Afghanistan Before and After 9/11 from the Perspective of a Muslim Afghan studying near Ground Zero

Afghanistan Before and After 9/11 from the Perspective of an Afghan Muslim studying near Ground Zero

by Fareed Tokhi, December 15, 2001

Afghanistan Before 9/11/01

Afghanistan: An Introduction

Afghanistan (Land of the Afghan) is a mountainous land-locked country in Central Asia with a history and culture that goes back over 5000 years. Throughout its long, splendid, and sometimes chaotic history, this area of the world has been known by various names. In the ancient times, the land was called Aryana by its inhabitants. In the medieval era, it was called Khorasan, and in modern times, its people have decided to call it Afghanistan. The exact population of Afghanistan is unknown, however, it is estimated to be around 21-26 million.

It is a heterogeneous nation, the four major ethnic groups are: Pashtoons, Tajiks, Hazaras, and Uzbeks. Numerous other minority ethnic groups (Nuristanis, Baluchis, Turkmens, etc.) also call Afghanistan their home. The majority of Afghans (99%) belong to the Islamic faith, however, there are also small pockets of Sikhs, Hindus and even some Jews. The official languages of the country are Pashto and Dari (Afghan Persian).

The capital of Afghanistan is Kabul, and these days, due to many years of war, the city remains shattered and destroyed. However, throughout history, Kabul was admired by many great figures, such as the great Central Asian conqueror, Zahirudeen Babur.

Today, Afghanistan is in a disastrous state: the economy is in ruins, its people are dying of war and hunger, and its neighbors are taking advantage of its instability. Currently there is no one group or government that rules over the entire country. The majority of Afghanistan, including its major cities (Kabul, Kandahar, Mazar-e-Sharif, and Herat) are under Taliban rule, whose leader goes by the name of Mullah Omar. The rest of the country is under the control of the United Front, headed by Burhanuddin Rabbani; his administration is recognized by the United Nations, USA, and the rest of the world as the legitimate government in Afghanistan.. Only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates recognize the Taliban. The Taliban have recently declared the country an Emirate, however, to their opponents, it is still called the Islamic State of Afghanistan.

My Family Background

My family has lived in Afghanistan for countless generations, as part of the indigenous population called the Pashtuns. I grew up as a young boy in the city of Kandahar until the age of five, after which I moved to Pakistan until the age of nine. Afghanistan proved to be limiting to my parents - they desired a better way of living and a better education for me and my seven siblings. Afghanistan as I remember it was full of poverty and destitution; however, its people still remained spirited and hopeful even in the face of such daily tragedy. During the time that I and my family were in Kandahar, the Taliban were building up their support and strength, and it was after we left that they came into full power and devastated Afghanistan. Although I personally have never been back to Afghanistan since the tender age of five, my parents and older brothers and sisters have, and now I wish that I may have the chance in the near future to visit once again.

Jihad vs. McWorld

"Gillete's chairman Alfred M. Zeien has said 'I don't find foreign countries foreign.' Welcome to McWorld. There is no activity more intrinsically globalizing than trade, no ideology less interested in nations than capitalism, no challenge to frontiers more audacious than the market." (Jihad vs. McWorld). It is quite obvious that when Mr. Zeien said this, he did not have Afghanistan in mind. The market as we know it in the United States, this furious machine of capitalism is not present in Afghanistan, in fact, only the opposite is.

Economically speaking, Afghanistan is one of the world's poorest countries. Many years of war and political instability have left the country in ruins, and dependent on foreign aid. The main source of income in the country is agriculture, and during its good years, Afghanistan produces enough food and food products to provide for the people, as well as to create a surplus for export. The major food crops produced are: corn, rice, barley, wheat, vegetables, fruits and nuts. In Afghanistan, industry is also based on agriculture, and pastoral raw materials. The major industrial crops are: cotton, tobacco, madder, castor beans, and sugar beets. Sheep farming is also extremely valuable. The major sheep product exports are wool, and highly prized Karakul skins. Afghanistan is a land that is rich in natural resources. There are numerous mineral and precious stone deposits, as well as natural gas and yet untapped petroleum stores. Some of these resources have been exploited, while others have remained relatively unexploited.

Terrorists and Taliban

September 11

Suicide Bombers Hijacking Muslim Faith

The True, Peaceful Face Of Islam

There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, and Islam is the world's fastest-growing religion. If the evil carnage we witnessed on Sept. 11 were typical of the faith, and Islam truly inspired and justified such violence, its growth and the increasing presence of Muslims in both Europe and the U.S. would be a terrifying prospect. Fortunately, this is not the case.

The very word Islam, which means "surrender," is related to the Arabic salam, or peace. When the Prophet Muhammad brought the inspired scripture known as the Koran to the Arabs in the early 7th century A.D., a major part of his mission was devoted precisely to bringing an end to the kind of mass slaughter we witnessed in New York City and Washington. Pre-Islamic Arabia was caught up in a vicious cycle of warfare, in which tribe fought tribe in a pattern of vendetta and countervendetta. Muhammad himself survived several assassination attempts, and the early Muslim community narrowly escaped extermination by the powerful city of Mecca. The Prophet had to fight a deadly war in order to survive, but as soon as he felt his people were probably safe, he devoted his attention to building up a peaceful coalition of tribes and achieved victory by an ingenious and inspiring campaign of nonviolence. When he died in 632, he had almost single-handedly brought peace to war-torn Arabia.

Because the Koran was revealed in the context of an all-out war, several passages deal with the conduct of armed struggle. Warfare was a desperate business on the Arabian Peninsula. A chieftain was not expected to spare survivors after a battle, and some of the Koranic injunctions seem to share this spirit. Muslims are ordered by God to "slay [enemies] wherever you find them!" (4: 89). Extremists such as Osama bin Laden like to quote such verses but do so selectively. They do not include the exhortations to peace, which in almost every case follow these more ferocious passages: "Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them" (4: 90).

In the Koran, therefore, the only permissible war is one of self-defense. Muslims may not begin hostilities (2: 190). Warfare is always evil, but sometimes you have to fight in order to avoid the kind of persecution that Mecca inflicted on the Muslims (2: 191; 2: 217) or to preserve decent values (4: 75; 22: 40). The Koran quotes the Torah, the Jewish scriptures, which permits people to retaliate eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but like the Gospels, the Koran suggests that it is meritorious to forgo revenge in a spirit of charity (5: 45). Hostilities must be brought to an end as quickly as possible and must cease the minute the enemy sues for peace (2: 192-3).

Islam is not addicted to war, and jihad is not one of its "pillars," or essential practices. The primary meaning of the word jihad is not "holy war" but "struggle." It refers to the difficult effort that is needed to put God's will into practice at every level--personal and social as well as political. A very important and much quoted tradition has Muhammad telling his companions as they go home after a battle, "We are returning from the lesser jihad [the battle] to the greater jihad," the far more urgent and momentous task of extirpating wrongdoing from one's own society and one's own heart.

Islam did not impose itself by the sword. In a statement in which the Arabic is extremely emphatic, the Koran insists, "There must be no coercion in matters of faith!" (2: 256). Constantly Muslims are enjoined to respect Jews and Christians, the "People of the Book," who worship the same God (29: 46). In words quoted by Muhammad in one of his last public sermons, God tells all human beings, "O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another" (49: 13)--not to conquer, convert, subjugate, revile or slaughter but to reach out toward others with intelligence and understanding.

So why the suicide bombing, the hijacking and the massacre of innocent civilians? Far from being endorsed by the Koran, this killing violates some of its most sacred precepts. But during the 20th century, the militant form of piety often known as fundamentalism erupted in every major religion as a rebellion against modernity. Every fundamentalist movement that can be seen in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is convinced that liberal, secular society is determined to wipe out religion. Fighting, as they imagine, a battle for survival, fundamentalists often feel justified in ignoring the more compassionate principles of their faith. But in amplifying the more aggressive passages that exist in all our scriptures, they distort the tradition.

It would be as grave a mistake to see Osama bin Laden as an authentic representative of Islam as to consider James Kopp, the alleged killer of an abortion provider in Buffalo, N.Y., a typical Christian or Baruch Goldstein, who shot 29 worshipers in the Hebron mosque in 1994 and died in the attack, a true martyr of Israel. The vast majority of Muslims, who are horrified by the atrocity of Sept. 11, must reclaim their faith from those who have so violently hijacked it.

Afghanistan After 9/11: War on Terror

The self-defining terminology "fiscal conservative-social liberal," newly popularized by politicians and citizens alike, implies there exists a happy medium between conservatism and liberalism, where one can subscribe to all of the financial strategies of the right, while supporting the social policy of the left. My only question is: Are people actually buying this?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not one who expects all people to fall entirely one way or the other or to align themselves wholly with one set of beliefs. My wishes here are not to eradicate independent thought or dissent, but, rather, to reveal the idiocy in this now-fashionable political classification. All of this best-of-both-worlds gobbledygook is downright impossible.

The contradiction inherent in this approach is that it assumes these worlds can peacefully coexist while it conveniently ignores the fact that when it comes down to policy, social liberalism is almost always pitted directly against fiscal conservatism. In reality, these two worlds are nearly opposites and are certainly incapable of being united into a single political ideology.

Being a social liberal does not mean supporting only equal rights for all, common sense gun control and a woman’s right to choose. On the contrary, one of the key concepts behind social liberalism is the idea of easing the harsh edge of capitalism, which in conservative circles attains an infallible deity-like status. If one is truly a fiscal conservative, how can he or she support welfare, affirmative action or pro-environment policies — all of which threaten the idea of unadulterated capitalism and make true fiscal conservatives shudder, but are integral to the social liberal?

It all comes down to priorities. In rhetoric, everyone is pro-environment, pro-education and pro-rights. When it comes time to fund social programs, however, it becomes clear what "fiscal conservative-social liberal" actually means. Excluding the rare exception, these self-defined compassionate conservatives are compassionate until their pocketbook gets involved. Their battle cries are well heard:
"Sure, everyone deserves adequate health care, but I’d rather have a tax refund."

"Yes, I believe that all children should have the opportunity to have an adequate education, but I don’t want my tax dollars paying for someone else’s kid."

"Of course, we should protect our environment, but let’s not burden the corporations upon which our economy survives."

My point is not to invite a debate on these specific political issues, but merely to illustrate the conflicts that are inherent to the two ideologies. Maybe by endorsing this cross-breed of dogmas, people feel they can prove to the world they are not naïve enough to be completely liberal, and they are not callous enough to be wholly conservative. (Here’s where I digress.)

We’ve all heard any conservative younger than 30 has no heart and any liberal older than 30 has no brain. It is time to realize what idioms like this one are actually saying. They equate maturing to becoming self-centered, a natural tendency of the ever-flawed mankind.But even if selfishness is an innate quality, since when has it become an inescapable destiny? Maybe I am too idealistic, but I feel that as a society, we need to retain the lessons we have all learned from "Sesame Street."

Growing up is becoming conscious of your social surroundings; it is learning to share and to empathize with the suffering; in essence, it is man’s attempt to overcome his flawed nature.We cannot forget that selfishness, greed, hatred and fear — all instinctive in man — are conquerable forces. To settle for an "I"-before-"we" mindset is nothing more than to forget how far we have come and can go. It is to ignore what Big Bird & Co. have been trying to tell us all along.
Just because people are people doesn’t mean they can’t be human. That, to me, is all that is left. It’s time for an intervention.

Perhaps because I think we all need a break from current events, I’d like to take a moment and expose the elusive philosophy of the latest political craze — the fusing of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. The self-defining terminology "fiscal conservative-social liberal," newly popularized by politicians and citizens alike, implies there exists a happy medium between conservatism and liberalism, where one can subscribe to all of the financial strategies of the right, while supporting the social policy of the left. My only question is: Are people actually buying this?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not one who expects all people to fall entirely one way or the other or to align themselves wholly with one set of beliefs. My wishes here are not to eradicate independent thought or dissent, but, rather, to reveal the idiocy in this now-fashionable political classification. All of this best-of-both-worlds gobbledygook is downright impossible.

The contradiction inherent in this approach is that it assumes these worlds can peacefully coexist while it conveniently ignores the fact that when it comes down to policy, social liberalism is almost always pitted directly against fiscal conservatism. In reality, these two worlds are nearly opposites and are certainly incapable of being united into a single political ideology.

Being a social liberal does not mean supporting only equal rights for all, common sense gun control and a woman’s right to choose. On the contrary, one of the key concepts behind social liberalism is the idea of easing the harsh edge of capitalism, which in conservative circles attains an infallible deity-like status. If one is truly a fiscal conservative, how can he or she support welfare, affirmative action or pro-environment policies — all of which threaten the idea of unadulterated capitalism and make true fiscal conservatives shudder, but are integral to the social liberal?

"Yes, I believe that all children should have the opportunity to have an adequate education, but I don’t want my tax dollars paying for someone else’s kid."

"Of course, we should protect our environment, but let’s not burden the corporations upon which our economy survives."

But even if selfishness is an innate quality, since when has it become an inescapable destiny? Maybe I am too idealistic, but I feel that as a society, we need to retain the lessons we have all learned from "Sesame Street."

Just because people are people doesn’t mean they can’t be human. That, to me, is all that is left.A friend of mine recently gave me a Plain Dealer clipping bearing the headline: "The pacifists are attacking." Like so many others are doing these days, the author, Michael Kelly of the Washington Post, declared the profound harms of the developing pacifist movement in the United States.

Kelly centered his argument on a 1942 quote from the author George Orwell. Orwell, in a Great Britain challenged by German Nazis, argued that to hinder the war effort is helping one’s enemy. Thus, Orwell concluded that pacifists were objectively pro-fascism. Kelly, proceeding down a slippery slope, used the same logic to condemn the pacifists as pro-terrorism. He asserted, as both Bush and Orwell have done, if you are not on our side, you are on theirs. "That is the pacifists’ position," Kelly concluded. "And it is evil."

I, for one, fully support a military reaction to September 11. I am a Muslim coming from the strictest Islamic country in the world, a country that before September 11 did not even really seem to exist. People would ask, "What country are you from?" To which I would reply "Afghanistan," and often get blank stares. But now that is not so. Everyone, everywhere immediately recognizes the name, and has a judgement to pass upon me. And I can’t even blame them, for I myself would do the same thing. What happened that day is not only merciless, but absolutely humiliating to every true Muslim in the world.

I believe that the United States is justified in seeking retribution. But then why is it that I feel it is necessary to defend these "evil" pacifists? Maybe it was the idealist in me that was kicking and screaming from Kelly’s unhealthily haughty rhetoric, which has become all too commonly used in the right’s belittling of the left.

"Pacifists are not serious people," Kelly wrote. "Although they devoutly believe they are." I rest my case.

Or maybe it was because there is an intrinsic value, on both moral and substantive levels, in the function of pacifism in an overwhelmingly pro-war nation. But in reality, why I felt the need to respond stemmed from the fact that Kelly extended his censure not just to the peace advocates, but also to those he called the "let-us-be-reasonable" crowd. These are the people who might support military retaliation but are not brash enough to endorse any and every form of military retaliation.

"You are either for doing what is necessary to capture or kill those who control and fund and harbor the terrorists, or you are for not doing this," Kelly wrote. "If you are for not doing this, you are for allowing the terrorists to continue their attacks on America." What troubles me in his argument is this now-widespread post-September 11 breed of patriotism that embodies an "America: love-it-or-leave-it" attitude. The logic’s fallacy is that it equates love for one’s country with an all-out support of war. Not only is this outlook incorrect, it is inherently dangerous.

Kelly’s condemnation of those who do not give their unconditional and unabashed support to any and every U.S. war effort is, in itself, terribly un-American. By our very principles, no one can be un-American for questioning his country – even in times like this. This nation thrives on skepticism and is shaped by those who criticize it.

No one doubted that the United States would respond militarily. Since September 11, this has been a war on terrorism. Pacifists, rather, keep their feet on the ground. For a movement rooted in idealism, it does an effective job of providing the nation with a dose of reality when it needs it the most. Does anyone want to imagine where we would be without the peace protests during Vietnam? Pacifists and the so-called "let-us-be-reasonable" crowd have helped restrain our sometimes-foolhardy military ambitions – for example, the proposal of Republican Steve Buyer, R-Indiana, a few weeks ago.

Maybe it is fitting that while Kelly declared the evils of pacifism, Buyer, one of his conservative brethren, advocated an action on the opposite end of the gamut – the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network. Is this the patriotic, no-holds-barred aggression that Kelly wants to see in every true American? If so, Kelly’s America is an America in which I want no part. It is time to eliminate the notion of shame in idealism. We need to reassert the fact that pacifists are not the adversaries of patriots, but rather, they too founded their beliefs in a love for their country and a desire to live in a better world.
However, it is not just individuals in America that are pacifists; in fact, every true Muslim is an inherent pacifist. Islam itself is based upon these ideas of peace and amity in order to make the world better overall. There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, making Islam the world's fastest-growing religion. If the evil carnage we witnessed on September 11 were typical of the faith, and Islam truly inspired and justified such violence, its growth and the increasing presence of Muslims in both Europe and the U.S. would be a terrifying prospect. Fortunately, this is not the case.

The very word Islam, which means "surrender," is related to the Arabic salam, or peace. When the Prophet Muhammad brought the inspired scripture known as the Koran to the Arabs in the early 7th century A.D., a major part of his mission was devoted precisely to bringing an end to the kind of mass slaughter we witnessed in New York City and Washington. Pre-Islamic Arabia was caught up in a vicious cycle of warfare, in which tribe fought tribe in a pattern of vendetta and countervendetta.

Muhammad himself survived several assassination attempts, and the early Muslim community narrowly escaped extermination by the powerful city of Mecca. The Prophet had to fight a deadly war in order to survive, but as soon as he felt his people were probably safe, he devoted his attention to building up a peaceful coalition of tribes and achieved victory by an ingenious and inspiring campaign of nonviolence. When he died in 632, he had almost single-handedly brought peace to war-torn Arabia.

Because the Koran was revealed in the context of an all-out war, several passages deal with the conduct of armed struggle. Although fundamentally Islam was based upon pacifism, warfare became a desperate business on the Arabian Peninsula. A chieftain was not expected to spare survivors after a battle, and some of the Koranic injunctions seem to share this spirit. Muslims are ordered by God to "slay [enemies] wherever you find them!" (4: 89). Extremists such as Osama bin Laden like to quote such verses but do so selectively. They do not include the exhortations to peace, which in almost every case follow these more ferocious passages: "Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them" (4: 90).

In the Koran, therefore, the only permissible war is one of self-defense. Muslims may not begin hostilities (2: 190). Warfare is always evil, but sometimes you have to fight in order to avoid the kind of persecution that Mecca inflicted on the Muslims (2: 191; 2: 217) or to preserve decent values (4: 75; 22: 40). The Koran quotes the Torah, the Jewish scriptures, which permits people to retaliate eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but like the Gospels, the Koran suggests that it is meritorious to forgo revenge in a spirit of charity (5: 45). Hostilities must be brought to an end as quickly as possible and must cease the minute the enemy sues for peace (2: 192-3).

Islam is not addicted to war, and jihad is not one of its "pillars," or essential practices. The primary meaning of the word jihad is not "holy war" but "struggle." It refers to the difficult effort that is needed to put God's will into practice at every level – personal and social as well as political. A very important and much quoted tradition has Muhammad telling his companions as they go home after a battle, "We are returning from the lesser jihad (the battle) to the greater jihad," the far more urgent and momentous task of extirpating wrongdoing from one's own society and one's own heart.

Islam did not impose itself by the sword. In a statement in which the Arabic is extremely emphatic, the Koran insists, "There must be no coercion in matters of faith!" (2: 256). Constantly Muslims are enjoined to respect Jews and Christians, the "People of the Book," who worship the same God (29: 46). In words quoted by Muhammad in one of his last public sermons, God tells all human beings, "O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another" (49: 13)--not to conquer, convert, subjugate, revile or slaughter but to reach out toward others with intelligence and understanding.

So why the suicide bombing, the hijacking and the massacre of innocent civilians? Far from being endorsed by the Koran, this killing violates some of its most sacred precepts. But during the 20th century, the militant form of piety often known as fundamentalism erupted in every major religion as a rebellion against modernity. Every fundamentalist movement that can be seen in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is convinced that liberal, secular society is determined to wipe out religion. Fighting, as they imagine, a battle for survival, fundamentalists often feel justified in ignoring the more compassionate principles of their faith. But in amplifying the more aggressive passages that exist in all our scriptures, they distort the tradition.

It would be as grave a mistake to see Osama bin Laden as an authentic representative of Islam as to consider James Kopp, the alleged killer of an abortion provider in Buffalo, N.Y., a typical Christian or Baruch Goldstein, who shot 29 worshipers in the Hebron mosque in 1994 and died in the attack, a true martyr of Israel.

The vast majority of Muslims, who are horrified by the atrocity of September 11, must reclaim their faith from those who have so violently hijacked it.
And so I applaud those pacifists in America. They have the one quality of Islam that even the most "religious" of Muslims didn’t have while rendering an entire country into a state of wordless, horrified shock. I defend the pacifists, although I myself believe in the opposite. Then again, maybe I too am as naïveté-stricken as my peace-mongering comrades. But these are my positions and, as Michael Kelly would say, they are evil.A friend of mine recently gave me a Plain Dealer clipping bearing the headline: "The pacifists are attacking." Like so many others are doing these days, the author, Michael Kelly of the Washington Post, declared the profound harms of the developing pacifist movement in the United States.

Please view bibliography at very end of web page

Media's Perpetuation of the Ignorance

Recently the news media have been eager to pat themselves on the back, applauding the service they are providing to the American people in a time fraught with uncertainty. Coverage of the aftermath has been extensive, but we cannot forget the many factors that have brought us to such a state of insecurity. Above all is our country’s undoubted lack of preparedness for what happened five weeks ago. It wasn’t just our intelligence agencies that failed us then — it was also our press.

Pre-Sept. 11 Americans lived in a bubble of false security from the outside world. Comforted by our own ignorance, we had no need for international news — nearly all of which covered only chaos and disaster that was occurring somewhere far away. We had no need to care about U.S. foreign policy and its worldwide repercussions. The media, shying from their responsibility to inform the American people, cited this public disinterest in defense of their simplistic coverage. Herein we find the problem: a public unwilling to go out of its way to be informed, and a press unwilling to go out of its way to inform.
Combined, the country became susceptible to the creation and tragic loss of its false sense of security.

Post-Sept. 11 Americans, on the other hand, have been forced to extend their vocabularies. Even despite their previous unawareness, people found themselves with a perfect opportunity and a will to understand what happens outside our borders. Instead, society is pushing forward into the ease of ignorance, allowing its government and mass media to perpetuate oversimplifications of the situation at hand and, in turn, fortifying our skewed perception of reality.

Understandably, the Bush administration wants a flag-flying, "God Bless America"-singing country in full support of its military strikes in Afghanistan. However, in seeking this unconditional patriotism, it has dangerously distorted our condition. President Bush continuously refers to our enemies simply as "evildoers." He attempts to write off the al Qaeda’s hatred of America as an unfounded loathing of the democracy and freedom we enjoy.

The scary reality is that the president’s simplifications ignore the fact that there are tangible origins of this hatred. It is not a fluke. Al Qaeda and other U.S. enemies worldwide do not hate our principles of freedom and democracy. Their hate stems from U.S. foreign policy, which they believe is applied in conflict with these principles. They too see theirs as the righteous cause. No matter how worthy bin Laden and his followers may be of the term "evil madmen," portraying them as such does no one any good. Pitting good against evil might rally the country around the flag, but it does so at a great cost — re-establishing a cycle of oversimplification and the source of our vulnerability.

This has been a time of tragedy, of sadness, of anger and, of course, of love for our country. But most importantly, this must become a time of reflection. Let the thousands of lives lost five weeks ago remind us of the importance of fully grasping the events outside our world. We need to struggle to comprehend both the conflicts in the Middle East and the repercussions of U.S. foreign policies in the global community. When we reduce terrorism to the mere product of insane evildoers, we are only building ourselves another fictitious bubble of security. Ridding ourselves of a skewed reality might be the only way to ensure that terrorism does not become a permanent one.

November 2, 2001A large number of Muslims currently reside in non-Muslim countries around the world. They are either refugees or natives of various different ethnic origins. According to the latest statistics, a total of 400 million Muslims are living as minorities in different countries, and this number counts as one third of the total population of Muslims in the world. Among these Muslim minorities, the largest number, which is estimated at 200 million, live in India.

The size of the Muslim minority population in India is even larger than the total population of Indonesia, which is considered to be largest Muslim country in the world, with 180 million Muslims. However, it has to be taken into account that some of the countries with Muslim minorities do not reveal their exact number for political reasons and because they do not want the issue to be picked up by the international media and projected onto the world scene.

Many of these Muslim minorities are denied even the basic human rights. This is despite the existence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Civil and political Rights Treaty, which clearly provide for the basic human right to free religious expression. In certain countries, particularly the so-called secular countries, Muslims are frequently denied the right to find jobs other than of a menial nature; to enjoy a comfortable life; to take part in elections freely or send their representatives to parliament; to bring out publications; to receive decent education and training and generally to voice their concerns and problems. Muslim minorities are frequently forced to follow the laws framed by the majority in the countries in which they reside, despite the fact that in cases of marriage, divorce, inheritance, legal succession and wills, Muslims are obliged to settle their affairs according to Islamic law. Further to this, Muslims in such countries are often denied the right to their own religious education, and, as far as culture is concerned, they have no choice but to follow the popular traditions of the country where they live.

During the last decade, and following the advent of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, a huge wave of people entering into the fold of Islam has been witnessed in various parts of the world. The statistical dataavailable confirms the fact that the number of people who are embracing Islam is much larger than the number of converts to other religious. This has caused great concern in all non - Muslim countries, andparticularly in those countries in the West which regard themselves as secular in character.

It is in the context of these fears about the spread of Islam that a wave of discrimination against Muslim minorities can be witnessed in many countries. However, these countries and particularly western nations who identify themselves as leading proponents of human rights, are not in a position to take an open stand against Muslims. Although everyone knows that they are trying their best to undermine the position of Muslim minorities, they are doing so in an indirect manner. It is sufficient to mention for example, that Muslim girl students were expelled from educational institutions in Europe and particularly in France, simply because they had opted to wear head dresses according to Islamic traditions.

Besides this, the western media is playing a leading role in branding Muslims as terrorists while similar acts are undertaken by the neo-Nazi groups in Germany in order to harass Muslims living there. The Zionist regime continuously denies human rights to the Palestinians, and the western media instead of offering sympathy to the bereaved Muslims, is doing its best to distort their image and strengthen the handof their oppressors.Despite practicing the worst kind of discrimination against Muslims minorities discussed above, the so called secular countries argue that they have every respect for the religion of Islam and that they are taking very step to safeguard the interests of Muslim minorities in their states. Meanwhile, the same powers consistently endeavor to undermine the significance and importance of Muslim minorities in economic,
political, social and cultural fields and take every precaution to prevent the Muslims from playing a respectable role at national levels in their countries.

The total population of Muslims in the United States, for example, is around eight million, whereas the total number of Jews in that country is between 3 and 3.5 million. In practice, Muslims have been given no rights, while Jews control almost everything from installing a government of their choice to managing national affairs in a manner that suits them best.

Afghan Women's Role as Represented in the Qu'ran

Afghan Women: (Pictures of Afghan women) In the west, the common picture of a Muslim woman is the stereotype of a woman hidden behind a veil, a voiceless, silent figure, bereft of rights. It is a picture familiar to all of us, in large part because this is invariably how the western media portrays women in Islam. However, this depiction is quite the contrary to the rights that women truly have as Muslims. However, in order to understand the status of women as outlined in Islam and to learn how the rules of Islam apply to them, one needs to examine the place of women in the pre-Islamic era…

Islam was born in the Arabia Peninsula, now Saudi Arabia, in the seventh century AD. The pre-Islamic era dates back to more than 1400 years ago. Many cultures, nations, and countries, other than Arabia, existed during that time. In the tribal culture of the Arabs, before the birth of Islam, women were not equal to men with respect to many social and personal conditions and systems, such as marriage, inheritance, or education, among many other areas. Women did not own property, have businesses, or have independent legal rights. In Arabia, female infants were often buried alive or abandoned, and the practice of polygamy was extremely prevalent (Gay 24-25). The status of women during this time in countries other than Arabia was also hindering—in many European nations sons would inherit the name, wealth, and position of the family a daughter’s only hope what to marry a rich man. Women could not even choose their husbands; they were forced to marry whomever their parents chose. If ever widowed, they were subjugated into a dark period of mourning until the end of their life.

As time progressed, and the Islamic faith had arisen, one could not emphasize enough of the influence of the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed and the verses of the Qu’ran upon the advancement of civilization. In the history of humankind, perhaps none other work did so much to protect human rights- especially women’s- with such integrity, strategic genius, strength, beauty and divinity. The Prophet Mohammed freed the innocent from the chains of prejudice, manipulations, corruption, and personal and social injustice. His chapters regarding education, social and political rights, property rights, and ultimately human rights, are among the most valuable teachings in the book of human civilization as we know it today. "The pursuit of knowledge is a duty of every Muslim, man and woman," said the Prophet. With this instruction, it became a religious duty for Muslims to educate themselves, their families, and their societies. The pursuit of education became religious law, therefore necessary to attain; with this command, no one could prevent another human being from the quest for knowledge. Gender or race, culture or tradition could not become the cause for prohibiting a person from becoming learned. With such instruction, the Prophet not only created an qual right to education, but also opened the door to a better understanding (Interview).

An aspect of society that people began to have a clear understanding for was the treatment of women as outlined in the Qu’ran. What the Islamic faith had established for women centuries ago still remains standing today—it is that which suits their nature, gives them full security, and protect them against disgraceful circumstances and uncertain channels of life. To begin with, one must grasp the distinction between equality and sameness because it is of paramount importance in understanding the existing disparities between women and men in Islam. Equality is fair, just, and desirable; sameness, however, is not. People are not created identical but they are created equal. With this distinction in mind, there is no ground to assume that women are inferior to men; she is not less important because her rights are not duplications of his. The fact that Islam gives woman equal rights, but not identical to that of man, shows that it takes woman into due consideration and recognizes her as an independent personality.

Looking closer to the Qu’ran, a woman is recognized as a full and equal partner of a man in the procreation of humankind. Man is the father; woman is the mother, and both are vital for life to exist. The woman’s role is not any less essential than his; by this partnership she has an equal share in every aspect. Therefore, she is entitled to equal rights, she undertakes equal responsibilities, and in her there are as many qualities and as much humanity as there are in her partner. To this equal partnership in the reproduction of human kind, Allah says:
"O mankind! Verily We have created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes that you may know each other…" (Qu’ran, 49:13).

A woman is equal to a man in bearing personal and common responsibilities and in receiving rewards for her deeds. She is acknowledged as free personalities, in possession of human qualities and worthy of spiritual aspirations. Her human nature is neither inferior to nor deviant from that of a man. Both are members and co-creators of one another, as is stated by Allah:
"And their Lord has accepted (their prayers) and answered them (saying): ‘Never will I cause to be lost the work of any of you be he male or female; you are members, one of another…’" (Qu’ran, 3:195).

According to Muslims, women are considered to have a very unique nature than that of a man. Woman is thought of as a delicate flower, whose beauty and grace is unsurpassed, and should be guarded. It should be noted that although Muslims believe woman is of exquisite quality and should be taken care of by man, they also believe that she is intelligent and strong, and should not be made subservient to man in any way. These notions are central to the status of women and the rights they have in the Islamic faith (Interview).

Throughout the Qu’ran, a woman has certain privileges of which a man is deprived due to her unique nature from that of a man. She is exempt from religious duties, such as prayer and fasting, during her regular menstrual periods; in addition, she is exempt from all financial liabilities. As a mother, a woman enjoys more recognition and higher honor in the sight of God (31:14-15; 46:15). The Prophet acknowledged this honor when he declared that Paradise is under the feet of the mothers. A woman is entitled to three-fourths of the son’s love and kindness with one-fourth left for his father; as a wife, she is able to ask her prospective husband for a suitable dowry that she will be given. She is entitled to complete maintenance and total provision by the husband. If she wishes to work or be self-supporting and participate in handling the family responsibilities, she is free to do so, provided her honor and integrity are safeguarded. As a daughter or a sister, she is entitled to security and provision by the father and brother respectively.

As far as a Muslim woman’s financial responsibilities are concerned, she has little or none at all, except for a few of her personal expenses of luxurious things that she may like to have. She is financially secure and provided for - if she is a wife, her husband is the provider; if she is a mother, it is the son; if she is the daughter, it is the father; if she is a sister; it is the brother, and so on. If she has no relations on whom she can depend, then there is no question of her starving; maintenance of such a woman is the responsibility of the society as a whole, the state. She may be given aid or a job to earn her living, and whatever money she makes will be hers. So, in the hardest situation a woman’s financial burden is limited, while a man’s is unlimited.

The culture of Islam acknowledges an ultimate power of women- their sexuality and beauty. In order to curb this power, to increase the respect for women, and keep their morality pure, Muslim women are almost always associated with an old tradition known as the "veil". It is central to the Islamic faith that the women should cover herself with the veil of honor, chastity, dignity, integrity, and purity. She should refrain from all deeds and gestures that may stir the passions of people other than her legitimate husband or cause evil suspicion of her morality. A Muslim woman is warned not to display her charms or expose her physical attraction before strangers. The veil, which she must wear, is one that can save her soul from weakness, her mind from indulgence, her eyes from lustful looks, and her personality from demoralization. Islam is not trying to restrict women by making them cover themselves with the veil, but it is most concerned with the integrity of a woman, with the safeguarding of her morale and with the protection of her character and personality (Qu’ran, 24:30-31).

Another effort to curb the power of a woman’s sexuality is in the Mosque, a Muslim temple; women are required to be separated from the men, and stand behind the men during mass prayers. The standing of a woman in prayers behind a man does not indicate in any sense that she is inferior to him. A woman, as already mentioned, is exempt from attending congregational prayers that are obligatory on man. But if she does attend, she must stand in separate lines made up of women exclusively. This is a regulation of discipline in prayers, and not a classification of importance. In men’s rows the head of state stands shoulder to shoulder to the pauper. Men of the highest ranks in society stand in prayer side by side with other men of the lowest ranks. The order of lines in prayers is introduced to help every one to concentrate in his meditation. It is very important because Muslim prayers are not simply chanting; they involve actions, motions, standing, bowing, or prostration, etc. If men were to mix with women in the same lines, it is possible that something may be distracting or disturbing. The mind will become occupied by something alien to prayer and derailed from the clear path of meditation. The result will be a loss of the purpose of prayers, besides an offense of adultery committed by the eye, because the eye, by looking at forbidden things, can be guilty of adultery as much as the heart itself. Moreover, no Muslim man or woman is allowed during prayers to touch the body of another persona of the opposite sex. If men and women stand side by side in prayer they cannot avoid touching each other. Furthermore, when a woman is praying in front of a man or beside him, it is very likely that any part of her dressed body may become uncovered after a certain motion of bowing or prostrating. The man’s eye may happen to be looking at the uncovered part, with the result that she will be embarrassed and he will be exposed to distraction or possibly evil thoughts. So, to avoid any embarrassment and distraction to help concentrate on mediation and pure thoughts, to sustain harmony and order among worshippers, to fulfill the true purposes of prayers, Islam has ordained the organization of rows, whereby men stand in front lines, and women behind the children.

A profound right of women in Islam is that they are entitled to freedom of expression as much as men are. A woman’s sound opinions are taken into consideration and cannot be disregarded just because she happens to belong to the female sex. It is reported in the Qu’ran and history that a woman not only expressed her opinion freely but also argued and participated in serious discussions with the Prophet himself as well as with other Muslim leaders:
"God has heard the words of her who pleaded with you against her husband and made her plaint to God. God has heard what you two said to each other. God hears all and observes all." (Qu’ran, 58:1-4).

Historical records show that women participated in public life with the early Muslims, especially in times of emergencies. Women used to accompany the Muslim armies engaged in battles to nurse the wounded, prepare supplies, serve the warriors, and so on. They were not shut behind iron bars or considered worthless creatures and deprived of souls, as was done in pre-islamic times. Time and again, Islam has taken all measures to safeguard the rights of women and put them into practical and integral articles of Faith. It never tolerates those who are inclined to discriminate against a woman; time and again, the Qu’ran reproaches those who used to believe women are inferior to men:

"And they assign daughters for Allah. - Glory be to Him! - and for themselves (sons) they desire! When news is brought to one of them, of (the birth of) a female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief! With shame does he hide himself from his people, because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain it on (sufferance and) contempt, or bury it in the dust? Ah! what an evil (choice) they decide on?" (Qu’ran, 16:57-59).

"What! For you the male sex, and for Him, the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair!" (Qu’ran, 53:21-22).

It is not the tone of Islam to brand woman as the product of the devil or the seed of evil. Nor does the Qu’ran place man as the dominant lord of woman who has no choice but to surrender to his dominance. Never in history of Islam has any Muslim doubted the human status of woman or her possession of soul and other fine spiritual qualities. Unlike Judeo-Christian beliefs, Islam does not blame Eve alone for the First Sin. The Qu’ran makes it very clear that both Adam and Eve were tempted; they both sinned; that God’s pardon was granted to both after their repentance, and that God addressed them jointly. In fact, the Qu’ran gives the impression that Adam was more to blame for that First Sin from which prejudice emerged against woman and suspicion of her deeds. But Islam does not justify such prejudice or suspicion because, according the Qu’ran, both Adam and Eve were equally in error, and if one is to blame Eve one should blame Adam as much or even more:
"Then We said: ‘O Adam! verily, this is an enemy to thee and thy wife: so let him not get you both out of the Garden, so that thou art landed in misery. There is therein (enough provision) for thee not to go hungry nor to go naked, nor to suffer from thirst, nor from the sun's heat.’ But Satan whispered evil to him: he said, ‘O Adam! shall I lead thee to the Tree of Eternity and to a kingdom that never decays?’ In the result, they both ate of the tree, and so their nakedness appeared to them: they began to sew together, for their covering, leaves from the Garden: thus did Adam disobey his Lord, and allow himself to be seduced." (Qu’ran, 20:117-123).

It is clear that the status of woman in Islam is undoubtedly high and realistically suitable to her nature. Her rights and duties are equal to those of a man but not necessarily or absolutely identical with them. If she is deprived of one thing in some aspect, she is fully compensated for it with more things in many other aspects. The fact that she belongs to the female sex has no bearing on her human status or independent personality, and it is no basis for justification of prejudice against her or injustice to her as a person. Islam gives her as much as is required of her. Her rights match beautifully with her duties. The balance and harmony between rights and obligations is maintained, and no side overweighs the other. The whole status of a woman is given clearly in the Qu’ranic verse which may be translated as follows:
"And woman shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but man have a degree of advantage over them." (2:228).

This degree is not a title of supremacy or an authorization of dominance over her. It is to correspond with the extra responsibilities of man and give him some compensation for his unlimited liabilities. It is these extra burdens of a man that gives him a degree over a woman in some economic aspects. It is not a higher degree in humanity, justice, or character. Nor is it an ascendancy of one over the other by suppression of one by the other. It is a distribution of Allah’s abundance according to the needs of the nature of which God is the Maker. And, according to the decree of Islam, He knows best what is good for a woman and what is good for a man; Allah speaks the absolute truth when He declared:
"Mankind! Reverence to your Guardian-Lord, Who created you from a single person, and created of like nature his mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women" (4:1).

Islam is a religion in which the standard for superiority is the level of one’s knowledge, where human beings were created in the best figure, and thus where advancing knowledge is a duty. According to Islam, the human being has the potential to ascend to the level of the Divine. Islam is a religion where your temple is not a building but your heart; your preacher is not a priest but your intellect (Interview). In Islam, ignorance is an unforgivable sin, so is your evasion of responsibility for yourself as well as towards all the members of the living world, woman and man.

Please view bibliography at very end of web page

Overarching Social Commentary

"All work is honorable, art is just a job, let me spend my paycheck on a beer. No heroes, no leaders, no artists, no gods. I'm a worker, you're a worker, wouldn't you like to be a worker, too?"

I believe these words, penned nine years ago by the Columbus band, The New Bomb Turks, are just as relevant today.
You see, I have a tremendous faith in people; faith they can think for themselves, act compassionately toward each other and maximize their capabilities in the manner most suited to their own lives. Where this tendency falters, however, is in society's imposed expectations, roles and restrictive measures separating us from each other and confining our desires.
As the lyrics above suggest, we are all workers…or artists…or teachers.

We can be virtually anything we want to be, as long as we are able to resist the societal forces telling us otherwise. This is not to say we all can succeed in this society if we try hard enough, for resistance is not a simple task. Countless social, economic and political factors prevent the achievement of goals and discourage deviation from the prescribed course of social action.

Yet I believe that people, when provided with the opportunity to do so, can act in a constructive manner, through which a meaningful existence can be sought.

However, our society encourages the destruction of social ties and withdrawal of participation from the public arena. Whether in the form of seeking entertainment through television viewing, the decreasing amount of public space available for communal interaction or representative government, we are encouraged to yield to authority, consume rather than create, and isolate from each other.

All are ways in which we are spectators in our own lives, divided and compartmentalized into social categories, rarely interacting beyond these groups' boundaries.

A French philosopher, Guy Debord, described this as "The Society of the Spectacle," referring to the shift in modern, industrialized societies toward a passive existence, void of creative impulse and social interaction.

Although this might sound harsh or cynical, it is actually a deeply humanitarian view of the potential for people to embrace an active and meaningful life. The philosophical tenets of Debord’s ideas, rooted in the position of situationism, follow the notion of "life as art."Virtually all our actions have the potential for creativity and social beauty. I cannot even begin to describe the countless instances where I have witnessed people act on creative impulses they never believed they had or complete a seemingly impossible task without formal training to do so.

These examples are everywhere, though you wouldn’t uncover them listening to the general social tide. We constantly are told to seek the advice of the expert, voice our concerns to our representatives and listen to the music or view the art created for us to consume.

All involve the relegation of power to others, ultimately serving to inhibit ourselves from accomplishing whatever self-fulfilling goals we may have.
I’m sure some might consider the opposite to be purely hedonistic. My only response to this contention is to ask if this is negative.

While we certainly would not encourage the achievement of goals at the expense of others, what could be so awful about a society in which people are valued for their individual contributions and encouraged to participate in the decisions that directly affect their lives?
While we all have unique capabilities and tend to specialize in those areas in which these qualifications can be maximized, we also need to understand the power of examining our potential in full, regardless of socially constructed roles and limitations.

Yes, all work is honorable, and art is just a job.

It’s time we start rejecting attempts to state the contrary and rewarding attempts to affirm people as heroes, leaders, artists and gods to themselves.
"What's the difference between the tortured artist or the union Joe?"

Nothing.

Bibliography

“About Islam and Muslims: Jihad Explained.” http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/jargon/jihad2.htm. 3 November 2001.
“Abusing the Word Islam” http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/. 3 November 2001.
“Afghan-network.net: Afghanistan @ Culture.” http://www.afghan-network.net/Culture/. 4 November 2001.
“Afghanistan Online: Online Politics.” http://www.afghan-web.com/politics/. 2 November 2001.
“Afghanistan Peace Organization.” http://www.afghanistan.org/. 4 November 2001.

“Afghanistan News Service.” http://fermat.stmarys-ca.edu/~twafa/. 2 November 2001.
“Afghanistan Voice.” http://www.afghanistanvoice.org/. 4 November 2001.
“Al-Islam.” http://www.al-islam.org/. 3 November 2001.
“Amnesty International: Afghanistan (the Islamic State of).” http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/countries/indx311.htm. 2 November 2001.
“Brief Illustrated Guide To Understanding Islam.” http://www.islam-guide.com/. 3 November 2001.
Bryce, James Viscount. Race Sentiment as a Factor in History. London: University of London Press, 1973.
Corrigan, J.W. Scientific Aspects of the Race Problem. New York: Van Rees Publishers, 1986.
Gay, Peter. Modern Europe. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1973.
Homa, Tokhi. Personal Interview. 7 Nov. 2001.
“Hezb-e-Islami Afghanistan.” http://www.hezb-e-islami.org/. 3 November 2001.
“Images of Afghanistan in 1976-78.” http://geoimages.berkeley.edu/GeoImages/Powell/PowellAfghan.html. 3 November 2001.
“Indian Express: US Strikes Afghanistan.” http://www.expressindia.com/fullcoverage.php?coverage_id=11. 4 November 2001.

“Islam 101.” http://www.islam101.com/. 5 November 2001.
“Islam and Jesus.” http://www.islam-101.org/. 5 November 2001.
“Islam For Today” http://www.islamfortoday.com/. 5 November 2001.
“Islam Glossary.” http://www.megastories.com/islam/glossary/glossary.htm. 3 November 2001.
“Islam Online.” http://www.islam-online.net. 5 November 2001.
“Islam Questions & Answers.” http://www.islam-qa.com. 5 November 2001.
“Islam-usa.com.” http://www.islam-usa.com/. 5 November 2001.
“Islam Web.” http://www.islamweb.net. 3 November 2001.
“Islamic Studies, Islam, Arabic, and Religion.” http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/. 5 November 2001.
“Nida'ul Islam.” http://www.islam.org.au/. 5 November 2001.
“Political Islam Glossary: Jihad and Holy War.” http://www.megastories.com/islam/glossary/jihad.htm. 5 November 2001.

“Political Resources on the Net – Afghanistan.” http://www.agora.stm.it/politic/afghanistan.htm. 2 November 2001.
“Practice and Faith of Islam.” http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/practices.html. 3 November 2001.
“Radio Voice of Afghanistan.” http://rvoa.afghanistan.org/. 4 November 2001.
“ReligiousTolerance.org: Islam” http://www.religioustolerance.org/islam.htm. 3 November 2001.
Shakir, Mahomodali. Koran. Dubai: A. Aza Khana-E-Zahra, 1985.
“Society for the Preservation of Afghanistan's Cultural Heritage.” http://www.col.com.pk/~afghan/. 4 November 2001.
“Special Report: Afghanistan.” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/afghanistan/index.html. 3 November 2001.
“Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia.” http://www.salon.com/books/review/2000/04/06/rashid/. 3 November 2001.
“Understanding Islam.” http://www.understanding-islam.com/. 3 November 2001.
“Washingtonpost.com: Afghanistan.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/afghanistan/front.html. 4 November 2001.
“Women's Health and Human Rights in Afghanistan.” http://www.amaassn.org/special/womh/library/readroom/vol_280/jsc80298.htm. 4 November 2001.