President Trump: An Ally for Dissenting Citizens and Minorities in Pakistan and Muslim Majority Countries?

Source: CNN

We know that our liberal friends in the West, especially in the United States, are particularly embarrassed by President Donald Trump and so should they be. But what if these liberals were more embarrassed and ashamed of the lack of assertiveness in terms of moral support offered to the dissenting citizens in Muslim majority countries?

What is refreshing about President Trump for the dissidents in countries such as Pakistan and Iran, as well as other majority countries, is the hard line he is taking to make them review the human rights and religious freedom violations. Trump has just put Pakistan on a special watchlist for the violations of freedom of religion. The designation was made by Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State. Before this, Pakistan was classified as a country of particular concern, a group also including countries such as Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, and Iran. While some political entities and commentators are trying to portray this action as diplomatic insensitivity, it makes the point the minorities there are trying to make and just what everyone is ignoring. Furthermore, it can be argued that the new classification more accurately describes the plight of the minorities in the country and probably countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia should be put on the special watchlist too.

The administration’s moral support of the people of Iran must also be acknowledged, though that is usually true for any US administration. While the watchlists have been present in previous administrations as well but you rarely ever saw such stern statements, the focus on calling out these regimes for their suppression in such terms is important for at least holding them accountable at least at some level. And not sure if it exactly spells third world war.

Trump is also noticeable in the manner he is assertively putting pressure on Pakistan for repercussions for supporting terrorist groups. This did not start with him though as the Obama administration has been continually reminding Pakistan to correct its course.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The “irresponsible tweet” by Trump initiated a corps commander meeting and a seriously irresponsible series of tweets from Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif which gave an impression that only the United States had stakes in the war on terror, that Pakistan was forced to participate and would otherwise have no problem with terrorists as was evident by Islamabad’s support of Mullah Omer’s terrorist regime. Also, our Foreign Minister was tactful enough to tweet these statements in Urdu language addressing the United States stating that they should not ask what Pakistan has done because a dictator had entered their war, resulting in bloodshed in Pakistan and allowed 57,800 attacks on Afghanistan, offered passage for their military logistics and had several civilian and military casualties.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

He preferred to tackle the more factually dubious parts of Trump’s tweet in English. Pretty smart.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

And our ISPR responded in perhaps as worse a manner saying that they will not do more for anyone. To quote The Express Tribune, ““We have fought an imposed and imported war twice in Pakistan, and now we cannot do any more for anyone,” said the Director-General of the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) in his opening remarks at the news conference.”

Can anyone explain what the fuck that means in response to simple requests of taking action against safe havens for terrorists? There is not much to say when the official diplomatic response to the United States is the following petulant statement.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

It is amusing to see how the Trump tweet has gotten under the skin of Pakistani government officials. This begs the question is if you could really trust Donald Trump as an ally? Does he really take the hardline out of the liberal goodness in his heart or does he simply take such action out of sheer hate and contempt for the “lesser nations?” Unfortunately, the true answer is who the hell really cares?

This actually brings you to the sad and cruel reality of finding liberal dissenting forces apparently having to find allies, if only temporary ones, in the bigots among the Western conservatives and some of the religious fundamentalists on the other side. You can never trust them and you probably can never really be friends with them in the long term, perhaps only the secular conservatives among them. However, it is still better than finding no sympathizer or active ally in sight.

All that we can hope is that saner, more enlightened, leaders can offer better alliances to dissidents in Muslim majority and other authoritarian countries.

We would take one from any party.

Discrimination Against Ahmedis: Institutionalizing Hate in the Name of Love

Source: dunyanews.tv

Source: dunyanews.tv

The recent hateful protests by business owners demanding Ahmedi citizens to wear identification publicly have been a real eye-opener to anyone oblivious to intolerance in the Pakistani society. The protest was directed against Punjab police for removing hateful and derogatory signs from a shop warning Ahmedis to refrain from entering.

It is inconceivable to deduct that these people are calling for such measures out of sheer hate for humanity. It is clear that their hateful rhetoric is fueled by religious fervor. For the majority of Muslim citizens, these traders are only playing their due to defend the finality of the Prophethood and are doing so in the name of the love for the Prophet. The only problem is that such love has created a serious civil rights crisis.

For those who are not aware, the government of Pakistan already requires its Muslim citizens to sign a declaration of not being an Ahmedi for the National ID card registration. Furthermore, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan is also dedicated to declaring the religious sect or group non-Muslim.

The demand for Ahmedis to wear identification, which has been widely compared to the yellow Juden badge in the Nazi Germany by critics, would take the institutionalization of discrimination against them to the next level. Calls for such apartheid measures should be a great concern for anyone who is worried about the state of freedom and civil liberties in Pakistan. This should also be a great concern to people who claim that an Islamic society offers perfect protection to religious minorities.

Religious freedom can be a funny civil liberty. While there is apparently no hint of doubt that all religions preach peace and love, this unexpected exceptional case warrants enough liberties to one side to infringe on those of others. As a matter of fact, this almost always occurs in overwhelming religious majorities, but hardly truer in any case in modern times than that of the persecution of Ahmedis in Pakistan and apparently there is no social contract to keep such religious freedom in check.

What are you going to do when such a force of public sentiment influences provisions in the law and the Constitution? Some would even argue that improving the law would hardly prove to be of any effect, but there is no doubt that eliminating profiling would make a world of a difference, if not the Second Amendment.

Probably the answer to the question of reforming Islam lies in the belligerence against Ahmedis as well. There is a reason why Sunni Islam has survived over 14 centuries. The school so fiercely and often violently represses any deviation to its orthodoxy. The Sunni clerics ensure to establish a hostile environment for suppressing novel religious ideas, and possibly, with the rise of Khomeini in Iran, the Shiite branch has been establishing its own state orthodoxy as well.

In the case of Pakistan, eliminating the persecution of Ahmedis would probably prove to be even more difficult than reforming the blasphemy law. At least not as long as a fairer social contract is in place. Possibly in a reaction to the Ahmedi movement, local clerics have aggressively established the theological narrative to counter its supposed claims over the last century. While such firmly rooted beliefs insisting on the legal definition of Islam would sound fine as a theological position, the subsequent activism for their excommunication has led to the formulation of such dangerous laws.

Some would argue that the bureaucratic and political elite had surrendered to the theological pressure for discrimination the day they agreed to establish an Islamic Republic. However, it is imperative to remind the people of the problem by pointing out that such theocratic provisions are a serious violation of civil liberties and religious freedom.

Furthermore, the institutional and systematic persecution of Ahmedis is the greatest evidence that minority religious groups are not safe in a Muslim majority society. It also shows that theocracies cannot be trusted to ensure religious freedom to communities not following the state religion. The Pakistani lawmakers have very deliberately formulated the sort of laws that would physically threaten a certain group of Pakistanis and the clerics deem them perfectly according to the Koran and the Sunnah.

The theocratic Apartheid state is only a logical conclusion to such a foundation.

The post was originally published in The Nation blogs.