Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Killing Musharraf for his apostasy
Daily Star ^ | 2004-01-02 | Ejaz Haider

Posted on 01/02/2004 4:02:15 PM PST by Lessismore

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf remains unruffled despite two assassination attempts in a span of less than two weeks. But the issue goes beyond his physical courage and panache. Given what Pakistan is faced with both internally and externally, Musharraf’s fall could mean major trouble for the country.

Two things are obvious: Someone desperately wants to remove Musharraf from the scene and make room for more reactionary elements; and there is a strong possibility of an inside track in the two assassination attempts. Many people within the system, namely in the army and intelligence services, and without, namely members of Al-Qaeda and Pakistani militant groups, are very unhappy with three broad policy strands that have been pushed by Musharraf: the about-face on Afghanistan, the peace overtures toward India and the damage-control measures following recent charges that Pakistan was responsible for the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology. Musharraf’s adversaries interpreted all three moves as capitulation to US and Indian pressures.

The ideology of a “clash of civilizations” binds those angry with Musharraf. This was clear in the call issued by Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenant, the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri, for Musharraf’s removal. For most Islamist groups, Musharraf has committed apostasy by leaving his Muslim brethren in the lurch and joining hands with the “infidel.” For them, Musharraf’s slogan, “Pakistan-first,” does not jibe with the concept of the wider Muslim community, or umma, which looks at the state as a secondary entity. What are important are religious-ideological ties that bind Muslims worldwide, not territorial states. The umma is an ahistorical concept; so is the effort to purge Islam of its historical accretions and restore it to its pristine purity. It is impossible to disprove the necessary primacy of the umma on the basis of historical evidence since the concept is not situated in history.

However, such an approach poses an obvious question. What is the nature of the state in Islam? Does the state enjoy innate sovereignty or is it merely a surrogate for God’s sovereignty? If the state is not endogenously sovereign, as Islamic literature maintains, then this poses a major problem. What happens if a group decides that the state is not Islamic enough? Or if it is seen to be working against the interests of Islam and the Muslims? If the state loses its legitimacy as the true surrogate of God, the responsibility vested in it for that reason – which is derived rather than innate – could pass on to the individuals or groups contesting the state’s, or its leader’s, legitimacy. Musharraf appears to be facing precisely such a situation.

Of course, historically, Muslim states have acted no differently than secular ones. This is clear from the Caliph Ali’s campaigns as by the way the Ummayad ruler, Yazid, treated the Prophet Mohammed’s grandson. But the idea has its conceptual roots in the way the state is juridically constituted and the manner in which al-amr wal-nahi, or enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, are centrally placed in the life of Muslim societies.

The two concepts in tandem have proved extremely problematic in reconciling with the concept of a modern state. Internally, democracy is incompatible with an Islamic state in the presence of this encouragement to enjoin good and forbid evil at the individual level, which has injected an anarchic streak into Islam. The Islamic state has to be conceived in ahistorical terms, based on eternal principles, rather than as an evolving entity. As Vali Reza Nasr wrote about Abu Ala Maududi’s concept of the Islamic state: “The state (is) neither democratic nor authoritarian, for it (has) no need to govern in the Western sense of the term … In a polity in which there (are) no grievances and both the government and the citizenry (abide) by the same infallible and inviolable divine law, there (can) be no problems with the democratic rights and procedures.”

In other words, given the same frame of reference on both sides – state and society – defined in terms of divine law, neither would have reason to be in conflict since “concern for that kind of government (can only be) generated by crises of governability and legitimacy.” Historically, such harmony has never existed at any time in the world of Islam, which has seen many dissenting or, as at present, millenarian movements. But the issue keeps resurrecting. This is why it is important for Musharraf to take the threat to his life seriously. While no group has so far claimed responsibility for the attacks, the Al-Qaeda signature seems obvious.

However, it is important to define Al-Qaeda. The group’s inner core, which includes Osama bin Laden and his closest loyalists, may have seen its activities badly impaired because many of its top leaders have been either killed or captured. Yet there are two additional outer rings of militants. The second circle just outside that of the intimates is comprised of myriad militant groups both inside Pakistan and across the Muslim world. Most of their activists have had experience fighting in Afghanistan and their ability to network has greatly increased over the years. There is evidence that the Al-Qaeda inner core is now subcontracting operations to these local groups.

The third, outermost, circle involves all Muslims who sympathize with bin Laden’s mission, who are one way or another anti-American, and who look at the ongoing “war on terrorism” as a war against Islam – a modern Crusade. While a majority in this outer circle is unlikely to have the physical courage to actually commit acts of terror, many can be useful in terms of facilitating and financing operations conducted by the middle circle. More than this, it is the growing numbers in this outer circle that could, potentially, turn the tide whenever Muslim societies open up enough to embrace democracy. At that point they are likely to impact the ballot in ways harmful to the spirit of democracy as defined by constitutional liberalism. The greater success of Al-Qaeda would be to create propitious conditions allowing it to make effective use of the increasing numbers of such ideologically motivated people.

In this context, Musharraf’s job is much tougher than he thinks. Until he began to change the thrust of Pakistan’s traditional national security policies, the principal contradiction in the country was between the army and civil society. Given the threat to his life not just from the outside, but from the inside, the president must realize that the principal contradiction has shifted from a civil-military to a liberal-reactionary divide. The liberal elements within the army and in civil society will now have to face off against the reactionary elements within the army and civil society.

At a minimum, this calls for a review of Musharraf’s domestic political policies and alignments, and the military’s role in politics. Musharraf has shown himself to be a brilliant tactician; he now has to deliver as a strategist.

Ejaz Haider is news editor of the Friday Times and foreign editor of Daily Times, both publications based in Lahore, Pakistan. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: assassination; musharraf; pakistan; southasia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

1 posted on 01/02/2004 4:02:16 PM PST by Lessismore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lessismore
Our media is hoping that Musharraf is assassinated. They are already blaming the attempts on his life as President Bush's fault for enlisting his help. (SICK SICK SICK, isn't it) and they will carry on that the Pakistan nukes are now in the hands of our enemies.
2 posted on 01/02/2004 4:05:35 PM PST by OldFriend (Always understand, even if you remain among the few)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Rank Location Receipts Donors/Avg Freepers/Avg Monthlies
5 Wisconsin 101.00
3
33.67
245
0.41
173.00
11

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

3 posted on 01/02/2004 4:05:38 PM PST by Support Free Republic (I'd rather be sleeping. Let's get this over with so I can go back to sleep!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lessismore
Musharraf has good reason to be paranoid. Surely his greatest threats are indeed inside hardliners. What kind of loyalty he can continue to surround himself is the big question in what I believe to be the #1 terrorist state on the planet.
4 posted on 01/02/2004 4:11:19 PM PST by quantim (Victory is not relative, it is absolute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Allow me to adjust my tinfoil hat for a moment... there, that's better.

I'll just throw this out there, to see what kind of feedback I get...

Would it be to our advantage if Pakistan went nuts for a few days? It would give us an excuse to destroy their nuclear weapons. We could ship a division of soldiers in there to assist in "stabilizing", which could serve as the logistical and security base for more active special forces operations in Pakistan, to find Usama Bin Laden. With the removal of nukes, there would be no more nuclear power play between India and Pakistan and India might then send some troops to Iraq. The unrest could also give India the opportunity to settle this Kashmir thing once and for all.

Just curious on any thoughts on anything above.
5 posted on 01/02/2004 4:59:15 PM PST by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lessismore
The thought of Musharraf being taken out is a scenario I don't want to think about. He already has a boatlaod of fundamentalist sympathizers in his military; without him controlling things, there'd be a helluva struggle for power. If the Al Queda faction got their hands on the switch, we may have no choice but to pre-emptively hit their nuke capabilities - otherwise, at the very least, they'd probably settle a few scores (like Kashmir) with India by smoking places like New Delhi. And you know several of the warheads would be exported to their sleeper cell comrades all over the world. Wholesale nuclear terrorism. It seems to me that I read an intelligence report online stating that we do, in fact, have a plan in place to neutralize their nuke capabilities if just such an event occurred.
6 posted on 01/02/2004 5:00:31 PM PST by Viking2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
It's just a matter of time. You know those polls where you predict who will die in the next year? He's at the top of my list.
7 posted on 01/02/2004 5:03:57 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
If India takes control, terrorists will be streaming into Pakistan to fight the Indians.

Isn't it better that the terrorists are flooding Iraq, only?
8 posted on 01/02/2004 5:07:41 PM PST by Pan_Yans Wife (Submitting approval for the CAIR COROLLARY to GODWIN'S LAW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
there would be no more nuclear power play between India and Pakistan and India might then send some troops to Iraq.

I think you misunderstand why India's not sending troops to Iraq. It's got very little to do with Pakistan. There are no Indian troops in Iraq because the US liberation/invasion/occupation of Iraq is extremely unpopular in India... and general elections are comign up in October of 2004.

The unrest could also give India the opportunity to settle this Kashmir thing once and for all.

And why do you think a deviation from the status quo will necessarily be good for US national interests? If India could, they'd take over Pakistani Kashmir as well (again, same reason: elections in 2004) and that would only create an even bigger long-term mess.

9 posted on 01/02/2004 5:14:14 PM PST by AM2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
It is one thing to destroy a plant in progress......there is NO safe way to destroy a nuclear facility with bombs at the ready.
10 posted on 01/02/2004 5:14:35 PM PST by OldFriend (Always understand, even if you remain among the few)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: breakem
It would be disastrous if Musharraf were to be killed.
11 posted on 01/02/2004 5:15:40 PM PST by OldFriend (Always understand, even if you remain among the few)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
We could ship a division of soldiers in there to assist in "stabilizing", which could serve as the logistical and security base for more active special forces operations in Pakistan...

One division in a nation of 150 million doesn't make for "stabilization" -- even if they're invited.

The US interests are far better served if Musharraf can stay alive and keep it in the road.

12 posted on 01/02/2004 5:18:48 PM PST by okie01 (www.ArmorforCongress.com...because Congress isn't for the morally halt and the mentally lame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
I didn't say or even mean to imply it would be a good thing. I meant he is in very imminent danger on a regular basis. Wanna underwrite his insurance policy?
13 posted on 01/02/2004 5:19:12 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
It is one thing to destroy a plant in progress......there is NO safe way to destroy a nuclear facility with bombs at the ready.

Safer for whom?

14 posted on 01/02/2004 5:32:08 PM PST by Concentrate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lessismore
This is the most important Al-Qaeda threath of the moment, and in the meantime we're distracted cancelling plane flights.

15 posted on 01/02/2004 6:14:01 PM PST by LouisianaLobster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lessismore
With regard to the Muslim state.

Any Muslim dictator, with the exception of Arafat, who wants to stay in power and not be the target of Islamic extremists needs to radically eliminate Islam from his country.

It should be obvious by now that Islamic extremists are always going to assume that the leadership is evil and attempt to remove the evil leadership and put themselves in charge.

This seems to be true regardless of how evil the Muslim dictator. Musharraf is relatively peaceful, so he is a target. The Saudi's are relatively peaceful, so he is a target. Saddam was inherently evil, he too was a target.

Arafat seems to be the only Muslim dictator that isn't regularly targeted for assassination by extremist Muslim elements. I suspect this is either because they expect or want Israel to do it so they have a rallying cry. Or because he is so two faced, constantly saying one thing in English only to say the exact opposite in Arabic, that he has a sort of charisma among the Muslim extremists. Not only that, it's probably politically wiser to support Arafat than to challenge him if you are a Islamist.

16 posted on 01/02/2004 6:40:19 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lessismore
It is difficult to overestimate the value of this man's leadership to the future of the world. He has been unblinkingly honest and right about issue after issue at an absolutely overwhelming risk to his life. And he is the perfect illustration why we need to stop prating about "democracy" without focusing on republicanism as its container, what he has called "sustainable democracy," which is the absolute requirement for the future of Pakistan and the entire Islamic world.
17 posted on 01/02/2004 6:48:26 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
"One division in a nation of 150 million doesn't make for "stabilization" -- even if they're invited."

I didn't mean stabilize the country. I quotation marks around "stabilizing" because it would not be our real purpose to being there. We would be wise to go in, under the guise of attempting to help China and India stabilize the situation, but with the real intent of conducting stepped-up operations against Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations and supporters in western Pakistan, where we suspect Bin Laden of hiding. Ship a rapid deployment force into Afghanistan, get organized, then move into western Pakistan.

"If India could, they'd take over Pakistani Kashmir as well (again, same reason: elections in 2004) and that would only create an even bigger long-term mess."

In the chaos that ensued, I think that Pakistan would be more worried about survival than stopping India from getting Kashmir. It would, in my opinion, be a fine opportunity for India to move in and settle the dispute once and for all - occupy it by force. That, to me, seems an improvement over the current standoff.

18 posted on 01/02/2004 6:51:23 PM PST by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
I appreciate your desire to make lemonade out of lemons. And, if the balloon goes up in Pakistan, I'm sure we have plans to act decisively in order to a.) neutralize the nukes and b.) take advantage of opportunities while exercising damage control.

But, to my mind, there is no question that we are better off with Pakistan on the back burner, set on "simmer", rather than find it on the front burner at "full boil".

19 posted on 01/02/2004 7:04:03 PM PST by okie01 (www.ArmorforCongress.com...because Congress isn't for the morally halt and the mentally lame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
India to move in and settle the dispute once and for all - occupy it by force

As long as Azad Kashmir and the Northern Territories are overwhelmingly Muslim, the Indian occupation of those lands will be violent and costly. It would not settle the dispute once and for all.

20 posted on 01/02/2004 10:06:30 PM PST by AM2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson