Published Daily Times – November 23, 2011

The recent killing of Yemeni-American Imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, in a drone attack has brought to front the significance of Islamist propaganda in cyberspace and its effects on terror recruitment. Hundreds of sermons by Awlaki were available on the internet. He operated a Facebook page, ran a blog and was described as ‘Osama bin Laden of the internet’. His online influence has been linked with more than a dozen terror investigations including the Fort Hood shooting by Major Nidal Hasan and the Times Square bombing attempt by Faisal Shahzad.

The relationship between religious fundamentalism and technology has remained complicated. Religious fundamentalist movements have been widely described as reaction to modernity though the movements are themselves modern in nature. Hence there exists an inherent conflict where these movements reject the underlying notions of rationality, secular and scientific constituting modernity. On the other hand, these movements continue to appropriate modern symbols and technology to further their cause. Historically, fundamentalist movements vehemently opposed natural sciences and technology but that does not hold true anymore. As stated in a paper titled ‘Postmodern Conservatism and Religious Fundamentalism’ by Geoff Boucher, the fundamentalist movements of today harbour a selective, instead of a wholesome, hostility towards natural sciences and try to engage in an understanding of the world that remains compatible with the commercialised science of today encompassing applied sciences and technology. Hence, these movements hold a significant appeal among technical professionals such as engineers, doctor and lawyers. Carrying forward this correlation between technical education and fundamentalism, a 2009 study published in The European Journal of Sociology showed that engineers constitute 20 percent of all Islamist militant organisations, a value remarkably greater than the expected 3.5 percent figure.

One of the striking features within Islamist propaganda is the appropriation of post-modern criticism of modernity. As many observers would be familiar, this appropriation is not just limited to a critique of science. Islamists make a very effective use of post-colonial discourse in order to attack the ‘west’ and reject liberal democracy. During this process, they portray themselves as anti-imperialists and present political Islam as an alternative to ‘western democracy’. A similar attitude has been adopted towards science, which, manifesting itself through technology in a globalised world, threatens their traditional ethos and beliefs.

I recently came across an Urdu article available on an online Islamist journal. It was originally published in a monthly journal named Sahil from Karachi and strives to ‘expose’ the reality of scientific method, which remains, as per the editor, ‘irreligious’, ‘worldly’, ‘greedy’ and ‘jealous’ in nature. The article starts with an introduction of the inductive method of reasoning and takes on the classical ‘Problem of Induction’ that has perplexed philosophers such as David Hume since enlightenment. Karl Popper’s attempt to go around the problem through his ‘Criterion of Falsifiability’ is discussed to imply that science remains a crude hit and trial method of accumulating knowledge. Moving forward to the post-modern critique of science, the article cites Thomas Kuhn’s ‘The Structures of Scientific Revolutions’ to introduce the concept of ‘paradigm shift’ and the role played by personal bias while formulating conclusions based upon scientific data. This post-modern critique serves as an easy vehicle for the author to claim that science remains an ideological, subjective and relative form of knowledge that may not claim any objectivity and superiority over other forms of knowledge. This selective use of critique is then used to jump some wild conclusions; since scientists cannot know anything for sure, they make up hypothesis to obtain research grants and that science is itself a religion. The author refers to the post-modern critics as ‘western philosophers’, hence making sure that science and its criticism both remain foreign and ‘western’ ideas that an Islamist discourse can easily reject.

Such attempts by Islamist writers always remain selective and agenda-driven. These writers gladly appropriate post-modern ideas to deconstruct scientific method but never apply the same critique to their own foundationalist set of beliefs. These fundamentalists find the demolition of a grand narrative that claimed progress through science convenient but never ponder upon the irony that their own project of ruling the world under a strict religious code remains another of the grand narratives. Moreover, the plurality espoused by post-modernism, due to its relativism and acceptance of multiple truths, remains strange to these Islamists claiming the ownership of absolute truth. The most evident irony lying in the fact that they are using the fruits of modern science to put forward their message is obviously lost upon them.

The writer is a Lahore-based engineer and an activist volunteering with Institute for Peace and Secular Studies. He can be contacted at awais.masood@gmail.com

(Dedicated to the memory of an eighteenth century French idiot who wrote the worst satire in history)

It was in the vast green fields of Faisalabad industrial area that Jahandad grew up and came to know the wonderful world created by Allah. Mubarak Manzil , where he lived, was located very near to the three factories also owned by his guardian Haji Sheikh Ghulam Nabi. The streams of fresh water flowing out of factories and the fumes emitted by their chimneys had turned the whole area into a tourist attraction. Therefore it was frequented by the wonderful scouts of Tableeghi Jamaat along with recruiters from Lashkar-e-Taiba, Lashkar-e-Jhangavi, Jaish-e-Muhammad, Tahreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, Tahreek-e-Taliban Punjab, Tahreek-e-Taliban Multan, Tahreek-e-Taliban Pattoki, Tahreek-e-Taliban Arain Mohalla and Tahreek-e-Taliban Ghanta Ghar.

Haji Sheikh Ghulam Nabi was a very pious and generous man. He had performed five pilgrimage in his life, never paid any tax to the vile government , frequently lost money on horse races, offered prayers five times a day and had acted as a patron for almost every prostitute within the city. He also believed in charity and hence donated regularly to a madrassa that trained children for jihad. He also believed in the equality of human beings as long as they belonged to a certain class. Hence all of his servants wore similar rags and lived in identical servant quarters. He believed in the right of a woman to be forced to wear a burka and to be coerced into a marital rape. His firm belief in the Doctrine of Separation between Religion and Business ensured that no part of his income from a thirty percent share in the best brothel within the city ever went to fund a madrassa.

Jahandad had an eventful childhood. One of the fondest memories from that period included participating in a mob lynching at the age of twelve. The man was accused of blasphemy by a maternal cousin of a paternal uncle of a friend of an aunt of a neighbor who claimed that the accused went to the toilet exactly at the same time when the local imam started his Friday sermon. He was dragged out of his house, flogged, whipped, canned, kicked, punched, stoned and hanged. Jahandad had the fun of his life pelting stones and dancing with joy around the corpse. Later it was found that the accused actually came out of the toilet exactly five seconds before the sermon started. The local mullah declared that being innocent he would be granted great pleasures in heaven which would include six hundred palaces, two hundred gardens, four hundred horses and eight hundred houris. Despite these heavenly delights, his family was also compensated with five suits of original Alkaram latha, one cow and an amount of six thousand, four hundred and twenty three rupees as blood money. Everybody was quite happy that it was all settled according to the laws of land and sharia which ensured a peaceful and just society.

Jahandad was told that Sheikh Ghulam Nabi was his distant relative who took care of him after his parents died. Though Jahandad also heard that he was a son of a real life sister of Sheikh Sahab and she was found dead in mysterious circumstances. Jahandad did not care much as long as he was allowed to live in Muabark Manzil along with the family of Sheikh Sahab. It was said that no adult male other than Sheikh Ghulam Nabi had ever seen the faces of his wife and daugther. It was indeed true and nobody other than her five lovers had actually seen his wife. It is needless to mention that Sheikh Sahab had no clue about them and the extent to which they had seen Begum Sheikh Ghulam Nabi.

Sheikh Ghulam Nabi was much concerned about the spiritual well-being of his children. Therefore he and Sheikh Sahab’s daughter, Jehan Ara, had been tutored by the same mystic named Majid Ali Majid. Majid was an ugly little man who taught that destiny reigned supreme and man was bound to a predestined fate known as taqdeer. It was thus in the taqdeer of Haji Ghulam Nabi to own factories, remain rich, kick the workers at his factories and perform umrah every month. On the other hand, the workers at his factories were destined to remain poor. It was the will of Allah that ran the markets and hence any interference by the government to control them and hinder Sheikh Sahab from becoming richer was against nature, Allah and Islam. Jahandad was much fond of him and his intelligence.

One day, while seeking an old lost item in some least frequented portions of house, Jehan Ara saw Majid teaching the laws of natural destiny to a servant of the house. The passion with which Majid taught the girl lessons in destiny and fate evoked some latent emotions within Jehan Ara’s heart. What she saw was unbearable for her. She, being daughter of the master of the house, considered it her right to explore fate and destiny first instead of a filthy little servant. She went looking for Jahandad and on finding him strolling around the lawn took him by the hand, brought him to a corner and exposed all five toes of her left foot, a sight that left Jahandad thunderstruck and speechless. Unfortunately Sheikh Sahab, who was at home due to some unknown reasons, came across the scene. He grabbed his daughter’s hand, slapped her, punched her and then locked her in a dark room. He then grabbed Jahandad by the neck,  kicked, punched, canned and whipped him and then threw him out of the house. Jahandad had no money in his pocket and no idea where to go. The only thing that struck into his mind was to go to the nearest mosque where he hoped to find a meal or two for free. It was during the very first night within the mosque that Jahandad met some of the most amazing men in his life and started a new journey of life.

Next: How Jahandad went to Raiwind with his Tableeghi comrades and met Hamid Gul

Published in Daily Times

The Pakistan Body Count (PBC) data is highly unreliable and the use of this data for making any claims about drone accuracy would have severe epistemological implications. Moreover, the data, on multiple occasions, ignores reports of al Qaeda leaders and associates killed in drone attacks and the casualties are again reported as civilians. Even if Dr Usmani believes that the Afghan Taliban are not terrorists, militants or any other word as such, data collection on this issue should not classify them as civilians since they are the target of US forces and their deaths at the hands of a drone should count towards the success of the drone — regardless of the ideological leanings of the personnel compiling statistics. If in his defence Dr Usmani could claim that listing somebody as al Qaeda would require names, i.e. confirmation that a certain person has died, then this argument too falls apart since in their defence, opponents of drone strikes must bring names and information about each and every civilian killed in the strikes. The fact of the matter is that data collection on these issues is difficult but newspaper reporters use their local and intelligence sources to ballpark figures. Militant deaths are not reported by name unless it is a leading figure whose death is celebrated as martyrdom by militant groups themselves. Farhat Taj has already challenged the opponents to bring data to back their claims, and now so do we.

There lies no factuality in the rhetoric that strives to create a cause and effect relationship between drone attacks and suicide bombing. These are shallow assertions with hollow foundations and no proof to back them up. They can, they are, and they will be used as a motivating factor, but they are just one amongst the hundreds of motivating factors used by militants. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any suicide bomber has been linked to or a potential bomber that has been apprehended had any acquaintance who died in a drone attack. We challenge the other side to bring forward any news report, intelligence report or a case report that states that the person caught or who carried out the bombing had any relative who died in a drone attack and he was avenging the death of his family member(s). Most of the times, this assertion is made without any evidence. One of the cited examples is of Faisal Shahzad but that is unbelievable since his life story as is tells how he was led to the TTP. Baitullah Mehsud once claimed that a suicide attack was in revenge for a particular drone strike but it is unbelievable that he and the group of his monsters would not have carried it out any way.

The prime reason militants fight and suicide bombers exist is the worldview of clash of civilisations, an ideological assertion of one’s faith over the other’s and the view that all military operations conducted by our forces are being conducted at the ‘behest of the US’, where they view death for their ‘greater cause’ as the ultimate achievement and where life itself remains just a step towards a better eternal life they imagine. They view the state’s involvement in the war on terror, including the operations in Wana, Tirah, Orakzai, Mohmand, Bajaur, South Waziristan, Operation Silence and Swat as only for ‘pleasing the US’ and as guided by infidels. The drone attacks are an additional factor but in no way the prime motivating factor. The toxic religious dogmas of declaring everybody not cooperating with you as kafir (infidel) and liable to death is a major factor, not drones.

The recent survey of public opinion in FATA by the New America Foundation sheds light on the issue. On the issue of drone strikes, overall one in six people think they kill only militants and one-third believe they kill both civilians and militants. However, among those with greater than 12 years of education, one in three think they kill only militants. The youngest age group thinks along the same lines as well. While 70 percent of the people polled strongly oppose drone strikes and only 1 in 10 lends his/her support to them, among those with greater than 12 years of education, one in four support drone strikes.

When it comes to views about targeting by US forces in Mohmand and North Waziristan, three in four people think the bombing by US military forces is justified. A small percentage (one in six) but far higher compared to other areas in South Waziristan thinks that targeting Pakistani civilians is justified as well. The people of Orakzai do not seem to think that targeting Pakistani security forces or civilians or American security forces is justified at all. When it comes to the war itself, the highest support for the US-led war on terror comes from Bajaur. In contrast, the Afghan Taliban have the highest support in Mohmand. Pakistani Taliban have the support of nearly half of the people polled from North Waziristan Agency. While some findings contradict that of the Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy survey, we do not feel that the Aryana survey was any more ethical or better in its sampling than this one.

It is time that we form a responsible opinion about drone strikes, formed by statistics and facts and not emotions. All efforts must be undertaken to minimise collateral damage, including better intelligence and careful use of deadly force. There is just a smokescreen of fake sovereignty that seems to be the main issue of concern to a lot of people. Based on the available facts, the ones not fabricated or distorted, militants have suffered heavily because of this remote targeting technology. Drone strikes are very precise, based on intelligence that both sides often share and carried out based on mutual agreement and trust. The recent Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC) report recounts tales of some of the victims of drone attacks, heart-wrenching stories of people caught in the line of fire in a war of massive proportions. While the drone victims’ stories have been recounted in newspapers and the report mentioned in the media, the tales of the people whose houses were demolished by the military when they razed entire villages or mistook the identity of the person have been avoided. Minimising collateral damage is necessary, but forming any opinion based on concocted facts that can lead to a pause in the war is self-defeating.

(Concluded)

The writers are interested in history and public policy. Shahid Saeed can be reached at shahid@live.com.pk and Awais Masood can be reached at awais.masood@gmail.com

Published in Daily Times

Drone strikes have evolved to become a national political issue with the media and public opinion constantly pressing the government to take up the issue with the US. Opposition to drone strikes is mostly based on ill-conceived notions of sovereignty, ghairat (honour) and figures that seem to suggest that drone strikes are inaccurate and lead to a high number of civilian casualties (not to suggest that there cannot be any informed opposition to drone strikes). From Imran Khan to Munawar Hasan, right-wing political parties and religious groups have used drone strikes to forward their agenda by misguiding people through erroneous, fabricated and fictional data. As a result, thousands of people have been mobilised across the country to oppose these strikes.

The writers are interested in history and public policy. Shahid Saeed can be reached at shahid@live.com.pk and Awais Masood can be reached at awais.masood@gmail.com

Gender Discrimination

It was year 2003 and my first week as an undergraduate student at UET when during a lecture; we were visited by a few senior members of university Dramatic Club who wanted to introduce us to the nature of their work. After a brief orientation, the only female member accompanying the members of Dramatic Club turned to my female class fellows and told them that the Vice Chancellor does not allow female students to act on stage but there are important back stage tasks to which they would be able contribute if they are interested in joining. The ban remained effective through my four years as an undergraduate student. It has also been confirmed by a recent graduate that that ban still remains in place in year 2010; Female students are not allowed to appear on stage and female roles (if they exist) are performed by male students. As someone rightly pointed out, when she was told of this ridiculous ban, there seems no difference between twenty first century Pakistani universities and sixteenth century Shakespearean England.

I have also been informed that recently the Electrical Engineering department of the university prohibited male and female students from forming combined final year project groups. Perhaps one must ask the VC if he is heading a university situated inside Mansure or Muridke?

Hypocrisy

While Mr. Akram does not want female students to occupy the public space during activities related to theatre and dramatics, he is not a typical Islamist or mullah and can act in very different way if suits his purpose. It so happened that the then President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf (another military general) was to inaugurate the construction of new (Kala Shah Kaku) campus of the university and the university administration was looking for a student who could do the announcements during the event. The selected candidate was rejected by VS on the sole reason that she covered her head with a dupatta. According to him it was the era of enlightened moderation (yeh enlightened moderation ka zamana hay) and so such an attire was not acceptable and he would only allow her if she was ready to uncover her head during the event. One can only wonder at the opportunist hypocrisy and male chauvinism of Mr. Akram.

De-politicization of Students and Fundamentalism

One of the main achievements credited to Mr. Akram is the de-politicization of university which was a hub of violent student politics between multiple factions. He got rid of the violence and politics but in the process completely de-politicized the university culture into a suffocating space where he acts as an autocrat. But the lack of political activities may not mean that there are no political or semi-political alternatives available to the students. It happens that while no political party or even secular civil society organization may be allowed to work with university students, Tableghi Jamaat operates freely as it does through most of the institutions of the state. Its assertion that it is a non-political organization and that it does not condone violence has been repeatedly challenged by analysts but the Jamaat is allowed to operate freely throughout the educational institutions of Pakistan. [2] [3]
A much more worrying aspect is the influence of rabid sectarian Wahabi/Salafi elements within the university academic staff. One must not forget that Hafiz Saeed, the founder of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT), was a professor at Islamic Studies department of UET. The reality is that the Wahabi sympathizers and affiliates of (LeT) have remained influential in that department throughout these years. Since military dictator, Zia-ul-Haq in his theocratic reforms, made it mandatory for the students of medical colleges and engineering universities to take courses in Islamic Studies, the department and its Wahabi affiliates are able to indoctrinate the students with their rabid ideology. The courses have been delibrately designed to teach rigid literalist interpretation of Islam to the students. I remember that one such member of the faculty (who is a well known Salafi figure), spent most of the time of his first lecture, in demonizing Ahmedis, declaring them as conspirators and making fun of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed’s death.

One more subtle and important fact is the tradition that the Friday sermon in university mosque is delivered by the Chairman of the Islamic Studies department which allows him (which is usually a Wahabi/Salafi academic) to preach a specific agenda and school of religious thought.

It is ironic that while Mr. Akram would not like Islami Jamiat –e-Tulaba (IJT), the student political faction of Jamat-e-Islami, to take control of university again, he has got no problem in accommodating the extremist elements within university faculty. Perhaps he symbolizes the very nature of Pakistani military establishment  which claims that it is fighting the War against Terrorism but at the same time patronizes groups like Lashkar-e-Tayyaba to take on India on proxy fronts.

Authoritarianism

Mr. Akram runs the university as authoritatively as any retired military general would do. Dissenting students who may try to organize or protest for their demands may face expulsions and suspensions. The VC is known to dictate his will to members of disciplinary committees who are then left with almost no option than to hand over the suggested punishments to the students.

One of the main questions remains that why a retired military general is heading one of the prime technology universities in the country for last twelve years. Why cannot the number of able faculty members, Chairmen of Departments and Deans of faculties replace him? Why has he been given extensions by political governments and military dictatorship alike? It is ironic that Sharif brothers criticize Musharraf and his military associates but were themselves responsible for bringing military officers to run civil organizations and are still repeating the same mistakes? Why is it that the only achievements that the erstwhile Vice Chancellor can boast of- in his repetitive and predictable addresses to the students- are the erection of new buildings and increase of certain funds for certain purposes? How long could one go running our universities as some medieval madrassas ?
References

1. http://pakedu.net/pakistani-education-news/university-of-engineering-and-technology-uog-heads-get-extension/
2. http://www.metransparent.com/spip.php?page=article&id_article=4640&var_lang=en&lang=en

3. http://secularpakistan.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/tablighi-jamaat-coming-of-age/

Road to Kot Addu via Mahmood Kot and Sanawan

As an attempt to assess the situation after the devastating Pakistani floods, I along with two of my fellows visited Kot Addu on August 22nd. Kot Addu is a tehsil of Muzaffargarh district in Southern Punjab that has been heavily affected by the recent floods. The city, which lies quite close to Taunsa Barrage on River Indus, was evacuated in the wake of flood threat. and the low lying western section of city came under water. A railway line splits the affected and unaffected areas of the city.  A few direct routes to the city remained under water for some time and alternative routes had to be taken. The one we took was opened only recently and a part of it was still under water. The road was damaged at various points where running water had submerged it for almost two feet.

Flood and Politics

Our conversation with residents of Kot Addu,- brought out that they were highly displeased at the way flood conditions were handled. According to them, the breach of embankment named Abbasid Bund at left bank (East) of River Indus was unprecedented. Historically, it was always the right bank (West) of River Indus at Taunsa Barrage that was inundated at the time of severe floods. The right bank areas on the side of Dera Ghazi Khan (DG Khan) district are less populated and hence flooding on that bank causes much less damage. During the floods this year, the West bank areas were instead flooded. These areas, including Kot Addu, are naturally low lying areas with a very large population. As a result, the damage was magnified to enormous proportions. Our hosts claimed that it was the powerful Khosa family of DG Khan which used its influence to protect their farm lands on the right bank side of River Indus. Hunjra, another political family of that area that owns farm lands and game ranches on the right bank side, was also pointed out for using political influence to protect their property and as a result inundating areas with large population. The residents pointed out that the affected areas come under the constituency of a PPP MNA and according to them, the provincial government of Punjab deliberately damaged the areas. Our hosts also pointed out strange management of Taunsa barrage at the time of flood where the barrage gates were shut down (instead of being opened) when large volume of flood water was to pass through the barrage.

Embankment near Taunsa Barrage being refilled

The local residents also complained about the high handedness of the authorities when dealing with the demands of local population. Since the flood in River Indus had receded to an extent, the water, that submerged a large area, had started draining out through the breached embankment but instead of waiting for the water to drain out, the authorities started filling the breach. As a result, the large submerged areas may remain under water for months since there is no natural drainage for the water and sunlight cannot evaporate it. According to our hosts, when the local residents protested against this strategy, the Army officer in charge of the operation, threatened that he will order shooting of anybody who tried to interfere with his work.

People were also worried about the future prospects of agriculture in that area. The sowing season for wheat was about to start from September 15 (the optimum time will end in mid November) but a lot of areas were under water which does not seem to recede while wheat requires dry land to be sown. Late sowing of wheat from mid November to mid January is also possible but it provides low yield and requires relatively large effort and input.

Taunsa Punjnad Link Canal and Taunsa Barrage

We were facilitated in Kot Addu by people who work under the platform of a local development organization named Hirrak Development Center that works for Education, Women Rights, Governance and Democracy, Food Rights and fishing rights of indigenous riverine community of River Indus. We left for Taunsa Barrage

Taunsa-Punjnad (TP) Link Canal

along with two doctors, one a senior cardiologist from Multan, the other a young doctor from Kot Addu and two workers of Hirrak. We crossed Muzaffargarh Canal and Taunsa-Panjnad (TP) Link Canal. Both of these canals originate from Taunsa Barrage and the breaches in them, due to the flood, caused an extensive damage in large areas of Muzaffargarh Distirct. In order to reach Taunsa Barrage, we travelled on a dirt road at the embankment of TP Link Canal. Along the road we witnessed the people affected by the flood taking shelter on the high ground. There was no organized or centralized relief camp at that side to take care of those people. Most of them had been provided with water proof tents by USAID and I saw one elderly man drinking clean water from a can probably supplied by USAID or some other relief organization. Our vehicle came to a halt at almost two kilometers from Taunsa Barrage at what seemed like a bustling bus terminal with multiple vehicles parked and people waiting. It came out that it was the end of the road because the canal had been breached and the only way to go forward was through boats. We hired a boat, loaded our medicine and  took to the other side which equally seemed like a bus terminal. People would ride their motor cycles to one end, load their bikes into boats, crossed water and then again rode to their destination on motor bikes. It was as if somehow the disaster acted in a way to make, past and present overlap and combine old and new ways of travel and communication at the same time.

Doctors and volunteers aboard the boat

Medicine that we provided to the patients

People boarding boat along with their vehicles

Families crossing the water on boats

The Other side

A car, arranged by our hosts, came to take our team members and medicine to the required destination across River Indus while the rest of us walked half of the way before being picked up by the car. On our way, we had a look at the devastation caused by flood in the ‘kaccha’ area where vast areas of land were submerged in water. According to our colleague, those areas were heavily cultivated and populated. But at that time, those areas seemed deserted and lifeless under water with no sign of any previous human presence.

On our way, I saw a man filling an empty water can with flood water below. I was not able to figure out whether he ran out of clean water and intended to use that contaminated water for drinking or he only needed that water for non-drinking purposes. In any case, the contaminated and stale water can cause serious skin diseases even if used only for washing purposes.

Medical Camp

Medical Camp

Our destination was at half a kilometer distance after crossing River Indus through Taunsa Barrage bridge. Here a small shop served as the location for our medical camp. The camp was organized in such a  fashion that ou r two colleagues from Hirrak, who were fluent in local dialect of Seraiki , were appointed outside and were assigned the task to note down patient’s name and initial symptoms on a paper slip. After a patient had his/her slip prepared, he/she was asked to wait in the queue. Both doctors examined one patient each at a time and prescribed the medicine as per diagnosis. The patient was then asked to receive medicine from two of the dispensers (I being one of them) who were located at a little distance from the doctors. On of our colleagues managed the patients’ queue. In this way, we were able to serve almost four hundred patients in almost three hours time.  The number of patients did not reduce till the end but we had to call a day since we wanted to return before dark and the number of patients that we had served was already overwhelming and exhausting for the whole team. After the camp, our local hosts from that area, in a kind act of hospitality, offered us fried Indus water fish for lunch (religiosity and rituals are almost absent in the areas hit by calamities). A large percentage of the patients were suffering from skin infections, allergies, fever and stomach problems. A few cases of malaria were also noted.

Afterthought

When we left for the flood affected areas, a few of us were more interested in long term rehabilitation efforts but our point of view changed after witnessing the scale and nature of destruction. Unlike, earthquake and IDP crisis, which were sudden and concentrated to specific regions, this disaster is silent, widespread and growing. There is no way for a stranger to find out where the people -who lived in now submerged locations- have gone. A silence prevails across the sufferers and the state regarding the future strategy and plans to rehabilitate.

It is also difficult for the people living in metropolitans to imagine the nature of terrain surrounded by multiple rivers and characterized by complex network of irrigation canals and roads. There is no simple way for the flood water to recede, once it has inundated a large area of such terrain, since many obstacles like roads, railway tracks, relative height of different locations determine the flow of water. Long term rehabilitation is an important task but it may not be possible in many areas due to the nature of flood and such areas will remain in the need of aid in the form of food and medical supplies for a significant amount of time.

The logistics of aid need to be revisited, redefined and coordinated. My personal opinion remains that it is unwise to take trucks, loaded with food items, hundreds of kilometers away from Lahore to areas in Southern Punjab. Unless the relief goods are of such nature that they are not available or cannot be procured in comparable prices from Multan, it makes no sense to spend money on an operation that is logistically wasteful. Organizations and groups working for relief efforts in Southern Punjab should coordinate their efforts in such a way that they could be managed  from Multan.

In an article published in the January 2009 edition of Newsline, prominent Pakistani academic, scientist and social activist Pervez Hoodbhoy outlined the root causes of religious extremism in Pakistan and while doing so pointed out towards deliberate attempts of imposing an Arab culture upon the pluralistic South Asian traditions upheld by the people of Pakistan. [1]

These attempts include the import of puritanical Wahabi strand of Islam from Arabia under state patronage. The fundamentalist and puritanical Wahabism has engulfed the lower middle and urban middle class of Pakistan and is on its way to completely change the cultural outlook of this region. One of the examples includes ‘abaya’ (a long robe worn by Arabic women) which was an unknown word in Urdu (and an equally unknown entity in local culture) but has now become a common spectacle in educational institutes.

As'ad AbuKhalil

Surely, such articles do not go down well with those belonging to conservative religious right and adherents of political Islam as they seek establishment of a theocratic state in Pakistan and for them subjugation and oppression of women remains a part of their faith. One rightly expects severe criticism from the religious right as the assertion of  their political values gets challenged.  Strangely, criticism also came from another unlikely corner.  As’ad AbuKhalil, a California State University professor  of political science, posted the following excerpt from Hoodbhoy’s article at his blog ‘The Angry Arab News Service’:

“The Saudi-isation of a once-vibrant Pakistani culture continues at a relentless pace. The drive to segregate is now also being found among educated women. Vigorous proselytisers carrying this message, such as Mrs Farhat Hashmi, have been catapulted to the heights of fame and fortune. Their success is evident. Two decades back, the fully veiled student was a rarity on Pakistani university and college campuses. The abaya was an unknown word in Urdu. Today, some shops across the country specialise in abayas. At colleges and universities across Pakistan, the female student is seeking the anonymity of the burqa. And in some parts of the country she seems to outnumber her sisters who still “dare” to show their faces. I have observed the veil profoundly affect habits and attitudes. Many of my veiled female students have largely become silent note-takers, are increasingly timid and seem less inclined to ask questions or take part in discussions. They lack the confidence of a young university student.”

AbuKhalil condemned Hoodbhoy’s criticism of burka as ‘vulgar Western Orientalism’ and commented as:

“That is such a wild generalization. This is like suggesting that dress–in whatever shape–can affect the level of confidence of a woman. This comes from the cliches of vulgar Western orientalism. I can attest that during my brief speaking tour in Islamabad I found that the burka in no way make female students lacking in self-confidence. As I reported at the time, I found that it was my problem and not their problem (I was the one who felt uncomfortable discussing ideas with a woman whose eyes I could not see). ” [2]

Before I discuss Mr. AbuKhalil’s point, there is more to quote from recent news stories which relates to this issue. On March 18, 2010, The News published a story with the title ‘Hoodbhoy sees veiled students bar to effective communication’ which stated Hoodbhoy’s comments ‘ that the culture of effective communication was diminishing in universities as the number of female students hiding their faces with Burqa (veil) were rapidly increasing compared to the trends that prevailed during the decade of 60s and 70s.’ According to the story, the comments led to a heated debate in which a professor teaching at Islamic university claimed that the girls wearing hijab were more brilliant as compared to male students. Hoodbhoy replied with the comments that ‘he was worried of this growing trend as he knew some teachers at the university level who were openly advising that those female students were not allowed to enter their classrooms who did not observe Burqa.’ [3]

They day this news story was published, a well known Pakistani blogger, quoting this story, wrote at his blog:

“what makes me wonder, that this forward thinking liberal philosopher must have better appreciation for respecting the right of every individuals, simply the right to express himself/herself on how he/she may dress should ride well with at least this educator, be it tight fitting jeans or a typical top-to-bottom veil with bare minimal opening for the eyes. These women come to the university for education and definitely not to be ogled at by their teachers and fellow students on how they dress.

So when Dr. Hoodbhoy uses the pretext of “hindering the culture of effective communication” makes me want to give the learned gentleman a deserved a solid whack on the knuckles.” [4]

Let me discuss the points raised by these gentlemen in the remaining part of this article

On Orientalism

AbuKhalil declares Hoodbhoy’s comments as coming from ‘clichés of vulgar Western Orientalism’. I wonder if the learned professor has himself read Edward Said’s remarkable and influential work because his next lines actually spill out what Said so eloquently pointed and criticized. AbuKhalil actually claims that his brief presence in Islamabad and interaction with students was enough for him to make generalizations about Pakistani culture and religious traditions, create stereotypes, pass judgements and refute any attempt to point out the ills that plague Pakistani society. Is it not true that  Said’s work was about similar stereotypes and generalizations that Western Orientalists generated when they came in contact with those living in East . These were the stereotypes that led them to the conclusions that Orientals were degenerate, inferior and backward and hence deserved to be subjugated and ruled!

Unlike AbuKhalil, some of the Orientalists spent considerable time with the ‘natives’ in order to ‘study’ them. One of the examples quoted in Said’s work is of  Edward William Lane whose work ‘, An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians (1836), was the self-conscious result of a series of works and of two periods of residence in Egypt (1825–1828 and 1833–1835).’ [5].

Lane was not just another visitor or observer  as he ‘was able to submerge himself amongst the natives, to live as they did, to conform to their habits, and “to escape exciting, in strangers, any suspicion of . . . being a person who had no right to intrude among them.” ‘.[5]

It was indeed Said’s remarkable critique of texts by Orientalists such as Lane which exposed the inherent biases and prejudices present in their works which claimed authority and objectivity. I would recommend everyone to read this book in order to understand how the West has looked down at the Orient in specific and East in general in previous centuries.

Unfortunately, AbuKhalil’s comments do not even offer such a claim of authority or objectivity. He spent a few hours or days in Islamabad, delivered a few lectures in the urban environment of Pakistani capital, interacted with students mainly belonging to the urban middle class of Pakistan and was able to create generalizations which he could apply to population of more than 160 million, divided into multitudes of classes, ethnicities, and beliefs. One can assert that his comments were also an example of vulgar Orientalism and were meant to distract attention from the valid arguments that it is the state patronage of Arab Wahabism that is responsible for religious extremism and fundamentalism in Pakistan. One wonders if it’s the hatred of everything West or some sort of latent Arab tribalism that led Prof. AbuKhalil to such a response.

Interestingly, declaring someone as an Orientalist has become a favourite hobby of the apologists of religious extremism and fundamentalism. Anybody who opposes these ideologues is labelled as an Orientalist or Brown Sahab and hence a traitor to one’s own people. The binary world view held by these people make them believe that the world is divided into two poles; Imperialist USA along with its allies and the Taliban along with their supporters who oppose USA. Therefore anybody who opposes Taliban or Muslim fundamentalists is bound to be an ally of USA and a native-orientalist. Prof. AbuKhalil suffers from this syndrome as evident from his comments and so does Prof. Shahid Alam from Northeastern University in Boston, Massachussetts. [6]

It is also true that Edwards Said’s work has been used by fundamentalists and their supporters, something that Said himself disproved of as he considered his book as a work of secular literary and humanist critique. In his 1995 foreword to Orientalism, Said  stated,

“Yet Orientalism has in fact been read and written about in the Arab world as a systematic defense of Islam and the Arabs, even though I say explicitly that I have no interest in, much less capacity for, showing what the true Orient or Islam really are.” [5]

Said states further,

“Orientalism can only be read as a defense of Islam by suppressing half of my argument, in which I say (as I do in a subsequent book, Covering Islam) that even the primitive community we belong to natally is not im-mune from the interpretive contest, and that what appears in the West to be the emergence, return to, or resurgence of Islam is in fact a struggle in Islamic societies over the definition of Islam. No one person, authority, or institution has total control over that definition; hence, of course, the contest. Fundamentalism’s epistemological mistake is to think that “fundamentals” are ahistorical categories, not subject to and therefore outside the critical scrutiny of true believers, who are supposed to accept them on faith. To the adherents of a restored or revived version of early Islam, Orientalists are considered (like Salman Rushdie) to be dangerous because they tamper with that version, cast doubt on it, show it to be fraudulent and non-divine. To them, therefore, the virtues of my book were that it pointed out the malicious dangers of the Orientalists and somehow prised Islam from their clutches.

Now this is hardly what I saw myself doing, but the view persists anyway.” [5]

If AbuKhalil’s assertion is true and burka or veil is indeed a part of Pakistani culture- criticism of which would lead one to be regarded as an Orientalist – then I wonder what Prof. Khalil would make of the following verses from Heer Waris Shah, perhaps the most import piece of Punjabi literature written by Waris Shah, a sixteenth century Punjabi sufi poet:

There are so many evils in this veil; lets burn this veil;
Veil hides the glamour of beauty, the veiled woman gets robbed of everything;
Veil destroys lovers, do not imprison meena (bird) in a cage;
You will only see this world completely when you will remove this veil;
Veil blinds even those with proper vision, O, married women please remove this veil;
Waris Shah, burying pearls (of beauty)is like burning flowers in fire. [7]

I wonder if our learned professor AbuKhalil would consider Waris Shah as an Orientalist working on an agenda to legitimize the future British colonial rule in India!

I am sure that Mr. AbuKhalil, during his brief stay in Pakistan, never took out time to go deeper into the rural areas of Punjab or Sindh where they would have found female peasants working alongside men in fields. None of them wears burka as it is not practical to work in fields while being draped in a dark head-to-toe dress. Mr. AbuKhalil would also be unaware of women, in the far off regions of Balochistan and Pakhtunkhawa and the deserts of Cholistan and Thar, who daily travel several kilometers to bring fresh water supplies for their families. How many of them do and can actually wear burka is a question that our learned professor must ask himself as these poor and impoverished women constitute a large portion of the population of this poor third world country.

Burka as a Dress

Both AbuKhalil and the Pakistani assert speak in defence of burka by declaring it as a ‘dress’ that a woman ‘chooses’ to wear. Seriously, is burka just another ‘dress’?  Why is it then specific to women? We do see both men and women wearing similar dresses. Both men and women choose to wear Shalwar Kameez, jeans, trousers, shirts etc. but we do not see a man wearing a shuttle cock burka as a fashion statement or as a dress selected out of ‘choice‘. Why not Mr. AbuKhalil and the Pakistani blogger who are so keen to defend a woman’s right to wear a burka, start wearing burkas as an act of solidarity towards the ‘freedom’ of Pakistani women?

What is the choice that these people speak about? The choice when a woman is told that it is obligatory to cover her face or else she would burn in hell fire? Or the choice when a woman is forced to believe that her existence is a source of chaos and anarchy and she must be covered in order to protect the order of the society? Or the choice when she is made to believe that she needs protection and the only protection that could be offered is by hiding her from the eyes of the world? Or perhaps the choice when six years old girls are made to wear full body hijabs at the highly prolific Islamic schools?

Perhaps both the writers have not seen the emotionally exploitative propaganda videos, making rounds on social networking websites, in which Satan (with his red horns and protruding teeth)is shown tempting a woman not to wear hijab and when falls into despair when she does not respond to her temptations. These videos have either been created by organizations working out of Arab states or have been financed by such organizations. Is that the choice and ‘free will’ that Pakistani women in specific and Muslim women in general have when they ‘choose’ to wear burkas under petro-dollars sponsored propaganda that makes them believe that unless they wear hijab (in a very specific Arabic style), they will remain inferior to their Arab sisters?

On Women’s Protection

This argument in favour of burka comes pouring out of  apologists whenever burka is criticized. What exactly is the protection that these men talk about? Why exactly a woman needs to be protected? Why should she cover herself up so that she is not ogled in the streets or raped or harassed? Why not the men who stare, grope and harass women must be apprehended instead?

Why not the men who are robbed at gun point while using ATM machines or whose mobile phones are snatched while walking down a deserted street are protected using an extrapolation of argument in defence of Hijab and burka? Why not such men are barred from going out of their homes for their own protection? Do courts give relaxations to robbers when they find out that the man who was robbed, was walking alone in a dark street while his purse remained half exposed from his pockets? If not then why is that same argument applied by the burka apologists to justify rapes and harassment on the basis of woman’s dress?

Te reality is that men, stare, grope and harass women because they consider themselves dominant. The patriarchal society makes them consider women as objects of domination and source of gratification. Such attitudes are inherent in a culture that treats women as pieces of property that require protection from strangers and outsiders.

I would go on to assert that the societies that segregate women under the pretence of protection actually sow the seeds of harassment of women. When a man is turned into a saviour, protector and guardian of his mother, daughters, sisters and wife, these women are at once turned into scared items of property, a relation internalized by the man. While at the same time it results into, him considering all the women as similar objects. Since there is no sanctity attached to the ’other’ women out there, the natural result of such an arrangement is that the man considers himself dominant upon all the women and hence able to ’use’ those women for his gratification.

That is what the religious apologists and fundamentalists ignore while singing in chorus the benefits of purdah and veil. At the same time, people like Prof. AbuKhalil and the Pakistani blogger in question, start defending the burka and veil as symbols of freedom while ignoring the real problems that are faced by the women that is patriarchy and male domination. Instead of advising men to reconsider their behaviour and their internalized sense of superiority, these intellectual terrorists, instead, rationalize extreme oppression of women by turning them into objects hidden from foot to toe, only to be seen and ‘used’ by their rightful owners sanctified by the whole social order.

So do women need protection? Indeed women need and deserve protection as any citizen of a modern state is guaranteed protection. There is no harm in guaranteeing extra measure for the protection of women in societies which are highly patriarchal is nature. Women do need protection from sexual harassment by enacting laws that guarantee that anybody indulging in such an act will spend a considerable time of his life in prison. Women do need protection by laws which guarantee that anybody who is involved in violence against women received strict punishment. There could be so many ways in which a state can ensure protection of women, by punishing those who violate the freedom of women, rather than punishing the victims of this oppression with cages known as burka.

Burka a part of Pakistani Culture?

As I have discussed above, burka had never been adopted by a significant part of Pakistani population which remains impoverished and rural. As Hamza Alavi points out,

‘women have always had an active role in agricultural production in weeding, harvesting and threshing of crops, and other operations. It is their duty to cut fodder and to look after farm animals. Accordingly these women enjoy freedom of movement and are not confined behind purdah.’ [8]

It was only after the Green Revolution of the 1970s that many well to do peasants withdrew women from labour work and confined them to the house hold under purdah. Alavi also points out that during the course of research in Punjab villages, he and his wife found out :

“that far from rejoicing in this partial relief from the burden of work, the women resented this change. Many of them described their new situation to my wife as the equivalent of being locked up in a prison”. [8]

Even today, if one travels away from urban capitals for a few hours, one can see rural women working in fields dressed in conventional dresses without covering their faces. Burka is more related to the urban or semi urban middle and lowe middle class families while ‘abaya’ remains an ugly symbol of marriage between urban middle class consumerism and religion (Wahabism) and is found mainly in urban capitals of the city.

Polemic under Burka

The way, this issue was raised by the Pakistani blogger was queer in its own regard. He jumped up against Hoodbhoy’s comments regarding them as an attack on women’s freedom even when the comments were more of the nature of being a social and cultural commentary. One cannot find in those comments a hint that Hoodbhoy wants to ban Burka inside universities. The blogger, on the other hand completely missed out (or perhaps deliberately skipped ) the portion of the story  where Hoodbhoy raised his concerns against university teachers who were ‘forcing’ their female students to wear burkas. Such a profound display of hypocrisy from the blogger is extremely disturbing. On one side he is trying to be a champion of women’s freedom by starting a social media trial of anybody who criticizes burka but on the other hand he has no issue with professors forcing their students and hence curbing their basic freedom of choosing a dress.

For any freedom loving person, the allegations that some professors force female students to wear veil , would have come out to be as a serious news and a matter of grave concern but the in this case, the blogger was more interested in defaming Pervez Hoodbhoy. The whole articles comes out more as a deliberate polemic against Hoodbhoy rather than an honest attempt to discuss women’s rights. It is such a disgusting display of hypocrisy when the writer claims that he wants to retaliate against Pervez Hoodbhoy with a ‘solid whack on the knucles’ but cannot even spend a little time in condemning those fascists who force women to wear burkas.

So do we support Burka Bans?

It is another remarkable display of lack of imagination when people assume that anybody who criticizes burka is a supporter of bans on burkas and hence would like to force women to remove veils. Why would anybody, who disagrees with the idea of veil because it violates basic freedom of women as human being, would invade into a woman’s personal freedom and use state force to remove her veil.

The people who make such assumptions have not been able to realize that the world is not divided into Islamists and Islamophobes. A rational and academic criticism does not means that a person is arguing in favour of using force neither does it make that person a fascist or an extremist. Dialogue, discourse and criticism are ways to point out social evils, the solutions that can help in eradicating those evils and to raise the general level of consciousness in the society regarding the presence of evils and problems which had previously been tolerated as norms but are actually oppressive and exploitative in nature.

I do realize that enforced modernity could and has led towards religious fundamentalism in past. As Karen Armstrong rightly point out “In Iran, the shahs used to make their soldiers go through the streets with bayonets, taking the women’s veils off and tearing them to pieces in front of them. These modernizers wanted their countries to look modern. Never mind that the vast majority of the population, because of the rapid pace of the modernization process, had no understanding of modern institutions or modern ideals. “ [9]

There is no need to point out that such modernizing measures violate fundamental human rights. The act of forcefully removing veil from a woman would be as much traumatic as forcing her to take veil. Such acts are condemnable and no freedom loving person would ever own them. On the other hand, I also believe that  proper and continuous criticism of social evils (and intellectual terrorism from the apologists of religious extremism and fundamentalism) is one of the most important duties of an intellectual. Therefore, I call upon all freedom loving people to condemn the dehumanizing practice of veil while at the same time oppose the hysterical Islamophobia that has engulfed a large part of the world.

References

1. Pervez Hoodbhoy, The Saudi-isation of Pakistan, Newline, January 2009

2. As’ad AbuKhalil, Saudization of Pakistan: and the Pakistanization of Western stereotypes

3. Hoodbhoy sees veiled students bar to effective communication, The News, March 18, 2010

4. Awab Alvi, Pervaiz Hoodbhoy against Burqas in Universities?

5. Edward Said, Orientalism, Penguin Books, 2003

6 Pervez Hoodbhoy, The Confessions of a Groveling Pakistani Native Orientalist, Counter Punch, December 14, 2009

7. Heer Waris Shah, Stanza 397, (Punjabi to English translation by the author)

8. Hamza Alavi, Pakistani Women in a Changing Society

9. Fundamentalism and the Modern World, A dialogue with Karen Armstrong, Susannah Heschel, Jim Wallis, and Feisal Abdul Rauf, Sojourners Magazine, March-April 2002

It is one of the most favourite subjects of official historians in Pakistan.  Their books tell us that Dahir was a brutal and promiscuous ruler who had married his sister.  It is indeed true that he had married his sister but the official historians deliberately leave out two important points.

1. The marriage was never consummated.

As Chachnama states:

It was he who, by the advice of a credulous minister, solemnised his marriage with his own sister, to prevent the working of a prediction. The marriage was not intended to be consummated, and, as a matter of fact, it was not consummated. [1]

2. That the act was socially abominable in that society and Dahir had his brother alienated from him due to this act.

Dahir’s brother Daharsiah wrote the following to Dahir when he learnt of this news:

What you have done is wicked and infamous. Whether you did it through necessity or of your own free will, you can never be excused, and whether you considered it allowable to do such an illegal and detestable act, in order to secure worldly pomp and power, or took the initial step by reason of the temptation of the devil, what you now ought to do is to turn from your evil ways, to forswear year sin, and to grieve (for your transgression), so that you may not be shut off from (the communion of) our religion, and our alliance with you may not be cancelled. If you fail to turn from this sin, in accordance with our suggestion and advice, you will make yourself deserving of opprobrium and will receive (your) punishment. You would have then to thank yourself for the consequences of these ugly deeds. [1]

By leaving these two subtle but important points, official historians create a generalization which implies that incest was a norm of that society. One can easily find such impressions upon conversing with people who have been exposed to such biased version of history. Such intellectual dishonesty helps in creating an image of the promiscuous, immoral, barbarian ‘Other’ that our ruling elites to create in order to produce and sustain hatred against Hindus.

The above lines from Chachnama clearly indicate that Dahir’s act was clearly a deviance and not a norm of that culture.  Though this conclusion does not even require a background in history if one is aware of some basic principles of biology, genetics and evolutionary psychology. The taboo against incest is not only social but it also lies deep within our biology. The abhorrence we feel towards it is embedded into us by the nature. No society or culture could have survived if it had made incest a norm as the biological penalty is extremely high. Nature is a cruel administrator and that we can observe in our society where excessive cousin marriages have led to fatal blood diseases in extreme cases and minor aberrations in others.

Notes

[1] The Chachnama-An Ancient History of Sind

Muhammad Kásim, then complied with the prayer made by the people in the suburbs of Braminábád, and permanently settled their affairs in the same way and on the same lines, as had been followed in the case of the Jews, Fireworshippers, Nazarenes and Magians of Irák and Syria. He then sent them back to their homes; and to their headmen he gave the generic name of Ráná.* He then sent for Wazír Siyákar and Mókah Basáyeh, and asked them as to how the Jats of the Lúhánah tribe had been treated by Chach and Dáhar, and how matters now stood in regard to them. Wazír Siyákar replied in the presence of Mókah Basáyeh:

“In the reign of Rái Chach the Lúhánahs, that is, the Lákháhs and the Sammáhs* were not allowed to use soft clothe of silk or velvet. On the contrary they used to wear a rough black blanket, and put on a rough coarse scarf on their shoulders, and they went about with bare head and feet. If any one of them wore some soft stuff, he was fined, and when they went out of their houses, they used to take a dog with them, in order that they might easily be distinguished from the other tribes. None of their elders or chiefs was allowed to ride a horse. If any guides were required anywhere by any prince, they served as such. In fact it was their business to show the way as guides upto the limits of another tribe. If any headman or Ráná was obliged to use a horse, he rode it without any saddle or reins, and with only a blanket on its back. If an accident occurred to any traveller, the Jat tribes were called to help, and it was the duty of their headmen to see that such help was given readily. If any one of them committed theft, his children  and the other members of his family were thrown into flames and burnt. They guided caravans on their way both during day time and at night. Among them there is no distinction of high and low; they are all of the wild nature of brutes. They have always been refractory and disobedient to the rulers; and are in the habit of committing highway robberies. In the robberies committed some time ago on the high roads of Debal, they were probably concerned as accomplices. It was also a duty of theirs to supply firewood for the royal kitchen, to collect provisions for the personal use of the king, and to keep watch over his person, as his body guards.”

A tradition

Hearing this account of the Lúhánah Jats, Muhammad Kásim is said to have
remarked:

“what a villainous set of people these are. They are quite like the
wild men, living in some villages of Fárs and Mount Payeh, and they should now be treated as such.”

Muhammad Kásim, therefore, thought it proper to deal with them exactly in the same way, and following the rule made applicable by the commander of the faithful, Umār, son of Khattab, (may the great God be pleased with him) to the people of Syria, he ordered that if any stranger or a traveller should arrive within their limits, they were bound to entertain him with food as a guest for a day and night, and if he fell sick, for three days.