Pakistani Cleric: Allah Says Democracy Sucks

The other day the Islamabad government signed a deal with the Taliban of Malakand which includes Swat, the one time money making resort area of the country which has recently been a field of dreams and killing. The dreams were those of Taliban. The killing was reserved for those who opposed the dream.

The duly elected "democratic" regime headed by President Zardari committed itself to allow the use of Sharia in the contested region where the Pakistani army has shown itself to be either unwilling or unable to defeat the jihadists of Mullah Fazlullah. The deal was actually signed by Fazlullah's father-in-law, Sufi Muhammad.

Muhammad is reputed to be a "moderate." His love of moderation is shown by his having taken several hundred or more jihadists into Afghanistan in order to fight the Americans and others of the United Crusader and Apostate Force. After his capture Muhammad was released by the Pakistani government. This was done, allegedly at least, as a gesture of good will and reconciliation to the Islamists.

Due to Muhammad's purported moderation, the elected government of Pakistan assures the US and others among the skeptical that the agreement with Muhammad and, presumably, Fazlullah, is neither a concession to the Islamists nor a tacit admission of defeat in Swat and the rest of Malakand. Rather, the glib government spokesmen maintain that the "Lite" version of Sharia to be practiced in Swat will both defang the "extremists" and streamline the civil and criminal justice systems.

Right. Don't you just feel the trust?

Sufi Muhammad is not a man who is given to moderation. Consider his informed theological judgement on the value of democracy in the eyes of good Muslims such as himself. "From the very beginning, I have viewed democracy as a system imposed on us by the infidels. Islam does not allow democracy or elections." Assuming the German press agency quoted the man correctly that seems rather absolute.

Sufi Muhammad's perspective is not unique to him. Rather it is inherent to a broad stream of Islamic jurisprudence. Further it is compatible with the sweep of Islamic history and the practices of many--if not most--Islamic states.

As a True Believer in the One True Faith, Sufi Muhammad well understands that Islam is the world's most authoritarian and totalistic religion. There is no room in the chains of obedience and submission for democracy as Muhammad and others like him understand their faith. There is only room for utter and total submission to the dictates of dogma and the strictures of Sharia--as interpreted by men such as Muhammad and Fazlullah.

This belief system explains perfectly the view of Taliban held by Sufi Muhammad. Ready?

I believe the Taliban government formed a complete Islamic state, which was an ideal example for other Muslim countries. Had this government remained intact, it could have led to the establishment of similar Islamic governments in many other countries.

That about says it all. And, remember, Sufi Muhammad is reputed to be "moderate" in comparison to his presumably fire-breathing son-in-law.

Fazlullah has not yet allowed that he accepts the old man's deal with the apostates in Islamabad even though he declared a ten day ceasefire. The ceasefire will be observed by the Pakistani army (as though anyone will notice a difference.) Fazlullah has, however, demanded that the toothless Pakistani army withdraw completely from Swat and environs.

The army may not be packing up yet. But a lot of the local population is. Swat has already lost half or more of its pre-fight population as people have voted with their feet. Not all that many people are happy with the idea of Sharia. Apparently they are not thrilled with more stonings, decapitations, other summary executions. It seems that a life devoid of the small pleasures of life is not all that appealing to all.

The joyless, mirthless, songless, school-less (at least for girls) world of the Taliban dream obviously does not charm all those in Swat. So they leave. Leave their homes. Exit their past. Discard years, generations of life, hope, human dreams, and a human history. Better, it seems, to become rootless refugees than face the World According To Taliban.

The problem facing the US and its partners in the mountain morass of Afghanistan is simply this: Is the World of Taliban in Swat going to become the World of Taliban in Pakistan?

It is self-evident that Muhammad and his son-in-law, Fazlullah, believe it will and that is how matters should be. They see the apostate, democratically elected government in Islamabad as a sheep to be slaughtered.

And, with this agreement, the sheep has handed the knife to its butcher.

Surrendering To Islamists In Pakistan And The US

The white flag is getting all too common in the past day or two. However, the sudden flourishing of the banner of defeat is not at all surprising. Equally devoid of astonishment are the places where its shameful color droops over the landscape.

Both Pakistan and the Benevolent Despotate of the American Mainstream Media have joined the United Kingdom in bending their knees before the brandished scimitar of Islamism.

In Malakand the government has signed a deal with the ever-conquering Taliban, agreeing to impose Sharia law on the region. The deal went down even as Pakistan's civilian president, Asif Zardari, allowed as how the Islamists are, "trying to take over the state."

Get a grip, Asif! This veil-less capitulation means that the Black Turban Boys of Sufi Muhammad have taken over the state. Period. Just like they already have done without benefit of an agreement with the government.

In case your memory needs to be jogged, Sufi Muhammad, is a former leader of Taliban jihadists who took on the US and other coalition forces in Afghanistan. He was captured. In one of the recurrent fits of "reconciliation" the Islamabad authorities release him.

Released, the ole Sufi went back to the hills--and his gun-toting co-religionists. Now Malakand in the Northwest Frontier Province joins Swat as an area where Sharia reigns supreme. In celebratory commemoration of this, the Taliban of Swat has announced a ten day ceasfire. Presumably this is to encourage Islamabad to withdraw the army from Swat and let the new facts on the ground remain unchallenged.

Government spokesmen hasten to assure any and all who might listen and believe them that the form of Sharia to take effect in Malakand is a kind of Sharia-Lite which would serve to "undercut support for the extremists." Other apologists for surrender have asserted that the new Sharia based approach would streamline the delay plagued civil and criminal justice system which they aver is a creaky left over from the British Raj.

Fer sure, Dudes. Right. Must be.

There is no way that any form of Sharia other than the full-bore, industrial strength version espoused by the Taliban in Swat, the FATA and Afghanistan will be acceptable. Remember, that while Sufi Muhammad has fought alongside, even with, Taliban in Afghanistan, he is not a member of the Taliban cadre. His agreement to accept Sharia-Lite is most likely to be seen by the Taliban heavies as either a temporizing move or, perhaps more likely, a sell-out by an apostate.

In either event, the pressure by the ascendant Taliban will not slacken. The pressure on Zardari will not decrease. The Islamists of Pakistan smell the delightful fragrance of victory--or at least the odor of governmental defeatism. At the same time India, the US, and even the UK (which makes up for spinelessness at home by tough talk abroad) will keep pushing Islamabad to abate the Taliban nuisance.

The absence of coherent political will makes the waging of counterinsurgency with its complex mix of coercion and legitimacy enhancing inducements impossible. At the same time, the lack of coherent political will makes the raising of white flags very, very easy and attractive. This is particularly true when the flags can be colored over in a mild pastel shade--say very light green, a reasonable facsimile of the robust green of Islam.

The surrender to the dictates of Islamists in the US by the American mainstream media is not so simple and straight forward as the instrument of capitulation in Pakistan. Here, it is the implicit surrender of the carefully averted eye, the unseen and therefore unreported insult.

In Buffalo, NY a man killed his wife. This is not normally front page, let alone national news. Making the story all the more seemingly unworthy of national coverage is the fact that the killing took place at the same time as the crash of a commuter airliner in Buffalo with the loss of fifty lives.

What serves to elevate the story out of the ho-hum category is the identity of the killer and the means of the killing. The killer was Muzzamil Hassan. He is the founder and chief executive officer of a Muslim television network called Bridge TV, which launched in 2004 with the announced (and very widely reported both nationally and overseas) goal of countering the anti-Muslim sentiments which he alleged poisoned the US.

Hassan, a former bank vice president, with the full support of his wife, Aasiya, rounded up the venture capital and got the project up and running. Earlier this month, Aasiya filed for divorce and received a protection order against Muzzamil which barred him from the family home.

The protection order didn't matter. Muzzamil killed Aasiya at the offices of Bridge TV.

The worth of the story grows with the manner of Aasiya's death. She was decapitated. Muzzamil chopped her head clean off. This is not an insignificant detail. This is not a fine point to be debated as would be the choice of a .44 vice a 9 millimeter.

No. The manner of killing goes right to the heart of the story, the heart of Islam. Decapitation is a form of killing which is both sanctioned and applauded in the Quran. It was the favorite of the Prophet. And, it is seen in Islamic societies as a particularly degrading and ultimately final way of death. It is tantamount to both killing and dishonoring the victim.

These two elements serve to raise the routine man-kills-wife story to a deserved frontpage status. Still, the American MSM ignored the tale with the delicacy of a society matron avoiding the drunk she steps over. Head high, eyes turned elsewhere, pretending that it just isn't so.

While large circulation outlets in ever-so-sensitive England and oh-so-politically-correct Canada covered the killing, the media outside of Buffalo and Boston were silent here in the land of free and robust speech--and if-it-bleeds-it-leads journalism.

Why?

One can only speculate. But, the MSM are voices of the multi-cultural sensitive elite. The editors and publishers probably fear that coverage of this truly outrageous honor killing would unnecessarily excite the hoi polloi (you know, the rest of us folks.) Perhaps there is fear in the newsrooms of the NYT or the WaPo over the reaction of the ever-ready Muslim apologists and threat makers such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations. It is even possible that the decision makers of the MSM missed the essential Islamic nature of the killing, its deep roots in the doctrine and practice of Islam.

There is precedent for all these speculations.

One goes back almost a week. The LA Times reported on the sentencing of a man for torturing his children. The man who possesses an unmistakably Muslim name and had three wives (along with the 19 children he tortured and starved) was sentenced to multiple life terms by a judge who reamed the man out from the bench. At no point was the man identified as a Muslim. This was despite the fact that he adduced passages from the Quran as justification for his acts.

(Stop! Wait one! Before you go accusing the Geek of being some sort of Muslim basher, take note that the MSM have no difficulty identifying perpetrators as Christian when one of those sects goes a little funny and tortures or sexually molests children. This is done even when the defendant does not resort to Biblical passages as justifications.)

The second precedent goes back a couple of hours. In what must be the opening shot of a salvo of excuse making for Muzzammil's use of edged weapons, the New York Post reports that Bridge TV was experiencing financial problems. These problems according to a spokesman, Dr. Khalid Qazi (who is both a friend of the family and president of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee of Western New York) blamed the murder on "financial" difficulties. He rejected any connection between Islam and the murder.

According to Dr Qazi, "domestic violence" has no place in Islam. He must be reading an abridged version of the Quran and Hadith.

The careful, calculated tunnel vision of the American MSM does not do We the People any positive service. When behavior is rooted in the dogma and practice of a religion, then that connection needs to be observed and commented upon. Self-censorship for whatsoever reason of sensitivity or fear of organised protests is a surrender of the responsibility of the media to provide full and accurate information on matters of moment and note.

The Buffalo decapitation, a clear exercise in honor killing, is a matter of both moment and note. Silence about it is surrender.

While honor killings are not specifically approved of in Sharia, neither is the practice of such barbaric acts condemned by it either in consensually accepted theory or practice in the courts of Islamic countries. Honor killings along with other barbarities such as female genital mutilation fall in a grey area where the absence of condemnation equals approval.

The despicable murder in Buffalo is a warning. It warns of what happens if silence, or active surrender, allow the emergence of Sharia and the attitudes which accompany it. There are not many steps between the Sharia-Lite proposed for Malakand and the bloody headless corpse of a woman in New York.