Rabiya_Khan
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
When Washington took a U-turn in disgrace from Afghanistan after defeat of Soviet Union against Afghan-Mujahidin and consequent disintegration of Soviet Union into 15 states, USA ditched its past allies and repositioned them as enemy number-one. When Americans ditch their yesterday’s allies, it is because there appears no internal challenge with such U-turns in USA. On the contrary, when heads of Muslim countries or their think-tanks ditch the Islam based movements, they forgets that Muslim governments had exploited sentiments of people based on Islamic concepts like, Islamic-brotherhood, one-Ummah, and Jihad. Such concepts do not evaporate into thin air; Islamic-brotherhood, and Jihad are more than concepts; they are institutions of Islamic way of life, practiced for centuries in Muslim world. Governments, out of their own sweet-will, just cannot turn them off by pushing a button like in load-shedding. The conspirators, mostly from non-Muslim bloc, use Islamic concepts to overpower their enemies but getting away with these concepts like a tissue paper is not easy for heads of Muslim countries. It is to put the jinni back in the bottle. Even US who instigated the jinni in the first place, haven’t been able to bottle it back. USA and its allies have done an amazing thing! They have been playing with Islamic institutions and concepts since the past couple of decades to spill Muslim blood. America invoked Jihad in Afghanistan in early 1980’s, then it ditched Jihad in the backdrop of 9/11 but has Jihad ended??? Americans facilitated even made bunkers and facilitated training operations to Al-Qaida in Afghanistan then they ditched it even before 9/11, is Al-Qaida finished??? When USA invaded Iraq on the pretext of WMDs, did it bring peace back to Iraq??? American sponsored Arab Spring ditched its yesterday’s allies to replace them with more democracy, has democracy come, in Egypt or Libya??? Then US left ISIS advances in ME unchecked. Rationally speaking American policies are a big-failure, only blind can’t see it, they have brought nothing but destruction to Muslims, why do we need to toe their policies; do we have any justification??? To scavenge they let lose mice; to control mice they set free cats; to handle cats they set free dogs but then there were too many dogs so they set free jackals to hunt dogs but there rose too many jackals. Today Muslim leaderships across countries are waiting when the pack of lions will be set free!!! What is even worse is that from mice to jackals all are still being flirted by US and Western intelligence networks but Muslim leaderships continue to vanguard their policies. Why does the Muslim leadership follow such clumsy stewards? How weak are the followers and those who are followed!!
U-turn is too small a word for US jugglery in international politics, Washington affords it because there do not appear internal challenges due to it but why should Pakistan see the problem with the lens of White House or its Western allies? War, revolt, internal conflict within Muslim countries or within sects is not to be judged on the basis of non-Muslim societies. There is a great room in Deen-al-Islam to sort out differences within Muslims; for that one should adopt the narrative of Islam to solve problems within Ummah. One recent example is how Saudis and Iranians are mending their relations after returning from a point of no return. Another example is the way Turkey asked Bangladesh to open its borders for Muslim refugees from Burma, while Erdogan promised to bear the expense. This is the concept of one-Ummah; cutting across the borders of nation-sate while the beautiful heart of a Muslim feels the pain for fellow brethren. One-Ummah is a far superior concept than nationalism based on ethnicity, divided by language, color, and race.
The principle is that distortion caused in a ‘higher-order of learning’, like Islam, can only be removed by spreading purer understanding of the higher-order and not by weak or ‘lower-order of learning’ like western thought. Intellectual evolution taking place in groups such as the various versions and dissidents groups of Al-Qaida is far more complex to manage. For example, those who monitor closely, the changes taking place in international affairs must have noticed the unnatural and sudden rush of blood in Ummah’s leadership for showing concern over the plight of Rohingya Muslims’ in Burma, seen usually as an ‘ethnic-issue’ under the lens of nationalism. Rohingya Muslims are in that plight since decades but no head of Muslim country ever paid any heed; the recent hue and cry by Muslim leaders was triggered by a ‘political statement’ generated by ‘evolved’ Al-Qaida against Muslim oppression in Burma. Major concern of Muslim heads of states is that impotency of UN and ‘international-law’ to tackle problems of helpless Muslims would create further room for deviant militant groups like Al-Qaida and Daesh. Thus heads of Muslim states responded with the concept of one-Ummah; in the first place had these leaders been responsible to their duties to fellow Muslims such an issue would not have arisen, that would have been a pro-active approach! It is foolishness to think that void created by governments’ policy to ‘disown Islam’ can be filled with concept of nationalism based on language, color, and race. Western narrative is too weak to solve problem of terrorism, the world over.
Besides, adopting western narrative in war against terror is quite harmful. The narrative of nationalism (based on language, color, and race etc) and secularism or irreligious-narrative further provides room for such groups to incite deprived people against such policies. Government’s adoption of western narrative to fight terrorism produces a more conducive environment for the spread of cancer of terrorism just like US drone strikes increased terrorism. American drone-strikes were interpreted as loss of government of Pakistan’s sovereignty and therefore, providing an ample reason to pick up arms in the absence of state response. Similarly, when issues raised on the basis of Islam are answered by government through alien or western thoughts, it shows government’s failure to answer an Islamic issue in the language of Islam; in turn this strengthens the case of terror groups who propagate that heads of Muslim states are touts of superpowers. A government deficient in Islamic narrative becomes less trust worthy and therefore the void is filled with alternate ideas, amongst them, a distorted explanation of Quran’s verses and Ahadees. If governments do not respond to their duties why the enemy should be blamed for winning?
The issues of distortion in Islam have been well addressed in Islamic classical literature, once we injected the right understanding of these issues to the vulnerable pockets or groups and even masses, we could isolate the role and tools of rogue foreign agencies working under the cover of Islam-based terror groups. They will stand more exposed than ever. When foreign intervention can be secluded and isolated then operations against the terror groups would become more surgical and precise. Actually in this way one could deprive them of any further recruitment, thus solving the problem from its very root.
U-turn is too small a word for US jugglery in international politics, Washington affords it because there do not appear internal challenges due to it but why should Pakistan see the problem with the lens of White House or its Western allies? War, revolt, internal conflict within Muslim countries or within sects is not to be judged on the basis of non-Muslim societies. There is a great room in Deen-al-Islam to sort out differences within Muslims; for that one should adopt the narrative of Islam to solve problems within Ummah. One recent example is how Saudis and Iranians are mending their relations after returning from a point of no return. Another example is the way Turkey asked Bangladesh to open its borders for Muslim refugees from Burma, while Erdogan promised to bear the expense. This is the concept of one-Ummah; cutting across the borders of nation-sate while the beautiful heart of a Muslim feels the pain for fellow brethren. One-Ummah is a far superior concept than nationalism based on ethnicity, divided by language, color, and race.
The principle is that distortion caused in a ‘higher-order of learning’, like Islam, can only be removed by spreading purer understanding of the higher-order and not by weak or ‘lower-order of learning’ like western thought. Intellectual evolution taking place in groups such as the various versions and dissidents groups of Al-Qaida is far more complex to manage. For example, those who monitor closely, the changes taking place in international affairs must have noticed the unnatural and sudden rush of blood in Ummah’s leadership for showing concern over the plight of Rohingya Muslims’ in Burma, seen usually as an ‘ethnic-issue’ under the lens of nationalism. Rohingya Muslims are in that plight since decades but no head of Muslim country ever paid any heed; the recent hue and cry by Muslim leaders was triggered by a ‘political statement’ generated by ‘evolved’ Al-Qaida against Muslim oppression in Burma. Major concern of Muslim heads of states is that impotency of UN and ‘international-law’ to tackle problems of helpless Muslims would create further room for deviant militant groups like Al-Qaida and Daesh. Thus heads of Muslim states responded with the concept of one-Ummah; in the first place had these leaders been responsible to their duties to fellow Muslims such an issue would not have arisen, that would have been a pro-active approach! It is foolishness to think that void created by governments’ policy to ‘disown Islam’ can be filled with concept of nationalism based on language, color, and race. Western narrative is too weak to solve problem of terrorism, the world over.
Besides, adopting western narrative in war against terror is quite harmful. The narrative of nationalism (based on language, color, and race etc) and secularism or irreligious-narrative further provides room for such groups to incite deprived people against such policies. Government’s adoption of western narrative to fight terrorism produces a more conducive environment for the spread of cancer of terrorism just like US drone strikes increased terrorism. American drone-strikes were interpreted as loss of government of Pakistan’s sovereignty and therefore, providing an ample reason to pick up arms in the absence of state response. Similarly, when issues raised on the basis of Islam are answered by government through alien or western thoughts, it shows government’s failure to answer an Islamic issue in the language of Islam; in turn this strengthens the case of terror groups who propagate that heads of Muslim states are touts of superpowers. A government deficient in Islamic narrative becomes less trust worthy and therefore the void is filled with alternate ideas, amongst them, a distorted explanation of Quran’s verses and Ahadees. If governments do not respond to their duties why the enemy should be blamed for winning?
The issues of distortion in Islam have been well addressed in Islamic classical literature, once we injected the right understanding of these issues to the vulnerable pockets or groups and even masses, we could isolate the role and tools of rogue foreign agencies working under the cover of Islam-based terror groups. They will stand more exposed than ever. When foreign intervention can be secluded and isolated then operations against the terror groups would become more surgical and precise. Actually in this way one could deprive them of any further recruitment, thus solving the problem from its very root.
