iran, which was previously considered a stable island under the US and western dominance. On the other hand, since this generation in the occupied land had suffered more pains, accordingly, they were also gifted with high-level of awareness, and were able to present a rational assessment of the circumstances by comparing the present Palestinian movements with the past. The frustrated and annoyed people in the occupied land that had been mobilized in mosques and religious centers resisted with pieces of stones against the advanced weapons, and embraced death while smile on their face. This norm of struggle played an important role in advancement of the movement despite the great losses. Even, the specialists of physiological war do not have potential to counter such type of struggle, since it transforms signals of fear and disappointment from its own court to the enemy's ground, and brings destruction to enemy with its own hand. 2

The declaration of the International 'Quds Day' by Imam Khomeini was a good tiding for reviving the Palestine struggle. A brief look at Imam's message will highlight the importance of issue regarding the topic.

In the name of Allah, the most compassionate, the most merciful

I call the world Muslims and the Islamic governments to join the Palestinians in order to segregate the Zionist regime and its supporters. I declare the last Friday from the holy month of Ramadan as International Quds day, and invite the Muslims around the globe to hold rallies in solidarity with the Palestine and in favor of their legal rights on that day. I hope that the holy day, which is religiously, coincided with the "decree days" could determine the destiny of Palestinians as well. 3

In fact, the struggle against the Zionism, a movement based on racial discrimination, is considered an essential pillar of Imam's thoughts. One of the significance points in this regard is that Imam insisted on paying attention to the International intellectuals from all lifestyles that hold common views on the issue. This aspect places the issue beyond the national and religious bindings, which would provide a suitable seedbed for the all-human contemplation on the Palestine issue and prompt unity in the Islamic society and peace among the international community. Imam emphasized that the 'Quds Day' was "an international day and would not specifically be limited to only the Qods issue." 4

Conclusion:If we have a look at the political and cultural issues of the Middle East region, particularly the Palestine issue, we find out that the Islamic revolution found its real place among the Muslims and revival movements across the world by setting an example of civilized and people-oriented struggle. Therefore, the importance of Palestine issue in Imam Words especially delivered on declaring an International Quds Day, is of worth to be contemplated.

The ever-lasting initiative by Imam in regard with declaring an International Quds Day would emphasize on an all-out opposition of the Muslim World against the existence of Israel. This day became a source of compassion and integration among the Muslim World. In this way, a significant step toward the Islamic unity was taken which leveled the grounds for a united Muslim community excluding the ethnic and national connections.

Quds Day launched a great physiological war against the Zionist regime and played a role of the most effective people-oriented pressure tool against the Zionist regime, and forced them to hold back their greed plans. The Quds Day is a big event that undermines the legitimacy of Israel. The each year mark would grab the Muslims attention toward the strategic thoughts of Imam, and would voice concerns about illegitimate nature of Israel to the world. This day also brings a relief to the believers' heart. On the other hand, the video footage of hundreds of thousands of protesters across the world would spread a physiological insecurity against the Zionist regime.

'Quds Day' has underlined the Palestine issue beyond its national aspect and has granted it with an international status. The Zionist regime has long campaigned to degrade the issue as a national conflict between Israel and Arabs. Nevertheless, a clear stance by Imam as a prominent religious and academic personality injected a fresh spirit to forgotten Islamic perspectives in struggle against Israel. Imam's guidance produced positive results, and accordingly Palestinian fighters heeded to the Islamic option instead of nationalistic or western inclinations.

1 Manouchehr Mohammadi, A comparative study between the Islamic revolution and the French and Russian revolutions, Tehran, P.163

2 Ali Akbar Velayati, "Islamic Republic of Iran and the Palestine developments" from 1979-2006

3 Sahifeh Imam, Vol.9, P.2674Sahifeh Imam, Vol.9, PP. 276-279

4 Sahifeh Imam, Vol.9, PP. 276-279

Why the West craves materialism & why the East sticks to religion

Why the West craves materialism & why the East sticks to religion, By Imran Khan

My generation grew up at a time when colonial hang up was at its peak. Our older generation had been slaves and had a huge inferiority complex of the British. The school I went to was similar to all elite schools in Pakistan. Despite gaining independent, they were, and still are, producing replicas of public schoolboys rather than Pakistanis.
I read Shakespeare, which was fine, but no Allama Iqbal — the national poet of Pakistan. The class on Islamic studies was not taken seriously, and when I left school I was considered among the elite of the country because I could speak English and wore Western clothes.
Despite periodically shouting ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ in school functions, I considered my own culture backward and religion outdated. Among our group if any one talked about religion, prayed or kept a beard he was immediately branded a Mullah.
Because of the power of the Western media, our heroes were Western movie stars or pop stars. When I went to Oxford already burdened with this hang up, things didn’t get any easier. At Oxford, not just Islam, but all religions were considered anachronism.
Science had replaced religion and if something couldn’t be logically proved it did not exist. All supernatural stuff was confined to the movies. Philosophers like Darwin, who with his half-baked theory of evolution had supposedly disproved the creation of men and hence religion, were read and revered.
Moreover, European history reflected its awful experience with religion. The horrors committed by the Christian clergy during the Inquisition era had left a powerful impact on the Western mind.
To understand why the West is so keen on secularism, one should go to places like Cordoba in Spain and see the torture apparatus used during the Spanish Inquisition. Also the persecution of scientists as heretics by the clergy had convinced the Europeans that all religions are regressive.
However, the biggest factor that drove people like me away from religion was the selective Islam practiced by most of its preachers. In short, there was a huge difference between what they practiced and what they preached. Also, rather than explaining the philosophy behind the religion, there was an overemphasis on rituals.
I feel that humans are different to animals. While, the latter can be drilled, humans need to be intellectually convinced. That is why the Qur’an constantly appeals to reason. The worst, of course, was the exploitation of Islam for political gains by various individuals or groups.
Hence, it was a miracle I did not become an atheist. The only reason why I did not was the powerful religious influence my mother wielded on me since my childhood. It was not so much out of conviction but love for her that I stayed a Muslim.
However, my Islam was selective. I accepted only parts of the religion that suited me. Prayers were restricted to Eid days and occasionally on Fridays, when my father insisted on taking me to the mosque with him.
All in all I was smoothly moving to becoming a Pukka Brown Sahib. After all I had the right credentials in terms of school, university and, above all, acceptability in the English aristocracy, something that our brown sahibs would give their lives for. So what led me to do a ‘lota’ on the Brown Sahib culture and instead become a ‘desi’?
Well it did not just happen overnight.
Firstly, the inferiority complex that my generation had inherited gradually went as I developed into a world-class athlete. Secondly, I was in the unique position of living between two cultures. I began to see the advantages and the disadvantages of both societies.
In Western societies, institutions were strong while they were collapsing in our country. However, there was an area where we were and still are superior, and that is our family life. I began to realize that this was the Western society’s biggest loss. In trying to free itself from the oppression of the clergy, they had removed both God and religion from their lives.
While science, no matter how much it progresses, can answer a lot of questions — two questions it will never be able to answer: One, what is the purpose of our existence and two, what happens to us when we die?
It is this vacuum that I felt created the materialistic and the hedonistic culture. If this is the only life then one must make hay while the sun shines — and in order to do so one needs money. Such a culture is bound to cause psychological problems in a human being, as there was going to be an imbalance between the body and the soul.
Consequently, in the US, which has shown the greatest materialistic progress while giving its citizens numerous rights, almost 60 percent of the population consult psychiatrists. Yet, amazingly in modern psychology, there is no study of the human soul. Sweden and Switzerland, who provide the most welfare to their citizens, also have the highest suicide rates. Hence, man is not necessarily content with material well being and needs something more.
Since all morality has it roots in religion, once religion was removed, immorality has progressively grown since the 70s. Its direct impact has been on family life. In the UK, the divorce rate is 60 percent, while it is estimated that there are over 35 percent single mothers. The crime rate is rising in almost all Western societies, but the most disturbing fact is the alarming increase in racism. While science always tries to prove the inequality of man (recent survey showing the American Black to be genetically less intelligent than whites) it is only religion that preaches the equality of man.
Between 1991 and 1997, it was estimated that total immigration into Europe was around 520,000, and there were racially motivated attacks all over, especially in Britain, France and Germany. In Pakistan during the Afghan war, we had over four million refugees, and despite the people being so much poorer, there was no racial tension.
There was a sequence of events in the 80s that moved me toward God as the Qur’an says: “There are signs for people of understanding.” One of them was cricket. As I was a student of the game, the more I understood the game, the more I began to realize that what I considered to be chance was, in fact, the will of Allah. A pattern which became clearer with time. But it was not until Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” that my understanding of Islam began to develop.
People like me who were living in the Western world bore the brunt of anti-Islam prejudice that followed the Muslim reaction to the book. We were left with two choices: fight or flight. Since I felt strongly that the attacks on Islam were unfair, I decided to fight. It was then I realized that I was not equipped to do so as my knowledge of Islam was inadequate. Hence I started my research and for me a period of my greatest enlightenment. I read scholars like Ali Shariati, Muhammad Asad, Iqbal, Gai Eaton, plus of course, a study of Qur’an.
I will try to explain as concisely as is possible, what “discovering the truth” meant for me. When the believers are addressed in the Qur’an, it always says, “Those who believe and do good deeds.” In other words, a Muslim has dual function, one toward God and the other toward fellow human beings.
The greatest impact of believing in God for me, meant that I lost all fear of human beings. The Qur’an liberates man from man when it says that life and death and respect and humiliation are God’s jurisdiction, so we do not have to bow before other human beings.
Moreover, since this is a transitory world where we prepare for the eternal one, I broke out of the self-imposed prisons, such as growing old (such a curse in the Western world, as a result of which, plastic surgeons are having a field day), materialism, ego, what people say and so on. It is important to note that one does not eliminate earthly desires. But instead of being controlled by them, one controls them.
By following the second part of believing in Islam, I have become a better human being. Rather than being self-centered and living for the self, I feel that because the Almighty gave so much to me, in turn I must use that blessing to help the less privileged. This I did by following the fundamentals of Islam rather than becoming a Kalashnikov-wielding fanatic.
I have become a tolerant and a giving human being who feels compassion for the underprivileged. Instead of attributing success to myself, I know it is because of God’s will, hence I learned humility instead of arrogance.
Also, instead of the snobbish Brown Sahib attitude toward our masses, I believe in egalitarianism and strongly feel against the injustice done to the weak in our society. According to the Qur’an, “Oppression is worse than killing.” In fact only now do I understand the true meaning of Islam, if you submit to the will of Allah, you have inner peace.
Through my faith, I have discovered strength within me that I never knew existed and that has released my potential in life. I feel that in Pakistan we have selective Islam. Just believing in God and going through the rituals is not enough. One also has to be a good human being. I feel there are certain Western countries with far more Islamic traits than us in Pakistan, especially in the way they protect the rights of their citizens, or for that matter their justice system. In fact some of the finest individuals I know live there.
What I dislike about them is their double standards in the way they protect the rights of their citizens but consider citizens of other countries as being somehow inferior to them as human being, e.g. dumping toxic waste in the Third World, advertising cigarettes that are not allowed in the West and selling drugs that are banned in the West.
One of the problems facing Pakistan is the polarization of two reactionary groups. On the one side is the Westernized group that looks upon Islam through Western eyes and has inadequate knowledge about the subject. It reacts strongly to anyone trying to impose Islam in society and wants only a selective part of the religion. On the other extreme is the group that reacts to this Westernized elite and in trying to become a defender of the faith, takes up such intolerant and self-righteous attitudes that are repugnant to the spirit of Islam.
What needs to be done is to somehow start a dialogue between the two extreme. In order for this to happen, the group on whom the greatest proportion of our educational resources are spent in this country must study Islam properly.
Whether they become practicing Muslims or believe in God is entirely a personal choice. As the Qur’an tells us there is “no compulsion in religion.” However, they must arm themselves with knowledge as a weapon to fight extremism. Just by turning up their noses at extremism the problem is not going to be solved.
The Qur’an calls Muslims “the middle nation”, not of extremes. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was told to simply give the message and not worry whether people converted or not, therefore, there is no question in Islam of forcing your opinions on anyone else.
Moreover, we are told to respect other religions, their places of worship and their prophets. It should be noted that no Muslim missionaries or armies ever went to Malaysia or Indonesia. The people converted to Islam due to the high principles and impeccable character of the Muslim traders. At the moment, the worst advertisements for Islam are the countries with their selective Islam, especially where religion is used to deprive people of their rights. In fact, a society that obeys fundamentals of Islam has to be a liberal one.
If Pakistan’s Westernized class starts to study Islam, not only will it be able to help society fight sectarianism and extremism, but it will also make them realize what a progressive religion Islam is. They will also be able to help the Western world by articulating Islamic concepts. Recently, Prince Charles accepted that the Western world can learn from Islam. But how can this happen if the group that is in the best position to project Islam gets its attitudes from the West and considers Islam backward? Islam is a universal religion and that is why our Prophet (peace be upon him) was called a Mercy for all mankind. (Internews)