Waziristan Military Operation- a poor strategic tool

         

The proposed Waziristan operation cannot be conducted in isolation; it has to be seen in the perspective of Pakistan’s foreign policy as well as regional geo-political strategic paradigm. When judged on these parameters, proposed military operation in Waziristan seems to be a poor strategic tool which would push Pakistan to a position of weakened regional player which would be miles away to avail economic and political opportunities which may be cashed on by adopting a realistic and prudent policy to resolve the issue of tribal insurgency.

Common tribal Pakistanis look at themselves as true Pakistanis; they do not nourish any animosity towards Pakistani people and government authorities. The tribal militants fighting against Pakistan make only a small portion of common tribal Pakistanis. The militants are spread over thousands of miles long tribal belt and are mixed up with the common tribal people. This tribal belt is the most difficult terrain to launch a conventional military operation particularly against militants which cannot be segregated from the common tribal people. In such situation, if Pak army resorts to indiscriminate aerial attacks and military operation, common tribal people would become vulnerable to huge casualties which would drive them to enmity towards Pak army and Pakistani common people.  Any such situation would embroil Pak army in tribal belt in a long indecisive military operation at the cost of unbearable losses inflicted to Pak army. The whole tribal area, and consequently Afghan Taliban who are allies to TTP, would be lost to Pakistan for all practical purposes and this hostile scenario would hold Pakistan away from cashing on economic and political opportunities likely to be presented to Pakistan at regional level.

 Presently China’s more than 50% crude oil imports are coming from the Middle East. Gawadar is the shortest possible route from Gulf Straits to China. That is why China while managing this port is interested to link it by road or railways to China. Consequently Pakistan would become a vanguard to Chinese imports and exports to and from the Gulf. Similarly China is destined to overtake soon Russia and USA as a dominating foreign power in Central Asia politically as well as economically; China is investing a lot in Central Asian economies. This policy is leading China and Central Asia to mutual dependence. Pakistan also may connect Gawadar Port to Central Asian states through roads or railways links through Afghanistan so that Central Asian states may make use of Gawadar Port. As mentioned above, Middle East is becoming the greatest source of crude oil for China; this fact is compelling China to assume greater role in the Middle East. All these developments may lead Pakistan, Central Asia, Iran, Afghanistan, China and later on Gulf states to form an Economic and Political Cooperation block. All these facts put Pakistan in a very favorable position to use its strategic position to assume a prominent position in would-be regional Economic and Political Cooperation. But in order to become an effective member to such a regional block, Pakistan needs a friendly government in Afghanistan and a peaceful and friendly tribal belt, because it is through Afghanistan and tribal belt that Pakistan may be connected with other regional countries of would-be cooperation block. 

 The major consideration of USA is to prevent the probability of China emerging as economic and political super power and Central Asian Muslim countries including Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan all joining Chinese block. That is why USA is pressurizing Pakistan to initiate military operation in Waziristan. The USA may foresee the negative consequences of such a military operation may convert tribal belt and Afghan Taliban hostile to Pakistan and consequently hold Pakistan  away from reaping the benefits of would-be regional cooperation, and push Pakistan to a subordinate position to India and USA (plz see my article ‘Imperatives of Pakistan’s Foreign Policy’). Such a scenario would also ensure continuity of deteriorated economic conditions in Pakistan, which would further serve USA’s interests which are based on weakened Pakistan.

Now the question arises what is the solution of this tribal insurgency, if military solution is ruled out. One solution to this issue may be to offer tribal Pakistanis a unified whole tribal belt with a status of a province having special constitutional status, and where tribal Pakistanis may establish financial, judicial, political and legal systems according to their values, culture and ideology; but subjects like communications, currency, foreign affairs, defense, may be left with the federation. It may be expected that tribal Pakistanis would accept federation’s writ regarding the subjects left with the federation, if they are given liberty to live their collective life according to their ideology.

Acceptance or rejection of this proposed offer may help Pakistan’s authorities to differentiate between genuine Taliban and the terrorists concealed in guise of Taliban. Such clear differentiation between genuine Taliban and terrorists may help Pakistan’s authorities to get terrorists isolated in the eyes of tribal Pakistanis, and consequently to take military action against such terrorists without taking risk of casualties of common tribal Pakistanis which would have distanced themselves already from such terrorists.

Waziristan insurgency is like an octopus having its legs deep into internal and external affairs of Pakistan (plz see my article 'Military Operation in N. Waziristan and its Implications). This insurgency has to be tackled with prudence and pragmatic approach. Any short sighted or reactionary policy would incur to Pakistan such permanent losses which would be much more than those losses due to which such reactionary policy would be initiated.  

'Qadyaniat' and Ibn e Arbi's Mis-understood Concept of 'Nabuwwat'

 

Ibn e Arbi’s concept of ‘nabuwwat’ after coming of our Nabi (saww) is greatly misunderstood and the greatest misunderstood form of Ibn e Arbi’s concept of ‘nabuwwat’ after our Nabi (saww) is ‘Qadyaniat’.

We have seen in my article ‘Wahi, Intuition and their Implications’ that according to Quranic terminology, ‘wahi’ has mainly two types. First that is prophetic ‘wahi’ and relating to ‘nabuwwat/resalat’; and the second that is non-prophetic ‘wahi’ and relating to persons other than ‘Nabis/ Rasul’. The major difference between these two types of ‘wahi’ is that prophetic ‘wahi’ is compulsory to be accepted/complied with, on the one hand, by the ‘Nabi/Rasool’ who is recipient of such ‘wahi’ and, on the other hand, by the people to whom such ‘Nabi/ Rasool’ has been sent. But the non-prophetic ‘wahi’ is for the personal guidance of the person who is recipient of such ‘wahi’, and such ‘wahi’ is not compulsory to be accepted/complied with by the people. It may be appreciated that ‘wahi’ which is compulsory to be accepted/complied with by the people is always a ‘wahi’ which involves/carries ’shariah’; a ‘wahi’ not involving/carrying ‘shariah’ is not to be accepted/complied with compulsorily by the people. In other words, prophetic ‘wahi’ always involves/carries ‘shariah’; and non-prophetic ‘wahi’ is what does not involve/carry ‘shariah’. Another difference between the prophetic and non-prophetic ‘wahi’ is that prophetic ‘wahi’ is always generated through Hazrat Gabriel whereas non-prophetic ‘wahi’ is always generated through an angel other than Hazrat Gabiel. Prophetic ‘wahi’ has been discontinued after our Nabi (saww) but non-prophetic ‘wahi’ is still continuing.

When Ibn e Arbi states about continuation of ‘wahi’ after our Nabi (saww), he states about such ‘wahi which does not constitute/carry ‘shariah’. In other words, he states about continuation of non-prophetic ‘wahi’ after our Nabi (saww); he does not state about continuation of prophetic ‘wahi’ after coming of our Nabi (saww). He states that, after coming of our Nabi (saww), no other prophet’s/ Nabi’s order is to be accepted/complied with (Fatuhat e Makkia; vol. 1; chapter 10, 22). In other words, he states about a ‘wahi’ after our Nabi (saww), which is not to be accepted/complied with compulsorily by the people. Obviously what is not ‘shariah’ is not to be accepted/complied with compulsorily. The recipient of such ‘wahi’ which is not compulsory to be accepted/complied with cannot be called a ‘Nabi/Rasool’ because a ‘Nabi/ Rasool’ is always sent with a ‘shariah’ and a ‘Nabi/Rasool’ is always to be obeyed. According to Ibn e Arbi too, a Nabi is whom ‘wahi’ involving/carrying ‘shariah’ is sent to (Fatuhat e Makkia; vol.1; chapter 14). It may be noted that every ‘Nabi’ comes with a shariah; not a single ‘Nabi’ has come without a shariah. Some ‘nabis’ come with original/new ‘shariah’ and some come with previous (rectified/extended) ‘shariah’ which may have been or may not have been  corrupted with passage of time. Quran says: "Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The 'Nabis' who submitted [to Allah] judged by it for the Jews..." (al-maidah-44). Law (i.e. part of shariah) was contained in the Torah, and 'Nabis' used to interpret this law to judge between the people. We know interpretation of law is itself a law and an extended form of law, and this extended law (interpretations) was revealed to 'Nabis' through 'wahi'; as such this 'wahi' constituted 'shariah' and  was compulsorily to be accepted/complied with by the people. In other words, such 'Nabis'  added laws to the law (shariah) orignally revealed to the 'Rasool'/Hazrat Musa (as). In other words, 'shariah' is not only revealed to 'Nabis' coming after and following a 'Rasool' to whom that shariah is originally revealed but also such 'Nabis' make additions , under 'wahi', to the orignally revealed shariah. Actually such 'Nabis' offer new shariah in the form of extended shariah through interpretations. There is no room for a Nabi whose 'wahi' does not constitute either original/new shariah or extended/rectified 'shariah'; to believe in a Nabi sent without extended/rectified shariah or original/new shariah is a non-sense. But another important thing to note is that a ‘wahi’ CONSTITUTING/carrying ‘shariah’ and sent to all ‘Nabis’ is always generated by Allah through Gabriel and received by ‘Nabis’ through Gabriel without any other mediation. (for details plz see my article ‘wahi, Intuition and their Implications’ ; 'Difference between Resalat and Nabuwwat').

In short, a prophetic ‘wahi’ is what is carrying shariah; what is compulsorily to be accepted/complied with by the people; what is generated by Allah through Gabriel and received by ‘Nabi’ through Gabriel without any other mediation.  

Now the question arises how Ibn e Arbi has stated about continuation of ‘Nabis’ after our Nabi (saww). Actually Ibn e Arbi has not stated about continuation of ‘Nabis’ after our Nabi (saww); instead he has stated about coming of ‘anbiya ul aulia’ after our Nabi (saww); ‘anbiya ul aulia’ means such ‘aulia’ which have spiritual status equal to that of ‘anbiya/ Nabis’. Ibn e Arbi has labeled such ‘anbiya ul aulia’ as inheritors to ‘anbiya/Nabis’ (Fatuhat e Makkia; vol. 1; chapter 14). In fact, Ibn e Arbi has coined this term ‘anbiya ul aulia’ in the light of our Nabi’s (saww) saying in which he (saww) states that spiritual levels of ‘ulema’ of his (saww) ummah are equal to those of ‘Nabis’ from bani Israel except regarding spiritual level of 'Nabuwwat'.  According to Ibn e Arbi, these ‘anbiya ul aulia’ are sent to serve ‘shariah’ of Muhammad (saww), but the 'wahi' sent to them does not constitute 'shariah'. These ‘anbiya ul aulia’ receive ‘wahi’ which does not carry/involve shariah and as such is not to be accepted/complied with compulsorily by the people because, after coming of our Nabi (saww), no other Nabi’s order is to be accepted/complied with (Fatuhat e Makkia; vol. 1; chapter 10).  According to Ibn e Arbi, these ‘anbiya ul aulia’ receive ‘wahi’ either from our Nabi (saww)- in that case such ‘wahi’ is not generated by Allah- or through our Nabi (saww) but generated by Allah. Moreover such 'wahi' is not carried by Gabriel; it is carried by 'misl e Gabriel' (misl e Gabriel means an angel carrying 'wahi' like Gabriel carried).

In short, these ‘anbiya ul aulia’ receive non-prophetic ‘wahi’ which does not constitute shariah to be accepted/complied with compulsorily by the people; such 'wahi' is not carried through Gabriel; therefore 'anbiya ul aulia' cannot be rightly called ‘Nabis’. Actually they are ‘aulia’ which are assigned with duties to serve Islam (shariah) after coming of our Nabi (saww) and as such they perform the role which was used to be assigned to ‘Nabis’ before coming of our Nabi (saww); the 'wahi' sent to these 'anbiya ul aulia' is not to be compulsorily accepted/complied with by the people; that is why Ibn e Arbi has called such ‘aulia’ as ‘anbiya ul aulia’. According to Ibn e Arbi, these ‘anbiya ul aulia’ are not ‘Nabis’; rather they are ‘aulia’ having status equal to, and performing the role of ‘Nabis’. Qadyaniat is the greatest mis-understood/distorted form of Ibn e Arbi’s concept of ‘nabuwwat’.  Mirza claims to be a Nabi carrying no new shariah; but actually 'Qadyanis' and he himself believe he is entitled to make additions/deletions in the shariah through interpretations according to so called 'wahi' he recieved. Mirza believes his interpretations of shariah are to be accepted/complied with compulsorily by the people because the 'wahi' he receives constitutes rectified/extended shariah based on old shariah. In fact, Mirza Qadyani believes that 'wahi' sent to him constitutes shariah; he says he has been sent without new shariah; but actually he is offering new shariah in the form of so called rectified/extended shariah which is to be accepted/complied with by the people compulsorily. That is why he/qadyanis' declare all those who do not believe in him as non-Muslims/ 'kafir'. He abolishes 'jihad'. He denies many 'sahih ahadith' and  puts himself in place of our Nabi Muhammad (saww) [who is source of all laws in Islam]. He asserts that his interpretations of shariah are to be accepted/complied with compulsorily by the people as these interpretations have been revealed to him through 'wahi'. As already mentioned,  what 'wahi' is to be accepted/complied with compulsorily by the people is called prophetic shariah; and what wahi is NOT to be accepted/complied with compulsorily by the people is NOT called prophetic shariah (it may be called aulia's opinions relating to shariah). Actually Mirza presents his so called wahi as prophetic shariah and he makes all claims of a full Nabi but, in order to decieve people, he says he has not been sent with new shariah. There is no concept of such 'Nabuwwat', after coming of our Nabi (saww), either in Islam or in Ibn e Arbi's views. 
(It may be noted Qadyanis often quote references from such  books which have been in the past out of print for long times; authenticity of such books requires to be ascertained before they are relied upon).