Fighting the Terrorists But Supporting Their Ideology

By Zahir Ebrahim | Project

October 26, 2009 | Revised Nov. 03, 2009 |
There is an article circulating on email among Muslims written by a Mr. Abul Hassaan of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada with a very informative title. I would like to respond to that article publicly since I believe it is of much pertinent interest to unraveling current affairs and the justification du jour for the perpetual 'war on terror' as its equally informative subtitle betrays: “Fighting the Terrorists But Supporting Their Ideology”. The emailed article is appended below.
I responded to the article to a fellow Muslim in this way as soon as I had read the exposition:
“Interesting, except that the analysis of causality is incorrect. Other
aspects of history are only mostly right, but not entirely - that
you'd know of course. His sentiments are laudatory, and his heart is
in the right place. However he is not political science literate.
That's why he got the most important part of analysis wrong. He posits
it as blowback, inadvertence, or due to greed. Try manufacturing
terror in order [to] fight terror in a WW IV, using the Salafi/Whahabis
indoctrinaires to fabricate fodder for it.”
This morning, October 26, 2009, I received a request for evidence. I would like to offer that evidence from my own ample prior writings which sufficiently elaborate upon the aforementioned short note in case anyone is interested in acutely understanding why the disease has been unfortunately mis-diagnosed – even though, it all sounds so perfectly correct. These writings are based on my experiences as a justice activist since 2001 and I boldly preface my response in the artistic rendering of a playwright's perceptive words of Socrates during his trial for his many “heresies”:
“Agree with me if I seem to you to speak the truth; or, if not, withstand me might and main that I may not deceive you as well as myself in my desire, and like the bee leave my sting in you before I die. And now let us proceed.”
For immediate pertinence to Pakistan and for acutely comprehending the “insurgency” being manufactured, please see The Decapitation of Pakistan by its own Military! Revised Nov. 02, 2009, after Hillary Clinton's visit to Pakistan and her “vigorous” questioning by the public:
Please see the following analysis for pertinent data on why “Islamofascism”, “militant Islam”, and other similar Daniel Pipes' preferred appellations du jour have little to do with the 'war on terror':
The footnotes [2] [3] and [5] in that aforementioned analysis – circa April 2003 I might add – are particularly noteworthy:
Especially, please see Michael Springman's testimony cited in [2] above as a visa officer in the US Embassy in Saudi Arabia – it is far more than is captured by Mr. Abul Hassaan's naive statement: "interference in the affairs of Muslim countries".
The well written article by Mr. Abul Hassaan of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, implies that the ahle-Saud is an independent entity which the hegemons shrewdly harness. It is not. It is their own creation and they actively sustain it by both hard (military occupation) and soft (proxy client-states) means. The hegemons also deliberately sustain and fuel that hideous ideology of Wahabi/Salafism to continually re-sow and re-harvest the “doctrinal motivation and intellectual commitment” (Zbigniew Brzezinski's words), which the article does accurately convey however. The fact that "Saudi petro dollars" are only in proxy service to their masters' voice is no state-secret.
But the article grossly misdiagnoses the blood-drenched katputli tamashas (puppetshows) being enacted in our nations. The article unfortunately betrays its author's lack of knowledge of diabolical political science when he writes: "the suicide bombings and killings of innocent civilians must be a bigger concern for all Muslims." The author apparently knows nothing of Hegelian Dialectics, or Machiavelli, nor has he perhaps enjoyed the Starwars episode “Revenge of the Sith”. He is mostly mainstream of “dissent” in his perception and articulation of the problem-domain.
Thus, Mr. Abul Hassaan will notably find some things in common with another Pakistani, the distinguished physicist, Pervez Hoodbhoy, in writings such as “Between Imperialism and Islamism” (cached)1 despite their obvious differences in personal religious persuasions (Hoodbhoy is a 'leftist' atheist). Similarly, there is key commonality with notorious gadfly of Pakistan, the former Director of Naval Research for the Pakistan Navy, Fellow of many a worthy Western institution, widely published essayist, Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa, in writings such as “Between Military and Militants” (cached)2; and with Pakistan's own neo-con Ambassador in Washington, Hudson Institute Fellow, Hon. Husain Haqqani's book “Pakistan: Between Mosque And Military” (CFR's pitch, neo-con's Commentary Magazine's review, chapter1, cached)3. They of course, each have their own cheering fans among the colonized Pakistanis, are routinely applauded in the West, published by the Council on Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs, invited to give talks at famous Western think-tanks, and all carry some grain of truth. And all, without exception, personally benefit from their narratives by promulgating the empire's own axioms. And none of them ever tell the entire story. As the famous late essayist and behavioralist Aldous Huxley had insightfully observed:
“Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects... totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have by the most eloquent denunciations.”
I believe that the disease is improperly diagnosed when all one sees are only independent pirates and marauding emperors in a “Clash of Fundamentalisms” – like another famous Pakistani gadfly to power, Tariq Ali notably penned in 2003. To my mind, they, perhaps only inadvertently (to be charitable), lend credence to Daniel Pipes when he so audaciously proclaimed (cached)4: “[It is] Not a Clash of Civilizations, It's a Clash between the Civilized World and Barbarians”. And also only add to the vulgar propagandist's5 purported analysis of “What Went Wrong: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East”.6 I invite the reader to read my version of “Between”, and my equitable distribution of “fascism”:
Therefore, based on the aforementioned analyses, it follows that the cure that is identified in Mr. Abul Hassaan's otherwise notable article, is a cure, I am sure, to something, but not for the first-cause of disease that plagues humanity today: "Unless the Pakistani government brings back Ahle Sunnat Wal Jama’t into the mosques and supports them, the elimination of fanatics and extremists will be impossible."
It is of course arguable that government meddling in religion, any religion, is a good thing. To my mind, it is a recipe for abuse of religion to create a preferred social order for the interests of the ruling oligarchy. That is entirely the history of Islam, and of all religions for that matter. Whose version of religion, or Islam, should a government legislate or support? And what happens to other citizens who believe differently? Isn't a government that is agnostic on matters of individual personal faith a fairer choice for all its citizens rather than it legislate someone's else faith upon everyone else? Islamic states, like the Jewish state, somehow haven't produced any on the ground realities that one might point to as the zenith of civilization worthy of emulation, at least in modernity, despite all the lofty Ten Commandments on paper. But that commonsense too isn't immediately pertinent to unraveling the causality which actually governs modernity to a large measure. Religion becomes a red herring when personal beliefs entirely govern thought – as is often the case – for analyzing political science based modernity which deftly harnesses it. The evidence is empirical: Zionism, Christian Zionism, Militant Islam, RSS, Secular Humanism, Atheism, the list is quite long, and rather obvious.
Please see Project Humanbeingsfirst's exposition of Modernity Simplified:
and the evidence for it:
The recent editorial of October 19, 2009 further attempts to coherently put it all together in the broadest context possible, within which, I believe as an engineer turned activist turned social-scientist, is situated the planting, germinating, and harvesting of "militant Islam":
Mr. Abul Hassaan's article is of course entirely worthy in its spirit of identifying Muslims' own cracks and lacunae which are continually harvested – and have been so throughout the ages – and his analogy with "Khawarij" is apropos (to the extent that it goes). I further appreciate his keen desire for introspection and for searching for causes which make us so gullible. Indeed, since time immemorial.
But the respected author grossly misperceives, like almost every Muslim I know, the difference between gardeners and weeds. Focussing on weeds, no matter how eruditely, is inconsequential if the diabolical gardeners who secretly water it without revealing their role (wit Brzezinski “God is on your side”)7, and often also manufacture it (wit Zionism, Islamism)8,9, are not dealt with first. Their 'ubermensch' mind will always cultivate or synthesize newer varieties as deemed necessary for “imperial mobilization”. The problem is not the weeds. The problem is their gardeners. These “weeds” do not grow to this level of social and political penetration all by themselves. They are nurtured and harvested for an agenda, often times as red herrings. While the spectators' attention is focussed on the weeds' attention-grabbing plays in the left-field, the real game goes on in the right-field!
The excellent book “Dying to Win”, subtitled: “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” by Prof. Robert A. Pape, 2005, lays to rest, by empirical examination of data, some myths about suicide bombings, including that it is primarily religiously motivated. It lends credence to the empiricism that it is a political statement when genuine. And I have argued that patsies and disgruntled victims whose tabula rasa has been shattered within seconds before their very eyes, lend themselves to astute political harvesting by the Machiavelli. One can at least harvest ten in every ten thousand. Tortuous religious beliefs only facilitate in that project. And so does bombing peoples to smithereens, taking over their homes, lands, desecrating their mosques, whatever is sacred to them, etc. Brzezinski quite successfully employed this harvesting once before in yesteryear, and it is being repeated again.
Indeed, in 2007, I had challenged two Pakistani Generals (very recently retired ones of course, as serving ones don't seem to want to spend 3-1/2 hours over lunch exclusively being interlocuted by a plebeian) that I could craft for them any suicide bomber to their specification of ht., wt., eye color, sex, and even size of the unmentionables. One of them had surprised me by responding: “Zahir you are asking too much, I can do it for $2000”.  Please see:
Lastly, my latest book available online as an Ebook, a compilation of my essays and letters on the predictable travails of Pakistan, puts the manufactured 'Terror Central' in full global context. Of particular attention is the July 2007 report titled Saving Pakistan from Synthetic 'Terror Central'. The 2nd edition suitable for hardcopy printing will be available on Halloween Day 2009:
The aforementioned body of evidence proves that 'militant Islam' in modernity is a diabolically harnessed political effect, not a first-cause. That, while it is true that Muslims, like many other cultures and peoples, including Jews, Christians, Hindus, (leaving anyone out is purely unintentional), can surely benefit from some reformation from within to discard their abhorrent cultural and bigoted baggages – struggles that must surely be waged in every generation as the march of “civilization” appears to have continuous hystereses – but only when its external gardeners have been boldly neutered. Or, at least simultaneously neutralized as commonsense dictates. And not before. The respected author, Mr. Abul Hassaan, has got the causality wrong.
The article by Mr. Abul Hassaan, exactly as received in this scribe's email inbox, is reproduced below as per fair-use.

[1] Pervez Hoodbhoy,
[2] Ayesha Siddiqa,
[3] Husain Haqqani,
[4] Daniel Pipes,
[5] Noam Chomsky's knighting of Bernard Lewis: “we know he's just a vulgar propagandist, not a scholar”, in interview to Evan Solomon of CBC, Part 2 of 2, segment starting minute 4:35 to 5:59,
[6] Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East
[7] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Video
[8] Zionism
[9] Islamism
- ### -
[APPENDED article - elided for brevity]
Links fixed, links Added, October 06, 2018

Response to Islamic Supreme Council of Canada's 'Wahabization- Salafization of Pakistan and Muslim Ummah : Fighting the Terrorists But Supporting Their Ideology' By Zahir Ebrahim