M A Niazi Ashura, the 10th day of Muharram, may be the commemoration of the martyrdom of Imam Hussain and his family at Karbala, however, its commemoration will be for Muslims not just as a reminder of the eternal battle between good and evil, but will also be a commemoration of martyrdom. That belief in the benefits of martyrdom is what makes the West dislike Islam, which is why they want Islam dragged down to the level of just another religion, not worth dying for. The West realises as well as, perhaps better than, the Muslims that the lack of love of life that Muslims have in the shape of the desire for martyrdom, makes for an unbeatable force, one which never accepts what the victor wants acknowledged, the reality of a given situation, and the inevitability of defeat. Muslims are supposed to insist on the opponent showing that he does have stomach for the fight. For Muslims, Imam Hussain is Syedush-Shuhada (the leader of the Martyrs) in the Next World. That means that his martyrdom was not meaningless, though in this world, it might have appeared so, for he did not win. That sense of the Next World, and the associated idea of the preceding judgement, and of this world as a testing-ground, is to be replaced by the western capitalist ideal of this as the only life in this, the only, world. For that, it is necessary to remove the example of the Imam. One thing should be clear at the outset. The Imam sincerely believed he was right. We cannot be so sure of those who killed him, for they were just 'following orders, that familiar bureaucratic cop-out. And the Imam showed what is supposed to be the course of action of someone, who is convinced he is right. There was no wavering, no willingness to accept the sort of shameful compromises that Muslims are being called to make these days. There was no fear of what others would think. He preferred to die. That there were premonitions mentioned by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) can be accepted, for the predictions related to the martyrdom must have been common currency in that household. Thus, there was a big difference between the Imam and those who wanted him dead: foreknowledge. That the Imams was a special kind of martyrdom was occasioned by this, and those who are presently following him may believe to the point of knowledge in their own martyrdom, but there is no foreknowledge. Knowledge of martyrdom is knowledge of ones own death, and that the Imam knew. It is perhaps one of the problems of the Muslims that the Imams sublime martyrdom has been taken over by the Shia school, even though his example can provide even the most purist Sunni with an outstanding example of how important the matter of ruling, and of this world, are considered even by pious Muslims. The hidden irony is that the Imam lost, and his political goals remained unachieved. The Bani Ummayya remained in power, and Yazid continued as Caliph. But the Imam also won, for when the Bani Abbas came, they did so because they had a claim as Ahle Bait, though they did not restore the Imams descendants, their imprisonment came to an end. Even the Sunnis acknowledge the Imams main point, that the Caliphate had become a kingship. True, the Imam was the son of a Caliph, but he sought the peoples mandate, as his father had done, and did not acquiesce in the Caliphate of Yazid, and did not give him the oath of allegiance, as he was being forced to. That acceptance of whoever has taken power has been used to justify not just all manner of kings, but even the rule of the British (in the subcontinent) has been described as Islamic, because they very kindly allowed the Friday congregations. That was also used by military rulers to justify their own rule, with the latest example being by Musharraf in his following American policies. The US thinks of the Shia school in terms of Iran being a Shia-majority state, which it wishes to invade, in terms of Hizbollah in Lebanon and how it fights Israel that America befriends; but it came up against Shias in Iraq and in Afghanistan. In the latter, the Shia minority is heavily influenced by Iran, as are the Shia of Pakistan and India. Pakistan generally does not have a problem with the three heads of state, including the founder of the nation, the Quaid-i-Azam, belonging to it, as does the present incumbent. The attempt, in the WikiLeaks revelations of the Saudi Kings remarks about President Asif Zardari, to exacerbate sectarian tensions, does not seem to have succeeded. However, the tradition of using old divisions to split the Muslims continues with the hope that the sectarian division between the Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, and Shias, can be exploited fruitfully. That would be why the sectarian Pakistani parties, like the Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, have joined the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Though the goals of the Lashkar are slightly different from those of the Taliban, they are close enough ideologically to allow the sectarian parties to merge into the Tehrik. The western hope is to make the Shia-Sunni divide as deep and comprehensive as that between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Though they still maintain a rivalry, most notably in Northern Ireland, it has mostly dissipated, with an abolition of civic disabilities which never existed in the world of Islam. The absence of sectarian disabilities, which were once so characteristic of the West, is still not a characteristic of Muslims. And it is hoped that modern concepts of tolerance would endear the West to the Muslim world. However, so long as a Sunni-majority country like Pakistan continues to commemorate Ashura as it does, this intention will not mature at the popular level. The Imam will go on being the prime example of how to react in the face of whatever is wrong. People will follow his example of dying, rather than accept what is wrong. This is the fuel of Islamists everywhere, not just because of the Imam, but because of the Islamic orthodoxy he followed, and which the West detests so deeply. Until that belief is rooted out, the war on terror will not only fail to have achieved its objectives, but will continue. The present government must contemplate whether it can continue following the US so blindly, and still have holidays on Ashura. If it is to follow the Imams example, it would not be following the forces represented by the US. It must not forget that Ashura is not about two sides of essentially equal moral stature, but about good and evil. While that is a constant struggle, it had come to a crisis point at the time the Imam offered his martyrdom. Just as it has now. Which side are we on? With the Imam, or against him? Email: maniazi@nation.com.pk