What's new

How Islamicised is the Pakistan army?

Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
221
Reaction score
0
While living in Delhi after 9/11, and in particular after India and Pakistan nearly went to war over an attack on the Indian parliament on December 13, 2001, one of the questions that cropped up frequently was about how much the Pakistan army had been permeated by hardline Islamists. In other words, how much sympathy did the army feel for al Qaeda and Taliban militants that then General Pervez Musharraf had pledged to fight?

Several years later, while researching a book on the Siachen war, I had occasion to travel with the Pakistan army and assess the Islamist question up close. My impression was that the Pakistan army was not driven by religious fanaticism. Yes, it exhorted its soldiers to embrace “shaheed”, or martyrdom, in the name of Allah. But it was otherwise remarkably similar to the Indian army. Both relied on a blend of nationalism and loyalty to their fellow men in the same unit; both found recruits in the mountains and rural villages who could be inculcated with a spirit of “ours not to reason why”; both counted on officers to lead from the front. Men did not go into battle dreaming of death. An officer who thinks only of killing himself is of little use to a professional army, which needs men who are above all sane, who can remain focused and objective, who know the difference between suicide and getting killed.

File photo of Indian soldiers on Siachen/Pawel KopczynskiMy Pakistan army minder on my trip to the Siachen war zone was clearly religious, respected prayer times, and did his best to explain to me the teachings of the Koran. But he probably expended more energy telling me off for smoking – particularly on the world’s highest battlefield where the air is so thin that it can be difficult to walk — much as my minder during a tour of Siachen on the Indian side had done.

So I thought I had settled the Islamist question — at least in my own mind — until August 2007, when more than 200 Pakistani soldiers in South Waziristan in Pakistan’s tribal areas were taken captive by Islamist militants without firing a single shot. During a visit to Delhi shortly afterwards, I discovered that people from the Indian army were as surprised as me — accustomed as they were to seeing their rivals on the Pakistan side at least make a show of fighting. Had the Islamists so permeated the Pakistan army that its soldiers had gone soft?

Pakistan army expert Brian Cloughley addresses this question in his book ”War, Coups and Terror”, a review of Pakistan since 1971 and due to be published next month. His conclusions make interesting reading.

While he recognises that the Pakistan army includes “some religious extremists among its officers and soldiers”, he says the promotions system overseen by President Pervez Musharraf made sure that officers were promoted on the basis of professional competence rather than religious devotion.

The rub came in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) next to the Afghanistan border, where religious ideologues had affected the morale and efficiency of the military. ”There is evidence that some soldiers have been so influenced by religiosity as to have doubts about their being regarded as Shaheed in the event of being killed in conflict with fellow Muslims who are held (by extremist clerics) to be engaged in fighting against infidels,” he writes. “This has resulted in incidents of refusal to take part in operations in the tribal areas, which indicate a serious malaise.”

Cloughley quotes the following from a source that he is unwilling to identify, but I think is worth reproducing here:

“Statements [by terrorists captured during an army operation] and [other sources] leads to one inevitable conclusion, that deep in their hearts . . . [some of the] troops have sympathies for AQ/Taliban who, in their perception are fighting a holy war against non-Muslims now occupying Afghanistan. This feeling has got further impetus and strength because of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq and a partisan approach towards the Palestinian issue. Print and electronic media, anti-US sentiments among the general public, bitter criticism by opposition leaders of our government’s policy regarding Afghanistan [and] support to the Coalition (US) forces in combating terrorism . . . and the anti-Islam propaganda by the west, have further reinforced the perception of the common man that Muslims all over the world are being victimised. These feelings have obviously . . . penetrated the rank and file of the Army despite our best efforts that whatever we are doing is in the overall best interests of the country. Having identified this weakness, we now need to apply all our command and leadership skills to educate our troops on the logic and necessity of what we are doing.”

Cloughley tries to take a positive view of this by saying that at least the problem was recognised by those in command and that action was being taken to address it. US soldier in the mountains of AfghanistanBut he adds that Pashtuns — the ethnic group who live on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and who make up about a fifth of the regular army – had sometimes shown reluctance to engage militants both out of a disinclination to kill fellow tribesmen and antipathy against fighting fellow Muslims. ”Another factor is the widely-held belief that the counter-insurgency war in FATA … is not being conducted on behalf of Pakistan but is waged at the behest of the United States.”

Cloughley also says that missile attacks blamed on U.S. Predator drones targeting al Qaeda leaders hiding in Pakistan’s tribal areas had further angered the army, since they also killed civilians. Yet at the same time, the army had found itself caught in the middle, facing itself a steep rise in suicide attacks directed against military targets, in retaliation for its operations on the border. Though I have seen only one advance chapter of Cloughley’s book, it makes an interesting read, highlighting as it does one aspect of the phenomenally complex challenges faced by Pakistan in battling Islamist militants.



....................................
 
These articles are pretty silly. To answer this question, one only has to look at the people of Pakistan. What is Islam to them? The same applies to the Armed Forces.

However there should not be any confusion about the fact that when Pakistan's own security is questioned then Pakistan Army will act. This is no different than the Saudi Army or the Egyptian Army or any other army in the Muslim world.

Those who surrendered do not represent the entire Army. It was one instance and the details around the circumstances are not really known to most so to make it sound like they gave up the fight because they were Muslims and their captors were also Muslims is a fallacy. I have head that there were certain circumstances due to which they were surrounded. Based on what I have heard, the capture was more due to complacency than lacking will to fight. After all Army has been involved in the IS role before as well and has had to take action against fellow Muslims.
 
"Jihadism" for want of a better word or the desire to seek martyrdom have been actively encouraged in the Pak fauj for the pat 50 or so years.Many soldiers are practicing Muslims and as such they read the Quran regularly and they are aware of the intricate details of shahada as to what it entails and its prerequisites.

It is for this reasons that those among them who fit into the above category are certain that the present engagements are Haram for them to participate in.

The repercussions of this will be felt sooner or later.
 
"Islamicised"

"Jihad"

What do the non-muslim members on this forum interpret these words to mean?

Jihad for example - what does it literally mean (I am asking non-muslims)
 
"Jihadism" for want of a better word or the desire to seek martyrdom have been actively encouraged in the Pak fauj for the pat 50 or so years.Many soldiers are practicing Muslims and as such they read the Quran regularly and they are aware of the intricate details of shahada as to what it entails and its prerequisites.

It is for this reasons that those among them who fit into the above category are certain that the present engagements are Haram for them to participate in.

The repercussions of this will be felt sooner or later.

Present engagements are haram because you say so? I beg to differ specially when the other side is targeting civilians to avenge military operations (which started because of the fitna of TTP). Sharia is the right of all of the people of Pakistan, but why are only the Taliban allowed to push their agenda and version on the rest of the muslims of Pakistan? Is it not clear to everyone that while Pakistanis and even the Pakistani armed forces are practicing muslims, they have differences with the manner in which a specific brand of Islamic interpretation (Salafi) is being shoved down their throats? What is haraam is to destabilize a Muslim land by the use of gun. What needs to be understood here is that in Pakistan, it is essentially the wahabiyaat and salafi ideology coming to head with the beliefs of the ahle-sunna wal-jammat who do not believe in taking up the gun to settle issues with the leadership regardless of how corrupt they may be. By doing so, there is a greater danger to the Muslims of the land and as such it is not acceptable.

I am a sunni and firmly believe that if there is injustice or other morality issues, picking up the gun is not the way to resolve it. The Sauds under the influence of ibn Wahab took the exact same route by uprooting the ottomans when they should have worked it from inside and let the khilafa around. Yet they simply thought they were smarter and better Muslims than all of the others and we see what we see now.

Pakistanis (and the Armed Forces inclusive) are realizing the impact of this salafi/takfiri mentality in Pakistan. While it would be impossible for any Muslim to not feel sorrow and pain at the death of others who supposedly fight in the name of Sharia, the bottom line is that this is not the first time, nor is it the last time in the history of Islam that such situations have occurred. Every killing of the civilians, ulema and innocents (the militants have killed 10 times more than those who may have died by the inadvertent fire of the military) is a proof that this fight for them is not about sharia or Islam, rather its to impose their will over the others and when that is not possible then to inflict vengeance upon whomsoever comes in the path.

The issue of shahadaa is better left for another time. If you believe the other side is on the right, then I have absolutely no doubt that the Pakistan Army is also on the right. Its a matter of interpretation and the Muslims of Pakistan have yet to be convinced that the interpretation of the taliban is the right one.
 
"Jihadism" for want of a better word or the desire to seek martyrdom have been actively encouraged in the Pak fauj for the pat 50 or so years.Many soldiers are practicing Muslims and as such they read the Quran regularly and they are aware of the intricate details of shahada as to what it entails and its prerequisites.

It is for this reasons that those among them who fit into the above category are certain that the present engagements are Haram for them to participate in.

The repercussions of this will be felt sooner or later.

Jihahism is misinterpreted by most of jehadi mullahs supporting talaban, the meaning of jehad is struggle for implementation of islamic principles in 24 hours personal life and in society.

Harb is actual word for war , harb or kital is allowed only in battle field and even in battle field you can not kill womens and children and elders.

These self claimed jehadi terrorist talaban and Al Qaida are killing innocient people in bomb explosions suicidel attacks which is haram and they are falling in catagory of zalimeen worst then mushrik or kafar.

Our PA is killing these fasadi and zalim talaban which by no defination are muslim and PA is fighting for peace in society so our soldiers are doing practical jehad.
 
"Islamicised"

"Jihad"

What do the non-muslim members on this forum interpret these words to mean?

Jihad for example - what does it literally mean (I am asking non-muslims)

I speak for myself and no one else.

Short answer, have to go, will be back later to respond if needed.

'Islamicised' to me means Muslim art, architecture, Ghalib, the unique social graces and style of Muslim friends from Lucknow.

'Jihad' in my mind has negative connotations - violence, death to the unbeliever, terrorism, etc.
 
the era of Islamicized Pakistan Army is quite over actually --- since the end of Zia's legacy


the Army is quite secular. Anybody can join. I myself attended short course, they do not encourage people to keep beard --though it is not banned.


in fact, Army is the most secular institution in Pakistan in my opinion. We have prayer halls and optional prayer times when exerccizes are over, but that is personal matter (like all religion and faith)


Jihad only has negative connotations for morons in the West who dont know what it means. It does not mean 'holy war' or 'terrorism'


if u are crossing the street and get hit by a car, if I help rush you to the hospital then I am doing Jihad (striving for Islamic principles --such as compassion)
 
this is a bit off subject ---since it does not pertain to Army.....

but the group JuD (which is an Islamic organization) has done many humanitarian projects for non-Muslim Pakistani citizens like the Christians and Hindus.

When an earthquake measuring 7.6 on the Richter scale had struck northern Pakistan on October 8, 2005 and killed more than 70,00 people, one of the first groups to be able to mobilize funds and assistance to the region was Jamaat ud-Dawa. The group had a large office in Fawara Chowk in Peshawar and another in Muzaffarabad in Kashmir, both close to some of the worst scenes of devastation. The JuD were given UN supplies to distribute to earthquake refugees. The reputation of JuD as a provider of charity had become firmly entrenched in the minds of many Pakistanis. On May 16, 2006, Hindus and Christians protested in Karachi against the US designation of JuD.


and after mumbai terrorist attacks, the same minorities protested when Hafiz Saeed was placed under house arrest. They built wells, and irrigation projects for Hindu and Christian farmers in Punjab.


dont believe me? check it out for yourself
 
"Islamicised"

"Jihad"

What do the non-muslim members on this forum interpret these words to mean?

Jihad for example - what does it literally mean (I am asking non-muslims)

My first thought on hearing these words ( I can understand the deeper meanings,but my first thoughts). -

Islamicised -- depends on context. I have heard of Islamisation of art, architecture etc. In that sense it means more "Arabisation". I associate it with pointy domes and arches. When it comes to military culture, I see it as something that encourages following some interpretation of the "book" rather than following orders/thinking for oneself. Iranian revolution is also something I think as part of Islamisation of armed forces. The egalitarian ethos of Saladin might also be something that could be interpreted as Islamic army.

Jihad - I think of it as something that aims to kill non-muslims. I have rarely heard it used in a non-violent sense.
 
Islamization is not "Arabization" that is dumbest thing i have ever heard

majority of Muslims in the world are not even Arab. Arab represent small fraction of Muslim nation.


talebanization however is closer to wahhaby ideology which only exists in Saudi Arabia. And even Saudi are now becoming wary about wahhabism because of its austere nature.


wahhaby is not even a sect or school of thought in Islam. it only came into being thanks to britisher support in early 20th century. It is a culture, not a sect.
 
Jihad only has negative connotations for morons in the West who dont know what it means. It does not mean 'holy war' or 'terrorism'


if u are crossing the street and get hit by a car, if I help rush you to the hospital then I am doing Jihad (striving for Islamic principles --such as compassion)


Not sure that they are all "morons".

I have a bunch of Muslim friends in India. I have never heard the term Jihad used for helping others. I have been helped a bunch of times, but it was always "I'll help you because I can" rather than "I'll help you because it is Jihad".

The first time I heard the word Jihad was in Palestinian context and then later Al Qaeda. I think by now the term has different meaning in English compared to Arabic. Look at the Webster dictionary definition - the first meaning assigned is "holy war".
jihad - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
 
Not sure that they are all "morons".

I have a bunch of Muslim friends in India. I have never heard the term Jihad used for helping others. I have been helped a bunch of times, but it was always "I'll help you because I can" rather than "I'll help you because it is Jihad".

The first time I heard the word Jihad was in Palestinian context and then later Al Qaeda. I think by now the term has different meaning in English compared to Arabic. Look at the Webster dictionary definition - the first meaning assigned is "holy war".
jihad - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary


your friends in hindustan obviously have limited knowledge.


Jihad means a struggle & submission.....it is an abstract term that revolves around struggle to be a good follower of Islam (slave of Allah SWT).


it has nothing to do with 'terrorism' or 'holy war'......of course if a Muslim country is under occupation, then it is up to the Head of State Affairs to determine whether Armed Jihad should be utilized or not.



it is good to read and learn before commenting on such affairs.
 

Attachments

  • LARGE.jpg
    LARGE.jpg
    1.9 KB · Views: 177

Back
Top Bottom