What's new

Is it war against Islam?

One understands that the events of the past and present, does give the impression that the target end is always Moslem nations.

One also understands the sentiments that indicate the feeling of siege.

If I may say, when such a sentiment comes by, there is also anger and frustration. This is natural and very human.

Therefore, when one wants to rationalise and is in a mental state of agony and anger, that rationalisation, at times, becomes irrational, even though the subconscious mind does not register the dichotomy.

One then feels that one is up against everyone else.

Having said that, one can say that religious teaching for some is but a powerful elixir. Attempts are made by these people to find solace in the scriptures and rationalise the irrational. But, it becomes difficult since negative events, follow negative events in rapid succession, which does not allow the mind to settle into rationality and instead, increases the agony and anger and isolation. It is in such a state, when some of the clergy tend to capitalise their hold on the agonised, by rubbing salt on their wounds by deft interpretation of the scriptures to add to the agony and anger. Please note that it is not unique of the Moslem clergy alone. It is universal in all religions. Therefore, the agonised mind, in the grip of the clergy, gives way to radicalised thinking and it concretises to bring more misery upon all, including themselves!

That way is born the divides of the world!
 
I believe this is a war on Islam, or rather the political aspect of Islam judging by the repeated attempts to put down attempts to implement the Shariah as seen in places like Central Asia where Western nations speak about the supposed threat posed by these systems of governance and how they supposedly support terrorism and in general denouncing the Islamic political system as totalitarian and as the new Communism which will make the people subject to it backwards with poverty and illiteracy and that the Islamic political system denies certain rights, blatantly ignoring the fact that these movements emerge as a counter to the tyrannical dictatorships which Western governments support and aid who oppress their subjects and deny any chance of progress due to corruption, nepotism and the plutocratic governments and elite which deny their people rights, all this support is given in order to aid these governments against the imagined threat of an "Islamic tyrannical regime" when in fact these militant groups want freedom and equality and they want to achieve this goal by implementing an Islamic political system. So in fact the very attributes which the Western governments claim to fight for, namely freedom and justice, is the very attribute which they support by aiding these tyrannical regimes and thus the Western governments bring more hate towards themselves. This is repeated in many nations, especially the Arab world.

I believe that since they are fighting to stop the implementation of the Shariah, that they are fighting Islam with it since Islam requires nations with Muslim majorities to live by Islamic laws.


One thing I have noticed is the hypocritical terminology employed not only by Western media, but by their leaders as well. The BBC was ordered during the year 2001 by its heads to call Israeli assassination attempts (in which innocent Palestinians also died) on Palestinian "terrorists" as "targeted killings" even though no trial was carried out to convict these men! Certainly when Israel or some other "ally" nation commits these crimes it is easily forgettable, but when another nation which is not a close ally commits this very same crime, it is used to demonise those particular countries. Why is it one standard for them and their close allies and another for nations which are not allies? Certainly, with the World Trade Centre attack on September the 11th 2001 we witnessed America accuse blindly the first suspect which came to mind, Osama Bin Ladin. They then proceeded to bomb the Taliban in Afghanistan who rightly refused to give Osmam Bin Ladin over because they were not presented with any evidence for his involvement in these attacks, but my question is, since they bombed a nation based on this weak "evidence", why do they not bomb Israel for not handing in the many criminals who are known to have committed war crimes, e.g. Sharon (of Shabra and Shatilla fame and Zionist massacres in the 40's, 50's and onwards)? If they use the logic they used on Afghanistan then they ought to use the same logic against Israel, which would render Israel getting bombed. That is just one hypocritical action of the Western governments, another which comes to mind is their action over Iraq, they claim that the only reasons why the sanctions are hurting the Iraqi people is because of Saddam Hussein, while I do blame him for exacerbating the suffering of the Iraqi people (and bringing them into this suffering in the first place), it has been proven that it is really the West's incompetent handling of the sanctions which is causing the most harm to the Iraqi people which results in it losing 6000+ people per month directly due to sanctions, and these facts are coldly dismissed by many leaders, who are essentially ignoring genocide which they themselves are committing, bringing further hate towards them. Lets take their (Western leaders) statements as true for the sake of argument, if the suffering of the Iraqi people due to sanctions is completely the fault of the Iraqi regime, then because they acknowledge that innocent people are dying directly due to the sanctions, should they not stop the sanctions because then they are acknowledging that innocents die due to the sanctions (even if the blame is put completely on Saddam's regime)? Thus since they know innocents are dying unnecessarily, they are responsible because they are the ones who refuse to stop the sanctions.

They can still get rid of Saddam since they currently attack Iraq nearly everyday, thus since they are at war with the Iraqi regime (people?) it would be possible to take Saddam out, if they do not do not do at least one of the two logical options (either ending the sanctions or taking him out) then that would prove that they are simply procrastinating with this conflict at the expense of 6000+ people dying per month directly due to sanctions, that can certainly be interpreted to be a war against Islamic people because they should have according to their logic done the same thing to Russia because Russia has used many weapons forbidden according to the Geneva Convention on the innocent people of Chechnya and and they have killed an estimated 60,000 people in this 2nd Chechen conflict alone, so by that logic they should get sanctioned and bombed, yet we do not see any criticism let alone action! That can be interpreted to be a war against Muslim people because of their double-standards which cost so many innocent people's lives, they certainly seem to be harsh on Muslim people but when it comes to nations which are more of allies to them, no such word is heard.

Also, the Western leaders and medias definitions of "terrorists" and "terrorism" are very vague, one such example would be Chechnya. First of all, Chechnya was never a legitimate part of Russia, it was invaded 200 years ago and colonised by the Russians, various independence movements arose to fight the Russian rule in Chechnya beginning from 200 years ago, when the former Soviet Union collapsed, the leaders of the autonomous region of Chechnya declared Chechnya as independent after winning an election. After independence was proclaimed and talks by the Russian authorities failed to yield any results to stop this accession from Russia, the Russian army invaded and the first Russian-Chechen war of 1994-95 started in which thousands of civilians lost their lives. The Russians lost but they were receiving political backing from the Western world even though Chechnya was never a legitimate part of Russia! After this war the second Russian-Chechen war started in 1999 which still carries on today, even though Russia still has not produced the evidence incriminating any Chechen for the bombings in Russia which started this war, we still witnessed the hypocrisy of the whole world because they gave monetary/military (USA did) and political support to Russia and made public statements that Russia was "fighting a war on terror" even though no single shred of evidence incriminated Chechens! Furthermore, evidence actually emerged that it was Russia which started this war. The whole point is, Western governments and their allies support nations which commit terrorism but is not called terrorism by the Western leaders and its media because it fits their agenda.

Though Western countries have fought for justice sometimes, even those times they have shown a hypocrisy and hatred, for example their blatant stupidity in allowing Serbs to take over the Srebenica refugee camps thus resulting in the murdering of thousands of innocent Bosnian Muslims, and not coming to Serbia until the Mujahideen left, also their arms embargo against all groups in Yugoslavia knowing that the Muslims will suffer the most because they had no backing (defence) other than the Mujahideen who were forced to leave. Another example is Kashmir, thousands of people have been killed by the Indian army and so many human rights abuses (war crimes) have taken place yet any group opposing the Indian government is labelled a "terrorist group" and even helping these groups charity wings is a crime in many countries, so with all this double-standards, is it no wonder how people come to the conclusion that this is a war against Islam? Why is it when the only defence for Kashmiri people against Indian atrocities are labelled "terrorists" when the Indian army has committed gross violations of human rights?
 
I wonder if Islam can be subjugated. It is a belief of 1,902,095,000 people or near about around the world. I am convinced that Islam will survive all onslaughts. It may not be very politically correct on this forum, but I cannot help but indicate that Hinduism has survived onslaughts of foreign elements, be it invasion or missionaries, and I believe that, as per the Hindus, there is no conversion possible, since one has to be born to the religion. If such a meek religion can survive the onslaughts, I find it’s very odd that one should feel that Islam will perish! It can’t. I am sure Islam has the tenacity and resilience than all the impediments that are placed its way.

The emotional and the alarmist approach do not help. Indeed, if there are “enemies” of Islam, by such outbursts, it will only elate such elements and make them “attack” with greater fervour. I wonder if that is the correct approach – playing into the hands of the perceived enemy!

One also wonders if it is only the western governments which “oppress” their people (not “subjects”, since that implies Kingdoms). Suppression is a relative word. Democracy is not suppression and yet draconian laws that are enacted are suppressive! Likewise, Absolute Monarchy and Sheikdom are also suppressive since the Monarch or the Sheik is Absolute! Military Dictatorships or Totalitarian regimes and Communism require no elaboration. Theocratic States are also suppressive since they impose one religion on all its citizens. Thus, the spectrum of “suppression” is vast and varied, depending upon who is perceiving the same and his/her interpretation.

Likewise, the issue of elites ruling, corruption and nepotism is universal and not really confined to any nation as its singular characteristic.

The human race is selfish and hence, while holding such aspects as morality does everything to promote self interest. Therefore, support of tyrannical and dictatorship is not surprising.

In fact, one can pause and ponder as to why one religion has to be superior to another. What is so unique about any religion, if the goal is for the good? If good is the end statement of all religion, then where is the dichotomy, if all wants the good to prevail? After all, none has seen God or for that matter, the Devil. Or heaven or Hell! However, religion has given a semblance and order to society in the unruly barbaric times. In short, it is a format that ensured a singular approach to the good of mankind as prevailing in the times the religion came into being.

While all religions are good in intent, if one observes, it is Man who has caused the problems. There are religious divides and within the same religion, following the same scriptures and believing in the same God. Why? Because, Man, as a being, is charged with the odious impulse that craves for Power and subjugation of others. That is why you have the caste system and the Shia Sunni divide and the Catholic and the Protestant world! Religion, in no way, has suggested these divides. Therefore, religion is pristine and pure, but Man is not!

Let us pause for a moment and think about implementing Religious Laws over Secular ones. No country is free of minorities. Is it fair to implement the majority Law on minorities? Would Moslem live under Christian laws in Britain or the US? Or, under Hindu Laws in India? Or, under Buddhist laws in Bhutan? I am sure they wouldn’t as the other would not like to live under Islamic laws, if they had the choice. And if they did not like, they could go where they could live could be the answer. However, given the economic and demographic pressures that would ensue, the whole world system would collapse leading to anarchy and not religious unity!

As far as BBC is concerned, the British claim that it is pro Palestine. Indians claim it is pro Pakistan and Pakistanis claim it is pro India! I do not subscribe to the Israeli highhandedness, but then Hamas is no congregation of angels!

Osama is innocent? One has to just check the videos released by Al Jazeerah and by the AQ itself!

In so far as double standards in the world, there is no doubt there is; but it depends who perceives it!

The Indian army are going gung ho is what is believed. One could say the same of the Pakistani Army in SWAT and NWFP. Again, it is who perceives what?

Nothing in life is black and white.

It is all shades of grey and the darkness or whiteness depends on the one perceiving the same!
 
Hi,

In the last twenty years, two people, two muslim rulers have done such a tremendous damage to "islam" and muslim sovereignty that the reverberations would be felt for the next 50 years, if we come out of it alive in one piece.

Saddam and Mullah Umar will go down in the history as the people responsible for the destruction of their individual nations---for their lack of understanding the outcome of the confrontation---for the lack of understanding the right to live, of their citizens, in peace---for a lack of understanding the value of life, property and the freedom of their nations---for their lack of understanding of letting the christian armies invade and occupy the muslim states---for taking a stand on issues that were not conducive to the health and welfare of their individual nations.

The russians invaded afghanistan on the invitation of the so called govt of afghanistan---in a power struggle the afghanis callled them in----. In case of the U S, they also came, but on an indirect invitation---.

So, the war on terror is not a war against islam, but against those thick headed people who have brought death and destruction upon their very own. These terrorists are giving it a new twist---through a perverse thinking of their minds, they want to divert the blame of the death and destruction that they have brought onto their brethren and to the nation of thie hosts by claiming it to be the war against islam----there is no end to the deceit, tyrany, brutality and destruction that these fanatics would go to justify to enforce their ideology upon others.

Muslims of pakistan and afghanistan would have to think one day----does 'PAKHTUNWALI' supercede the teachings of islam----IS THE PRIDE OF A PATHAN more important than the life of a person---IS THE PRIDE OF THE WORD GIVEN BY A PATHAN more important than millions of lives of muslims---IS THE PRIDE OF A PATHAN more important than the sovereignty of a free nation---IS THE PRIDE OF A PATHAN worth it to hold onto even if the whole nation be invaded and captured by non-muslims. DOES A PATHAN HAve SO MUCH PRIDE that he would rather not go back on his word---but rather let hundreds of thousands die---children, women, girls, boys,men, a nation en-slaved,.

The Pathans also need to decide when are they going to embrace prophet Mohammad's islam and not an NWFP islam.

VERY WELL SAID MR MASTAN. No one in the west is bent on a war with Islam. If there is a war then its with some radicals who interpret Islam to their convinience and shove it down everyone's throat just like USA did in Iraq. We unfortunately followed them there blindly. However the good news is that UK will probably have a more US independant foreign policy in future. Today there is an urgent need for introspection in Pakistan for its foreign policy being less US centric and more Pakistan centric. Gen M may have done a good job to steer Pakistan away from harms way in troubled times but till and honest democracy returns where the will of the people within the boundaries of the Pakistani Constitution is respected and legally upheld crisis like the ones of the last year will keep on returning.

Regards
 
<(_|_)| AKBAR

thankss :cry: (yeh anso tu khushi hia hain)

I am sure you have a point.

But this code that you have used does not convey anything worthwhile on a serious subject on a forum that has acquired a reputation of being beyond the Kindergarten Jack and Jill stage!

We are no longer tumbling over each other!
 
My opinion, the muslim world should rise and fight terrorism from the front. This will prove that Islam is aginst terrorism.

The best starting point would be, the Muslim countries start sending their troops to fight the Taliban and AQ in Afganistan. Not Iraq, because it is US misadventure, I dont see any terrorists their.

As long as Muslims keep quiet, they will always be targetted.
 
My opinion, the muslim world should rise and fight terrorism from the front. This will prove that Islam is aginst terrorism.

The best starting point would be, the Muslim countries start sending their troops to fight the Taliban and AQ in Afganistan. Not Iraq, because it is US misadventure, I dont see any terrorists their.

As long as Muslims keep quiet, they will always be targetted.

Its not simply a matter of not wanting to send troops, but also avoiding being caught in the quagmire that most perceive the US to be in. And now that the flames of sectarian tensions are lit, the majority of the soldiers would have to be Shia I imagine, to have any sort of acceptability and trust with the Shia majority of Iraq - and how many Shia countries capable of sending such a large number of troops in do you know of?

The best "starting point" is for Muslim countries to put their own houses in order. Pakistan has enough on its plate - it needs to clean up the mess in FATA.

The Saudis are doing a decent enough job of keeping AQ at bay in their own country - perhaps they could spare a thought for us, and some of money of theirs, by halting the funding of some of these madrassa's worldwide.
 
Muslims of pakistan and afghanistan would have to think one day----does 'PAKHTUNWALI' supercede the teachings of islam----IS THE PRIDE OF A PATHAN more important than the life of a person---IS THE PRIDE OF THE WORD GIVEN BY A PATHAN more important than millions of lives of muslims---IS THE PRIDE OF A PATHAN more important than the sovereignty of a free nation---IS THE PRIDE OF A PATHAN worth it to hold onto even if the whole nation be invaded and captured by non-muslims. DOES A PATHAN HAve SO MUCH PRIDE that he would rather not go back on his word---but rather let hundreds of thousands die---children, women, girls, boys,men, a nation en-slaved,.

The Pathans also need to decide when are they going to embrace prophet Mohammad's islam and not an NWFP islam.

The Pashtunwali is just a custom code that's followed in much the same way as Islam is a religious code that is followed. Should one bend the rules of Islam a bit just to get a few "perks". One can sell their religious soul to the devil along with their tribal ethics, but such a trade is deemed not worthy by some. The Mullah did slip up though in that he was not educated and didn't have the first clue about being a diplomat or a world leader. That was his downfall, along with his rather strict interpretation of everything. It had very little to do with pride though imo.
 
When Bush was president of U.S. this war on terror was a war against Islam, but now that Obama has became president of U.S. this war has became a war against Pakistan...which one can say that its also a war against Islam because Pakistan is the second largest Muslim country in the world with the second largest Muslim population in the world.

Visit this thread:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/war-terror/24722-crusade-against-isi.html
 
It is War on Islam and specifically War with Pushtoons and Arabs the only fighting Force against West...
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom