Tweet
I have been waiting for some time to discuss this particular author. Mainly because I wanted to ensure I had accurate information.
It took a little while but I was able to touch base with people in Peshawar that know him. They confirmed that Taqi is a Shia (Shiite, Shi'i etc in terms of whatever orthography you prefer).
Taqi is a common shia surname that comes from the 9th century imam.
My record here regarding the Shia has not been one of vitriol or condemnation. In fact, discerning readers can go back through what I have written and note that I have more often than not advocated a unity front of the two major schisms against outside powers. In other instances I have discussed Ahmad Shah Baba's correspondences with the Caliph brainstorming a joint front against Iran and a way forward to incorporate it into a Sunni Ascendant Super power - via recognizing Jaffari Shia as a fifth madhab was his proposal for consideration).
That being said, Taqi's works maintain the following themes:
1. Generally support the AIRRA (now defunct) themes regarding military policy in FATA and Afghanistan
2. Regurgitate neocon rhetoric like that of Abrams (e.g. Bhagdadi was not in any way created by the war in Iraq but rather "poof" appeared out of nowhere.
3. Attacked Von Linschoten and Kuehn for their release of battle field Taliban poetry. He claimed that it was based on his view that a "anti war" industry was cropping up. Perhaps he ought to investigate the ratio of dollars spent in the military industrial complex versus the dollars supplied to starving artists like those at antiwar.com. The practical proof that he was wrong and the authors were right in their view that the average people needed to hear the other sides vantage points was that the supreme commanders of the British forces were incensed at he publication of the book. What exactly were the latter afraid of? Most likely their fear rested in the fact that M15 and British Intelligence have worked in overdrive to dehumanize pretty much every enemy of the last century into some sort of evil incarnate. If this veneer were removed - shoring up support for the misadventure that even Lords Roberts of yore had warned subsequent generations not to take might fall into peril.
4. Is generally a part of a coterie of vocal "natives" touted by Westerners as "proof" that "they want Western armies there." He and Farhat Taj Andersen are two of Christine Fair's pet projects to prove that the former NWFP certainly wants the bombs to keep dropping.
I certainly understand why Farhat Taj Andersen feels that she has to drop her surname in her published work and I also understand why Taqi may feel similarly in not publishing his sect/faith. The notion is that ad hominem attacks may replace a critical analysis of what argument they are trying to put forth.
The other issue also is that minorities in these regions (Qadiani, Hazaras, Shia in general, Atheists) feel that their cause is legitimate. Their view is that they cannot sit idly by while their own are attacked by the sunni majority.
However, I think that argument and approach by the two holds very little water and has little credence.
We have already seen the intentional selection bias Taj Andersen injected into both the collection and analysis of her "drone data" such as collecting sample points in shia parts of Parachinar about drones taking out sunni insurgents. We also have seen her trumpet the unsubstantiated view that the FATA tribals use an Arabic term "ababeel" as the label of savior birds when contradictory reliable sources point to the use of "bangana" being the term used.
Those of us with roots in the region understand why for instance, works of fiction such as the Kite Runner, the writings of Ahmad Shuja the Hazara author, and folks like Taqi are problematic.
They are not actually written for an Eastern population. Rather, they are trumpeted by the Western public as representative widespread viewpoints that validate a moral reason d'etre for Western military interventionalism.
It would not be problematic if Taj Andersen and Taqi did not claim to speak for the indigenous people and then promote policy based on their opinion pieces.
The other issue is that the movement toward egalitarian societies that provide rights for the sub groups from which these two emanate is actually stunted and reversed with their approach.
The example of Sri Lanka comes to mind. The Tamil minority worked for some time with the Brits subvert the Sinhalese. The Sinhalese did not actually ever move toward a better working relationship with this minority. Instead, when the British left, the Sinhalese retook their positions of authority and much bloodshed followed with repressive measures eventually leading to a Tamil insurgency and instability in the region.
In this same vein, the attempt by these groups to win their rights with the armaments and weapons and blood shed by an outside super power will in no way result in peaceful co-existence between Sunnis, Qadianis, Marxists, and Shiites. Instead, rhetoric and inter sect strife has increased in multiple regions where sect based politics has been pushed by an outside power.
Another example is that in Syria. Post Sykes Picot and the propping up of the Baathist party whose ranks were filled with Arab Christians and minorities (Alawites) in Syria ruling over a massive sunni majority and the carving up of Iraq into a Baathist regime headed by an ethnic Arab sunni over a shiite majority next door to Iran would lay the basis for this bloody conflict we are witnessing today. Both Saddam and the Assads had an arsenal of weaponry supplied by outside powers to keep their people in check.
A Western comparative example would be if the Catholic Nationalist Irish of Northern Ireland called in Turkey, China, or Russia to arm them and build bases on their soil to assist them against the Protestant Unionists. A large part of why that conflict went on as long as it did in the initial is that Great Britain inserted herself violently on the side of the Unionists thinking it could cow the Catholics and put down this movement. If other powers inserted themselves it would be devastating.
Or yet another example would be if Mormons in the US or ethic sub groups (blacks, Muslims, Jews etc) utilized outside assistance and soldier presence/air power against the Protestant super majority of the country. We already saw during the red scare era that the notion of even outside influence was enough to create a hysteria and push the nation to war and toward foolish interventionalism in Latin America. Imagine a situation of actual hot war style presence... At the end of it all these groups would be on the receiving end of bloody payback.
It is for these reasons why I think that if we see a particular viewpoint being pushed by an author in the mainstream press, it behooves us to examine the angle from which their viewpoints emanate. This is even more essential if they are pushing a pro war and interventionalist narrative. This permits a more balanced assessment of their work for any bias. And there certainly is inherent bias to the work of most in the media... however, most of us here have agreed that folks like Ahmad Shuja have not discussed the history of the Hazara Pashtun interactions in total and provided the Western public only a sliver of history in the last 20 years. He glosses over Hizbe Wahdat's support from Iran for instance whereas the Sunni insurgencies supports from Sunni Arab states is stressed.
So in summary, Mohammad Taqi is a shia minority member and my analysis of his work shows that he generally pushes for sustained interventionalism because it benefits his sect.
It took a little while but I was able to touch base with people in Peshawar that know him. They confirmed that Taqi is a Shia (Shiite, Shi'i etc in terms of whatever orthography you prefer).
Taqi is a common shia surname that comes from the 9th century imam.
My record here regarding the Shia has not been one of vitriol or condemnation. In fact, discerning readers can go back through what I have written and note that I have more often than not advocated a unity front of the two major schisms against outside powers. In other instances I have discussed Ahmad Shah Baba's correspondences with the Caliph brainstorming a joint front against Iran and a way forward to incorporate it into a Sunni Ascendant Super power - via recognizing Jaffari Shia as a fifth madhab was his proposal for consideration).
That being said, Taqi's works maintain the following themes:
1. Generally support the AIRRA (now defunct) themes regarding military policy in FATA and Afghanistan
2. Regurgitate neocon rhetoric like that of Abrams (e.g. Bhagdadi was not in any way created by the war in Iraq but rather "poof" appeared out of nowhere.
3. Attacked Von Linschoten and Kuehn for their release of battle field Taliban poetry. He claimed that it was based on his view that a "anti war" industry was cropping up. Perhaps he ought to investigate the ratio of dollars spent in the military industrial complex versus the dollars supplied to starving artists like those at antiwar.com. The practical proof that he was wrong and the authors were right in their view that the average people needed to hear the other sides vantage points was that the supreme commanders of the British forces were incensed at he publication of the book. What exactly were the latter afraid of? Most likely their fear rested in the fact that M15 and British Intelligence have worked in overdrive to dehumanize pretty much every enemy of the last century into some sort of evil incarnate. If this veneer were removed - shoring up support for the misadventure that even Lords Roberts of yore had warned subsequent generations not to take might fall into peril.
4. Is generally a part of a coterie of vocal "natives" touted by Westerners as "proof" that "they want Western armies there." He and Farhat Taj Andersen are two of Christine Fair's pet projects to prove that the former NWFP certainly wants the bombs to keep dropping.
I certainly understand why Farhat Taj Andersen feels that she has to drop her surname in her published work and I also understand why Taqi may feel similarly in not publishing his sect/faith. The notion is that ad hominem attacks may replace a critical analysis of what argument they are trying to put forth.
The other issue also is that minorities in these regions (Qadiani, Hazaras, Shia in general, Atheists) feel that their cause is legitimate. Their view is that they cannot sit idly by while their own are attacked by the sunni majority.
However, I think that argument and approach by the two holds very little water and has little credence.
We have already seen the intentional selection bias Taj Andersen injected into both the collection and analysis of her "drone data" such as collecting sample points in shia parts of Parachinar about drones taking out sunni insurgents. We also have seen her trumpet the unsubstantiated view that the FATA tribals use an Arabic term "ababeel" as the label of savior birds when contradictory reliable sources point to the use of "bangana" being the term used.
Those of us with roots in the region understand why for instance, works of fiction such as the Kite Runner, the writings of Ahmad Shuja the Hazara author, and folks like Taqi are problematic.
They are not actually written for an Eastern population. Rather, they are trumpeted by the Western public as representative widespread viewpoints that validate a moral reason d'etre for Western military interventionalism.
It would not be problematic if Taj Andersen and Taqi did not claim to speak for the indigenous people and then promote policy based on their opinion pieces.
The other issue is that the movement toward egalitarian societies that provide rights for the sub groups from which these two emanate is actually stunted and reversed with their approach.
The example of Sri Lanka comes to mind. The Tamil minority worked for some time with the Brits subvert the Sinhalese. The Sinhalese did not actually ever move toward a better working relationship with this minority. Instead, when the British left, the Sinhalese retook their positions of authority and much bloodshed followed with repressive measures eventually leading to a Tamil insurgency and instability in the region.
In this same vein, the attempt by these groups to win their rights with the armaments and weapons and blood shed by an outside super power will in no way result in peaceful co-existence between Sunnis, Qadianis, Marxists, and Shiites. Instead, rhetoric and inter sect strife has increased in multiple regions where sect based politics has been pushed by an outside power.
Another example is that in Syria. Post Sykes Picot and the propping up of the Baathist party whose ranks were filled with Arab Christians and minorities (Alawites) in Syria ruling over a massive sunni majority and the carving up of Iraq into a Baathist regime headed by an ethnic Arab sunni over a shiite majority next door to Iran would lay the basis for this bloody conflict we are witnessing today. Both Saddam and the Assads had an arsenal of weaponry supplied by outside powers to keep their people in check.
A Western comparative example would be if the Catholic Nationalist Irish of Northern Ireland called in Turkey, China, or Russia to arm them and build bases on their soil to assist them against the Protestant Unionists. A large part of why that conflict went on as long as it did in the initial is that Great Britain inserted herself violently on the side of the Unionists thinking it could cow the Catholics and put down this movement. If other powers inserted themselves it would be devastating.
Or yet another example would be if Mormons in the US or ethic sub groups (blacks, Muslims, Jews etc) utilized outside assistance and soldier presence/air power against the Protestant super majority of the country. We already saw during the red scare era that the notion of even outside influence was enough to create a hysteria and push the nation to war and toward foolish interventionalism in Latin America. Imagine a situation of actual hot war style presence... At the end of it all these groups would be on the receiving end of bloody payback.
It is for these reasons why I think that if we see a particular viewpoint being pushed by an author in the mainstream press, it behooves us to examine the angle from which their viewpoints emanate. This is even more essential if they are pushing a pro war and interventionalist narrative. This permits a more balanced assessment of their work for any bias. And there certainly is inherent bias to the work of most in the media... however, most of us here have agreed that folks like Ahmad Shuja have not discussed the history of the Hazara Pashtun interactions in total and provided the Western public only a sliver of history in the last 20 years. He glosses over Hizbe Wahdat's support from Iran for instance whereas the Sunni insurgencies supports from Sunni Arab states is stressed.
So in summary, Mohammad Taqi is a shia minority member and my analysis of his work shows that he generally pushes for sustained interventionalism because it benefits his sect.