Apparently, Mr Haq, who is federal minister for religious affairs, was invited some days ago to speak at a book launching ceremony. There, he declared that “anyone who did not believe in jihad was neither a Muslim nor a Pakistani”. He also said that “given what is happening to the Muslims, he was prepared himself to act as a human bomb”. (The quotes are from the DT editorial.)
But before I look at the absurdity of these statements, let me assure the ruffled readers that Mr Haq is all thunder and no rain. During BB II, while fulminating against the government he waved a Kalashnikov before a PMLN workers’ rally in Lal Haveli Rawalpindi. The government indicted him for illegal possession of an automatic weapon and instigating violence. Mr Haq beat a hasty retreat and pleaded that the weapon he had held aloft was in fact a wooden toy! I still have the picture with Mr Haq holding the weapon above his head with both hands. It is slightly difficult to see if it is a Russian AK or a Chinese Type-56 but the rifle clearly has a metallic under-folding stock and the wood of its upper and lower front-guards is visible and distinct from the muzzle; in short, it is real!
Rest assured, dear reader, this man is no suicide bomber. His world, to quote T S Eliot, will always end not with a bang but with a whimper.
Taking on the radicals..The Athenian mules —Ejaz Haider
Mr Haq is a loose talker and it is dangerous to have him in the cabinet. The question is: How does one get rid of him? Certainly not by putting him out to pasture. Maybe, he should be taken up on his offer to do jihad. Is he ready to volunteer
I have a problem with the last line of the second Daily Times leader in the May 28 issue, “A federal minister who wants to be a suicide bomber!” It reads: “Of course, the better option would be to put Mr [Ijaz-ul] Haq out to pasture.” And pray, why should that be? What has the gent done to get grazing privileges? Am I being bloody-minded? No. Consider this.
Pericles, the Athenian statesman, liked grand buildings. He built several on the rocks of the plateau that stood in the centre of Athens and was called the Acropolis, the high city. Among others was the famous temple of Athena Parthenos (the Parthenon). But here I am not interested in Pericles or the Parthenon or even the three men — Ictinus, Callicrates and Phidias — who made these buildings possible. My concern is with the Athenian mules.
What about them? The stone for the construction of Parthenon, as also for other buildings, came from Mount Pentellicus. The wagons which hauled the stone to the Acropolis were pulled by mules. This was very hard work and after the construction was completed, the Athenians rewarded the mules by granting them grazing privileges in the finest meadows of the city.
There was reason for Athens to reward its mules. Indeed, I am told after the mules were put out to pasture, one of them returned to the city and would lurk around other working animals seemingly volunteering to do more labour. The Athenians rewarded this animal by using its face on the friezes.
Heaven forbid if someone were to accuse me of equating Mr Haq with the Athenian mules. Indeed, the very point of this tirade is that he cannot be, and for good reason too. He has done nothing in his public life to deserve to be put out to pasture. But let’s move on.
Mr Haq started his public career with a handicap. He is the son of General Zia-ul Haq and that’s a very heavy cross to bear. Of course, this stroke of bad luck could not be held against him since, as they say, we can’t choose our parents. In fact, if Mr Haq had decided to act in the public interest, not only would he have earned respect but in time might even have succeeded in exorcising his father’s ghost. But that was not to be and therefore he has landed with a double-whammy. This I would have called tragedy if the subject of it were not so banal.
Apparently, Mr Haq, who is federal minister for religious affairs, was invited some days ago to speak at a book launching ceremony. There, he declared that “anyone who did not believe in jihad was neither a Muslim nor a Pakistani”. He also said that “given what is happening to the Muslims, he was prepared himself to act as a human bomb”. (The quotes are from the DT editorial.)
But before I look at the absurdity of these statements, let me assure the ruffled readers that Mr Haq is all thunder and no rain. During BB II, while fulminating against the government he waved a Kalashnikov before a PMLN workers’ rally in Lal Haveli Rawalpindi. The government indicted him for illegal possession of an automatic weapon and instigating violence. Mr Haq beat a hasty retreat and pleaded that the weapon he had held aloft was in fact a wooden toy! I still have the picture with Mr Haq holding the weapon above his head with both hands. It is slightly difficult to see if it is a Russian AK or a Chinese Type-56 but the rifle clearly has a metallic under-folding stock and the wood of its upper and lower front-guards is visible and distinct from the muzzle; in short, it is real!
Rest assured, dear reader, this man is no suicide bomber. His world, to quote T S Eliot, will always end not with a bang but with a whimper.
As for the issue of jihad, indeed the qitaal part of it, all states resort to violence whenever they deem it necessary. I am no pacifist, not least because there is no practical or philosophical justification for pacifism except perhaps in the ideal Socratic upper-world. But equally, why must state violence be branded as jihad especially when the word has come to connote a war that is civilisational and interminable and therefore militarily flawed and impractical? Did the Muslim world not object to the use by President Bush of the term ‘crusade’, and rightly so?
Similarly, the concept of shahadat has no operational significance, not least because while it may denote a sacred covenant between the faithful and God, it means nothing in military terms. Indeed, a trained soldier is required to inflict maximum damage on the enemy while keeping himself and the lives of the men under his command secure to the extent it is possible. As for suicide bombing, this is not the column to discuss its significance within asymmetric warfare. The only thing that can be said here is that Mr Haq certainly is not someone who should be holding forth on it in his demagogic and cavalier manner.
Mr Haq is a loose talker and it is dangerous to have him in the cabinet. The question is: How does one get rid of him? Certainly not by putting him out to pasture. Maybe, he should be taken up on his offer to do jihad. Is he ready to volunteer?
Ejaz Haider is News Editor of The Friday Times and Foreign Editor of Daily Times
dailytimes.com.pk |
