View Point                                                                         Abid Ullah Jan

The Qur'an is the "threat"

if anyone has reservations to the fact that no amount of "moderation," "enlightened moderation," or, in plain words, dilution of Islam will ever please the 21st century crusaders, he must read November 14 lead editorial of the New York Times.

It reveals the mentality at work behind the ongoing struggle in the name of democracy and war on terrorism. The 308 words editorial is sufficient for shattering philosophy of the neo-mods of Islam who still have doubts to believe that terrorism, fundamentalism, Islamism and a whole lot of such rancid notions are just ruses for alienating Muslims from the Qur'an.

Commenting on the constitution formulating efforts in Afghanistan, the New York Times writes that the draft includes some "promising aspirations…but there are also troubling aspects of this crucial document."

It is a happy occasion for the editors to see that the "document does not invoke Shari'ah," because they believe "among other restrictions, [it] does not tolerate dissent." These words tempt one to simply ask the editorial board of the NY Times: Of what use is dissent in a "democracy" when it does not hold its "democratically elected" leaders from going to war on the basis of chicanery, lies and deceit?

The answer is simple. The New York Times is not talking about dissent to the ways the "democratic" government of a few elite rules the majority with lies and deception. The dissent the paper is talking about is the dissent to accept the Qur'an "the final manifesto of God" like Irshad Manji. The dissent to New York Times is what Abdullahi An-Na`im is engaged in by rejecting parts of the Qur'an revealed in Madina.

The portions that are revealed in Madina, in his view, give rise to discrimination by placing the solidarity of male Muslims above women and non-Muslims. To remove these "contradictions" he proposes the application of reverse naskh, i.e. the abrogation of the portions of the Qur'an revealed in Madina that contradict the earlier parts. [1] That is what the New York Times wants.

Problem with parts of the Qur'an is what the neo-cons, the Evangelicals and now recently Vatican are highlighting. This is what Daniel Pipes never tires of regurgitating. This is what Bush has proved he believes in through his going to all extremes to ensure Pipes's controversial nomination. Rejecting parts of the Qur'an by proving them irrelevant to present day realities is all the "enlightened moderation" is all about. This is what the New York Times has boldly brought to the "mainstream" media through its November 14 editorial.

What hurt NY Times the most is: "it [Afghanistan's proposed constitution] says that no law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam. And it says the members of the Supreme Court should be educated in either civil law or Islamic law, a provision that raises the possibility of more judges who base their rulings on the Koran rather than civil law."

So, basing "rulings on the Koran" is the problem. In other words, Muslims have to accept laws, norms and standards which clearly contradict the Qur'an. Basing "ruling on the Qur'an" is a problem because it jeopardizes "the protection of core human rights in this document."

The paper appeals the United Nations and American officials "to push for language" that does not refer to the Qur'an. Then it extends its appeal to the so-called international community: "The time is right for the international community to weigh in. This constitution must provide an enduring promise to all the Afghan people that their most basic freedoms are inalienable, not to be granted or withdrawn easily by a government, its courts or its religious leaders," as if any reference to the Qur'an directly undermines the "most basic freedoms."

The point to note is that the grave concerns shown and the appeals made to UN, international community and US authorities in November 14 editorial of the New York Times are not the result of any direct threat of terrorism against the US, the "curse" of Wahabi-ism or any other misinterpreted "brand of Islam," calls for Jihad against the US, or any other such propaganda themes that have been made the cornerstones of the war on Islam. It directly calls the world to help alienate Afghans from the Qur'an.

They cannot be liberated; they cannot live free lives and their rights cannot be guaranteed unless every reference to the Qur'an is eliminated from their constitution. The Qur'an is what the Afghans can read in privacy at home for blessings, but any attempt to practically implement its guidance and live life in the light of its guidance is a threat to the world order as envisaged by the US for itself and its allies.

In the end, all liberalism and all enlightened moderation have clearly boiled down to saying good bye to the Qur'an. The same idea is being promoted for application in Iraq. Both Saudi government and opposition are being presented as evil. Eyes are set on Syria and Iran and the marriage of convenience with Pakistan would not last any longer. Madrassas have already been demonized to the maximum possible extent. Only their physical destruction is awaited, which in the light of prevailing propaganda would hardly raise any voice of protest.

After success in Afghanistan and Iraq, others will join the New York Times to force the rest of the Muslim world into saying good-bye to the Qur'an. Are Muslims, irrespective of the artificial divisions, ready to accept rejection of the Qur'an as demanded by the New York Times?