On being called an Islamophobe

On twitter, someone tweeted in response to current Taliban infighting,

"From 1990-1994/5, we remember intense infighting when the Mujahdis+backers killed each other for the glory of Islam."

I asked

"Does it make more sense for them to instead kill Afghans and Indians during 1987-2016 for the glory of Islam?"

He replied

"No it doesn't and perhaps if your questions would be less toxic one could even have a conversation."

I replied

" I am not the person to have a conversation about it, as I am not Muslim."

"The concept of killing for Islam is toxic&not a conversation starter with a non Muslim like me whose only role is to be corpse."

He replied

"Your tweets are nothing but toxic cliches about Islam, Muslims, Pakistanis, etc.  My condolences for a mind that had potential."

"This person thinks that all non-Muslims are considered as corpses by Muslims. Islamophobia at its worst. "

Actually, I didn't say all Muslims think of non-Muslims as corpses. I said that, in a conversation about killings for Islam, a non-Muslim like me has no standing except as a corpse.

Why do I say this? This is 2016. Pakistan has been supporting fighters it calls ‘mujaheddin’ and ‘jihadis’ to fight civilians and military across the borders in Afghanistan and India since 1987, namely, for almost 30 years.  I cite 1987 since that is the year of Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, a time when Pakistan's support of fighting should have ended under international accords Pakistan signed.

But Pakistan did not keep its commitment and in the almost 30 years since 1987, Pakistan sponsored fighting under rubric of Afghan and Kashmir jihad has killed 1-2 million civilians in Afghanistan and tens of thousands in India and Pakistan.

Fighters claiming to act in the name of Islam have killed government officials, political leaders, civilians, clerics, Indian, Afghan and international soldiers, bombed Parliaments and legislatures, destroyed towns and cities, sabotaged political accords, disrupted elections, shut down schools, killed doctors and teachers, attacked women, beheaded 1000s, and meted out Islamic punishments to millions. 

The killers have been motivated explicitly to fight for Islam, have been trained and supported by the Pakistani military, the Pakistani government, a number of Pakistani political parties, a wide cross section of clergy and such groups in the general public who believe in the religious purpose of their jihad.

Meanwhile other sections of the general Pakistani public, including minority religious groups have been under siege of increasing religiosity of their compatriots in the name of Islam. Christians face threat of blasphemy charges, Hindus face threats of kidnapping, forced marriages and forced religious conversions of underage daughters. Minority Muslim sects face threats of being declared apostates and heretics, punishable by murder. There is also the threat of violent vigilantism by the general public in the name of Islam.  It is difficult to find recourse in law for these threats as laws, law enforcement and the justice system are predisposed to favor the coercive 'Islamic' side in all disputes.

Many members of the Pakistani intelligentsia and clergy appear on TV programs and write articles in newspapers delineating what is Islam and what is not. The Afghan and Kashmir jihad are unequivocally considered to be Islamic or religious enterprises by them; these enterprises are never condemned, and are in fact praised, including in jihadi literature consumed by the general public. In addition, a number of jihadi killings within Pakistan are either condoned, even provoked in the name of religion by religious speakers in public forums. The Pakistan military has used jihadi groups to fight domestic dissidents in Balochistan and elsewhere.

At no time has any member of  Pakistani intelligentsia, clergy, government or military official, think tank expert, vigilante or jihadi ever granted their non-Muslim compatriots or even intended targets any standing in collective decision-making about the 30 year jihad enterprise. The term 'jihad' is used collectively by them for the sub-conventional warfare Pakistan is engaged in,  and the self-described jihad enterprise is all Muslim. In the face of these hard realities, no non-Muslim can  claim superior knowledge of Islam or designate as something else, a jihad that so many Muslims and the Pakistani state have made conscious choices to wage with avowed religious purpose for 30 years.

Not on one occasion have Pakistani nonMuslims like Asia Bibi, who has been sentenced to death for blasphemy against Islam, or underage Hindu and Christian girls kidnapped and converted to Islam for forcible marriages, been invited to debate Islam or the Islamic injunctions imposed on them. They are not asked to opine on whether they are under duress of real Islam or 'not real' Islam.

So I am thinking, why would the guy accuse me of Islamophobia for stating the plain fact that a nonMuslim has no role in the subject of killing for Islam except as a corpse?  He doesn’t designate any of those (Pakistan military, Pakistan government, politico-religious organizations, jihad-sympathetic intelligentsia, the jihadis themselves), who are officially engaged in the jihad enterprise in the name of Islam, as Islamophobes.

As far as I know, he doesn't refer to even a jihadi group named Jaish e Mohammed as Islamophobes though they kill in the name of Islam and the prophet. Have I committed worse sins against Islam and Muslims  than all the above-mentioned and  Jaish e Mohammed with my 3 tweets? I don't think so. But this guy does. Why?

Deliberate obfuscation? Possible.

I happen to think the guy’s reaction arises from 'ideology'- according to which Pakistanis are an enlightened set of people, Indians are willful wrongdoers, and jihadis are meting out deserved punishments to the sinning Indian nation and state. If and when Indians see the error of their ways and seek to satisfy Pakistan in accordance with Pakistan's more enlightened views, the jihadi punishment Pakistan imposes on Afghans and Indians will stop.

Now, this ideology needs non-Muslims to have a conversation with Pakistan about killings for Islam. A conversation praising the peacefulness of Islam, freeing Pakistanis from all responsibility for mass murders, seeking forgiveness for annoying them, and promising to reform one-selves according to Pakistani wishes so that Pakistan can disband the jihadis. The 30 year jihad was actually a 30 year reform movement, and Indians need to admit guilt, talk to Pakistan about how to reform and then reform themselves so that the 30 year reform movement can end.

Now if someone comes along and says that non-Muslims have no role in any conversation about jihad, it undermines this ideology, and puts the onus of 30 years of jihad, 2 million deaths, all the destruction and the free roaming killers right back on Muslim Pakistanis and their collective beliefs and choices.  There is no payoff, no moral high ground about impeccability of Islam and the erring ways of Indians, rather one would have to admit that Pakistan has engaged in war crimes and mass murder, maligning Islam more than any Indian can do.  No wonder this line of thought from me has to be dismissed as Islamophobia.

The reality is India, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh all have solid and workable constitutions and their national existence is centered on upholding the processes, laws and rights defined in these constitutions. 

Those Pakistanis who think that Pakistan-sponsored mass murder in the name of Islam in the whole region is justified until India comes to heel had best realize the following.

The public and governments in the region believe firmly in their own constitutions and their own national trajectories and do not accept the Pakistani jihadi enterprise as the sort of supra-constitutional justice system that Pakistanis intend it to be.