Fear of Indian Backlash

August 15, 2010

As UN Secretary-General Ban-ki-Moon quietly toured the flood-ravaged parts of Pakistan on Sunday to boost relief efforts, one of the leading dailies said he was keeping a low profile of his visit to Pakistan due to the "fear" of a possible backlash from India.


The Nation said he UN Chief is cautious that the publicity of the visit could convey a "wrong" message to India. The paper said: It is learnt that the international body's chief does not intend to "overplay" his arrival in Pakistan in the wake of mounting tensions between the UN and India. "Low-profiling" the same visit has much to do with the latest protest lodged by the UN against India. Just three days back, the UN had strongly protested with India over the use of UN's blue-helmets by Indian forces in "Held Kashmir" to quell the protests in favour of independence.
 
Official sources cite security reasons causing uncertainty about Ban-Ki Moon's proposed schedule during Pakistan's visit. This argument, however, comes devoid of any sound rational and logical assumption. Stringent security measures of highest possible orders are always adopted ahead of the arrivals of VVIP dignitaries but their visits are well scheduled and made public beforehand. Keeping Ban's visit secret does not notify security concerns rather, it carries political motives.


Visit vital for Pak & UN


Nevertheless; the UNSG's visit is vital for Pakistan and the UN simultaneously. Given that Pakistan is worst hit by unprecedented flash floods, his arrival would not only extend an expression of solidarity for the country, it would, to a great deal, mobilise the international support for Pakistan's cause. At the same time, the UN Chief could cover the ground regarding his backtracking from his own statement on Held Kashmir.


The same statement urged the Indian forces to exercise restraint in Held Kashmir. Issues like UN Commission's Report on Benazir Bhutto's murder and previous humanitarian aid package for Pakistan under Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP) would be actively taken up during the UN Chief's visit.


Besides visiting some flood-affected areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Southern Punjab, Ban is scheduled to meet President Zardari, Premier Gilani and senior diplomats of US and those of 'hostile' South Asian states.


"Objective of his visit is to himself see the flood affected areas and to demonstrate the support and solidarity of UN and international community for the people and government of Pakistan," UN Pakistan's Spokesperson Ishrat Rizvi told The Nation.


Kashmir, a trilateral issue: Mirwaiz


Meanwhile, The News in a dispatch from Kashmir quoted Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, the chairman of moderate faction of All Party Hurriyat Conference [APHC], as asserting that Kashmir was a trilateral issue and must be resolved in its historical perspective by India, Pakistan and Kashmiris.


"No solution is acceptable to Kashmiris other than freedom. Kashmiris have not been laying their lives for so-called autonomy or economic packages. Kashmiris have taken to streets. The writing on the wall is clear and further delay in resolution of the dispute can have serious repercussions," Mirwaiz said.
The dispatch from Srinagar said, "On Aug 3, when Syed Ali Shah Geelani appealed to the Kashmir people to protest peacefully and desist from damaging public property, the hardliner sounded more moderate than he has ever been. His appeal helped calm the tempers for some time, but the battlelines between New Delhi and agitated Kashmiris were clearly drawn."
Geelani claimed the government had assured him space for peaceful protests before releasing him from custody, hence his appeal. However, New Delhi since then seems to have developed cold feet.


Geelani is again under house arrest. At least, five persons have since been killed in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) firing, jacking up the death toll in the two-month-long agitation in Kashmir to 59. The latest victim was 30 year-old Arshad Ahmad Latoo, fired upon by Indian armed forces during a protest in Anantnag today, on Saturday. Two more were later confirmed dead on Saturday, one in south Kashmir (Islamabad) and one in central Kashmir (Narbal).


On Friday, four persons were killed in different parts of north Kashmir while two more injured in protests (before Geelani's call) succumbed to their injuries in hospital.


Geelani's call came after a two-month long fresh wave of mass agitation against India's rule in Jammu and Kashmir had claimed 48 lives and pushed Kashmir in a state of anarchy. "Our acts are only harming us and not the state. We should think over it with a cool mind...We should take forward this movement in a peaceful manner," Geelani appealed. He stressed that the protest should be peaceful: "We should march peacefully. When we are stopped, we should sit down and ask them to shoot us."


Despite sharp criticism from within his own hardline faction, Geelani's appeal has had widespread impact. During one procession in Pampore, a day after Geelani's appeal, people sat on the road when challenged by the armed forces. Firing by troopers injured several of them.
 
Geelani had not led the protests earlier. In fact, he was arrested as soon as Tufail Ahmad Matoo, a 17-year-old schoolboy, was killed on June 11 when police fired a rubber bullet at him, drilling a half inch hole in his skull.
 However, the protests continued, spreading across the valley and growing in intensity. With each passing day, the number of those killed in the CRPF and police firing increased. So did the anger of the people who poured into the streets, braving bullets.


In desperation, the government released Geelani to take charge of street protests that J&K's chief minister, Omar Abdullah, had termed leaderless. But the assurances given to him saw little visibility on ground. In fact, the government has placed itself in difficult situation. As long as the killings continue, the anger will swell. Stopping the killings means letting people assemble in mass rallies behind separatists like Geelani and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, the chairman of the moderate faction of the APHC. The latter clearly spelled out his support for Geelani when he led the Friday prayers at Srinagar's Jamia Masjid while sticking to his own demands.


Rejecting Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh's offer of dialogue on autonomy and an economic package for Jammu and Kashmir, Mirwaiz said, "We also believe in peaceful resolution of the Kashmir problem, but there can be no peace as long as innocent Kashmiris continue to be killed by the security forces. Mirwaiz said that autonomy was not a solution to the Kashmir issue as people here seek complete freedom.


Spelling out his demands to end the ongoing protests, Mirwaiz asked for an unconditional release of all political prisoners, revocation of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), Public Safety Act (PSA) and Disturbed Areas Act (DAA), withdrawal of armed forces from cities and towns besides a comprehensive political package for Jammu and Kashmir. Later, Mirwaiz led thousands of people in a rally through the old part of Srinagar.


The J&K government, sources say, had hoped that widespread protests, which have now taken the shape of a major Aazadi groundswell, would scale down in Ramazan. The killing of seven youth over the last two days has dashed these hopes.


"Those who are of the opinion that the protests will calm down during Ramazan are living in a fool's paradise. In this holy month which is full of blessings, let us resolve to intensify the movement for self-determination," Mirwaiz said, addressing people at the Jamia Masjid, where prayers were allowed after six weeks.


With the moderate faction of separatists also rejecting the call by India's prime minister, the only political intervention by the centre to control mass unrest seems ineffective. "No solution is acceptable to Kashmiris other than freedom. Kashmiris have not been laying their lives for so-called autonomy or economic packages. Kashmiris have taken to streets. The writing on the wall is clear and further delay in resolution of the dispute can have serious repercussions," Mirwaiz said. However he maintained that Kashmir was a trilateral issue and must resolved in its historical perspective by India, Pakistan and Kashmiris.

Source : http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/109101/Column:%20Window%20on%20Pak%20Press/fear-of-indian-backlash.html

Should Islamic banking broaden its base?

Muhammad Aftab

In order to really contribute to the economy, Islamic banks will have to expand their commercial and investment banking services, and various streams of deposits should finance these ventures. They will have to diversify their product mix, making use of their comparative advantage, and not just using the conventional modes

Should Islamic banking broaden its base? All un-serviced sectors say that it should, in case it wishes to finance small enterprises, farmers and the homeless, rather than concentrating on big business.  

The growing Islamic banking system in Pakistan has finally been asked to broaden its base and undertake equitable distribution of economic gains. This is urgently needed because the present Islamic banking paradigm is based on replication of conventional banking products and totally relies on debt-based fixed income products. “The total reliance of Islamic banks on debt-based fixed income products and minimising the risks to almost close to those of the conventional banking system is blurring the distinction between Islamic and conventional finance,” Yaseen Anwar, acting governor, State Bank of Pakistan has told bankers.

Despite the fact that the replication of conventional banking products to make them shariah-compliant does pass the shariah permissibility test, but it is insufficient to achieve the larger objectives of an Islamic financial system. These objectives include enforcement of a broad based and equitable distribution of economic gains to help boost business and industry. Ironically, 67 percent financing by the Islamic banks is concentrated in the corporate sector, instead of financing the needs of smaller enterprises.  

How did this come about? This concentration has taken place through murabaha, ijarah, and the diminishing musharaka. Most of the corporations have banking and financing relationships with Pakistan’s domestic and foreign-based conventional banks. “The Islamic banks have to offer significant price discounts to attract corporate clients. It reduces the banks’ profit margins and limits their ability to offer better returns to the depositors,” Anwar says.

Islamic banking operations over the last 40 years are seen to be contrary to the natural business model of Islamic finance, which promotes risk and reward sharing and encouraging financing to promising start-ups, which is critical for promoting an entrepreneurial culture. The present practices also confine the access of finance to the well-established businesses and corporations; they leave small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and start-up businesses financially excluded.  

Such enterprises are deprived of financing benefits despite the fact that such enterprises offer a huge volume of business. The number of these businesses and industrial units is in millions. These enterprises employ millions of people and act as the economy’s stabilisers when big business and industry face crisis due to domestic or international causes.

Since Islamic banking, under profit and loss sharing (PLS), was launched in Pakistan in the late 1970s, depositors are protesting against paltry profits they receive on their deposits, often much less than the payout by conventional deposits. It has discouraged savings. The Islamic banks retain a large portion of profit, pretending high costs and overheads, and also to cover the risks.

Facts contradict their claim; a recent survey confirmed that the Islamic banks had an 8.7 percent spread, as against 7.19 percent by the conventional banks. Both Islamic and conventional banks have one of the highest spreads in the world. It averages around 7.5 percent for conventional banks. Low interest payouts or profits by both systems leave Pakistan with the lowest savings rate in the world.

In order to really contribute to the economy, Islamic banks will have to expand their commercial and investment banking services, and various streams of deposits should finance these ventures. They will have to diversify their product mix, making use of their comparative advantage, and not just using conventional modes.

Islamic banking should be profitably extended to new areas, like the rural farming sector, comprising more than seven million households. It contributes 20 percent to the annual GDP and is a source of livelihood to 65 percent of the population. Less than 20 percent of these households have access to bank credit. The growing SME sector, too, has a major potential for Islamic banking; it can build low-cost houses and cater to a huge demand of the homeless. For Islamic banking, is the sky not the limit?
The writer is an Islamabad-based journalist and former Director General of APP

Source : http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\08\16\story_16-8-2010_pg3_6

Sacrilege at Ground Zero

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER  
08/15/2010 22:46

No German of good will would think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).

When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there – and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.
That’s why Disney’s early ‘90s proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition fearing vulgarization of the Civil War (and wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It’s why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It’s why while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.
And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place, it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.
Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers “to show some special sensitivity to the situation.”
Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message, or show “special sensitivity” to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely, that Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern what can be done there.
Bloomberg’s implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by “insensitive” Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction. BUT THEN, why not? By the mayor’s own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there’s no guarantee this couldn’t happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won’t one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi – spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and one-time imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists? 

An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege.

Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history – perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi – yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of good will would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

Which makes you wonder about the good will behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s proposal. This is a man who has called US policy “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, “I’m not a politician....The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.”
America is a free country where you can build whatever you want – but not anywhere. That’s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn’t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz – and no mosque at Ground Zero.

Build it anywhere but there.

The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf’s ostensible hope for the structure, would accept the offer.
– The Washington Post

Source : http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=184863

Obama defends plan to build mosque near ground zero

Ramadan dinner speech: 'Muslims have the right to practice their religion as anyone else'

WASHINGTON — Weighing his words carefully on a fiery political issue, President Barack Obama said Saturday that Muslims have the right to build a mosque near New York's ground zero, but he did not say whether he believes it is a good idea to do so.

Obama commented during a trip to Florida, where he expanded on a Friday night White House speech asserting that Muslims have the same right to freedom of religion as everyone else in America.

The president's statements thrust him squarely into a debate that he had skirted for weeks and could put Democrats on the spot three months before midterm elections where they already were nervous about holding control of the House and maybe even the Senate. Until Friday, the White House had asserted that it did not want to get involved in local decision-making.

The White House quickly followed up on Obama's latest comments on the matter, with Obama spokesman Bill Burton saying that the president wasn't backing off in any way from the remarks he made Friday.

"What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque," Burton said.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent who has been a strong supporter of the mosque, welcomed Obama's White House speech as a "clarion defense of the freedom of religion."

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who was among those who met with Obama on Saturday, lauded the president's position. Crist is running for the U.S. Senate as an independent.

"I think he's right — I mean you know we're a country that in my view stands for freedom of religion and respect for others," Crist said after the Florida meeting with Obama and other officials. "I know there are sensitivities and I understand them. This is a place where you're supposed to be able to practice your religion without the government telling you you can't."

Others were quick to pounce on Obama's statements.

In a statement Saturday, House Minority Leader John Boehner said the decision to build the mosque wasn't an issue of religious freedom, but a matter of respect.

"The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do," Boehner said. "That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding."

Democratic Senate candidate Jeff Greene of Florida took Obama's Friday speech to mean the president supports the construction.

"President Obama has this all wrong and I strongly oppose his support for building a mosque near ground zero especially since Islamic terrorists have bragged and celebrated destroying the Twin Towers and killing nearly 3,000 Americans," said Greene. "Freedom of religion might provide the right to build the mosque in the shadow of ground zero, but common sense and respect for those who lost their lives and loved ones gives sensible reason to build the mosque someplace else."

The mosque would be part of a $100 million Islamic community center two blocks from where nearly 3,000 people perished when hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001.

The proposed construction has sparked debate around the country that has included opposition from top Republicans including Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich as well as the Jewish civil rights group the Anti-Defamation League.

Obama's Friday comment was taken by some to mean that he strongly supports the building of an Islamic center near the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, something he never said.

Speaking to a gathering at the White House Friday evening to observe the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, Obama said that he believes "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country."

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

Asked Saturday about the issue during his trip to Florida, Obama said: "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding."

Source : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38698500/

Obama under fire for backing Ground Zero mosque

US president Barack Obama's support for the right to build a mosque just blocks from Ground Zero poured fuel on a raging debate over religious freedom and sensitivities over the September 11 terrorist strikes.

Muslims "have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country", Mr Obama said at an Iftar meal at the White House for Muslims breaking their Ramadan fast on Friday.

That includes "the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances".

Mr Obama had remained silent over plans to build an Islamic cultural centre, which includes a mosque, two blocks away from the gaping Ground Zero hole where the Twin Towers were destroyed.

But after a New York city commission on August 3 unanimously approved the plans, the president came out to support the right to build the mosque.

"This is America," Mr Obama said, "and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are."

Mr Obama acknowledged the site where the World Trade Centre towers once stood remains "hallowed ground" and that the September 11 terrorist attacks "were a deeply traumatic event for our country".

Planners say the multi-storey Cordoba House will include a mosque, sports facilities, theatre and restaurant and would be open to the public to show that Muslims are full community members.

The group 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America, which represents some relatives of attack victims, said it was "stunned" by the president's remarks.

Mr Obama "has abandoned America at the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago and where her true values were on display for all to see", the group said.

Building the mosque "is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah".

This president "declares that the victims of 9/11 and their families must... stand silent at the last place in America where 9/11 is still remembered with reverence or risk being called religious bigots", it added.

Another group representing other relatives of 9/11 victims, the September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, said in May that it "strongly supports" the Islamic centre.

The proposed location has touched raw nerves - and on Saturday Mr Obama clarified that he was not addressing the appropriateness of the mosque's particular location.

"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," Mr Obama said on a visit to Florida.

"I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about," he said.

A CNN/Opinion Research poll earlier this month showed that 68 per cent of Americans opposed the Islamic centre plans while only 29 per cent favoured them.

Mr Obama himself is a Christian, but according to a Harris Interactive online poll from March nearly one-third of Americans, including 57 per cent of Republicans, believe he is a Muslim.

Source : http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/15/2983178.htm

Mosque near Ground Zero becoming political football

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Republicans pounced on US President Barack Obama's comments supporting the right to build a mosque near Ground Zero Sunday, painting him as out of touch less than three months before key mid-term elections.

Democrats and Republicans squared off on Sunday talk shows to hammer home their positions on the Islamic center which includes a mosque, and argue whether it was appropriate for Obama to wade into the fray.

"This is not about freedom of religion, because we all respect the right of anyone to worship according to the dictates of their conscience," US Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said on Fox News Sunday.

"But I do think it's unwise... to build a mosque at the site where 3,000 Americans lost their lives as a result of a terrorist attack. And I think to me it demonstrates that Washington, the White House, the administration, the president himself seems to be disconnected from the mainstream of America."

The hot-button issue has stirred raw emotions in the United States, which marks the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks next month, and Cornyn said he believes it might resonate with voters at the polls.

"I think this is sort of the dichotomy that people sense, that they're being lectured to, not listened to, and I think that's the reason why a lot of people are very upset with Washington," he said.

Polls show a majority of Americans oppose building the mosque near Ground Zero, but they also show that a majority support the right of Muslims to build it.

Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat, did not answer directly if he thought the mosque should be built, but said he supported its designed intention to provide interfaith communication and dialogue.

"But it can't be there, and I don't think it should be allowed to be there, if it's going to be some type of way to undercut the truth, the reality, of 9/11... which was an attack by fanatical Muslims against the United States," he told the program.

Republican Representative Peter King of New York acknowledged the right to build the mosque but challenged Islamic leaders to "listen to the deep wounds and anguish that this is causing to so many good people" and consider moving the center to a site further away.

"This is such a raw wound and they are just pouring salt into it," King told CNN's "State of the Union" program.

Democrat Jerrold Nadler, also a New York congressman, said it was not up to politicians to decide.

"As to whether the imam wants to have the mosque somewhere else, that's up to them, and government should not pressure them one way or the other."

Obama on Friday said Muslims "have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country."

But the next day Obama clarified that he was not commenting "on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there."

Several Republicans have seized on Obama's comments, including Sarah Palin, who appeared to mock him on her Twitter feed by saying that taking a stance on the mosque "is not above your pay grade."

Source : http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100815/pl_afp/uspoliticsreligionattacks_20100815184754/print