Saudi Arabia mulls NATO-like military alliance of Muslim countries, asks Pakistan to lead

[Tipu7]

Again, you dodged the question.

Statement 1 : This is what you said, "If Pakistan is supposed to lead the alliance then we should agree on that"
Statement 2 : You also said, "Islam forbids such nationalism which bring conflict of blood with your brother Muslim nation."
Statement 3 : You also said, it is a sectarian war.

Now, if you join this coalition, which you said you should if you lead it, then you are going against Islam. This is as per your own posts. But, let us assume, you are allowed to lead it, which though unIslamic, you decide to do. Then you are fighting Iran. Because, this coalition is sectarian as you pointed out. So, if you lead it you will fight Iran.

Now do you understand my question? What happens if the Pakistani Shia decides to side with Iran, which is his sect, since the concept of nationhood as per your definition is invalid in the larger scheme of things. Will he go to hell?

Pakistan WILL NOT lead the ''Islamic alliance'' if it is directed against Iran..................
You are most welcome to make as much assumptions you want ................... because if we wanted to Lead them really so badly, by now Iraq, Syria, Yemen were in Alliance Hands................

India case is different....................... ''Buut Parast'' and their ideology is always hostile towards Islam.
from Prophet Muhammad PBUH times to even now........................ ''Fatah Makkah'' is matter of time
Hopefully you guys will decide your party wisely at that ''specific time'' ....................

 

[Indos]

That was because Indonesian independence movement ran parallel to the fight in Malaya.. The Malayan insurgency was one of the toughest the colonial Brits had to face, But my point is that British Indian subjects were more or less used in Malaya than in the Dutch East Indies contrary to what @Tipu7 tried to convey

Wrong buddy....

We fought British in two different front and time:

1. Indonesian Independence War (1945-1949)

2. Indonesian Malaysian confrontation in which Indonesia become the aggressor and fought British, Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand All together during 1960's

Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Indonesian–Malaysian confrontation or Borneo confrontation (also known by its Indonesian/Malay name,Konfrontasi) was a violent conflict from 1963–66 that stemmed from Indonesia's opposition to the creation of Malaysia. The creation of Malaysia was the amalgamation of the Federation of Malaya (now West Malaysia), Singapore and the crown colony/British protectorates of North Borneo and Sarawak (collectively known as British Borneo, now East Malaysia) in September 1963.[7] Important precursors to the conflict included Indonesia's policy of confrontation against Netherlands New Guinea from March–August 1962 and the Brunei Revolt in December 1962.

 

[surya kiran]

Pakistan WILL NOT lead the ''Islamic alliance'' if it is directed against Iran

You yourself said its a sectarian alliance for geopolitical purposes. Which sectarian alliance?

 

[Gibbs]

Wrong buddy....

We fought British in two different front and time:

1. Indonesian Independence War (1945-1949)

2. Indonesian Malaysian confrontation in which Indonesia become the aggressor and fought British, Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand All together during 1960's

Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Indonesian–Malaysian confrontation or Borneo confrontation (also known by its Indonesian/Malay name,Konfrontasi) was a violent conflict from 1963–66 that stemmed from Indonesia's opposition to the creation of Malaysia. The creation of Malaysia was the amalgamation of the Federation of Malaya (now West Malaysia), Singapore and the crown colony/British protectorates of North Borneo and Sarawak (collectively known as British Borneo, now East Malaysia) in September 1963.[7] Important precursors to the conflict included Indonesia's policy of confrontation against Netherlands New Guinea from March–August 1962 and the Brunei Revolt in December 1962.

By 1963 Malaya (Not Malaysia) was no longer a colony of Britain nor was India, So the question of Muslim British colonial Indian subjects fighting against fellow Indo Muslims does not arise

My reply was in context to that

And the British colonist involvement in the Indonesian Independence war is quite negligible

 

[Indos]

By 1963 Malaya (Not Malaysia) was no longer a colony of Britain nor was India, So the question of Muslim British colonial Indian subjects fighting against fellow Indo Muslims does not arise

My reply was in context to that

And the British colonist involvement in the Indonesian Independence war is quite negligible

Well, in Malaysia, it is more real White guy who fight us, if you read the link you will know, even British deployed its SAS troops to fight Indonesian. They are Commonwealth Nations with has Defense Pact among them. Why dont you read the link further...?

It is in our Independence war where many Indian fighting on behalf of British troops

Negligible...?

Battle of Surabaya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


On 26 October 1945, Brigadier A. W. S. Mallaby reached an agreement with Mr Suryo, the Republic of Indonesia's governor of East Java, that the British would not ask Indonesian troops/militia to hand over their weapons. An apparent misunderstanding about the agreement between British troops in Jakarta (led by Lieutenant General Sir Philip Christison) and Mallaby's troops in Surabaya was to have serious ramifications.

Initially British troops were 6,000-strong lightly armed Indian soldiers from 49th Infantry Brigade of the 23rd Indian Division. When the battle reached its peak, the British sent additional troops which consisted of 24,000 fully armed soldiers from the 5th Indian Division, 24 Sherman tanks, 24 armed aircraft, 2 cruisers and 3 destroyers.[1]

Indonesian forces consisted of 20,000 soldiers from the newly formed Tentara Keamanan Rakyat (TKR; People's Security Troops) and an estimated 100,000–120,000 irregulars. TKR was formed by the former members of Peta, a semi-military organisation during Japanese occupation. The irregulars consisted of pro-Independence mob, armed with rifles, swords, and bamboo spears. Some of their weapons were taken from surrendered Japanese troops.[4]

Aftermath

The Republicans lost much of their manpower, but it was the loss of weaponry that would severely hamper Republican military efforts for the remainder of the independence struggle.[2] The battle for Surabaya was the bloodiest single engagement of the war, and demonstrated the determination of the rag-tag nationalist forces; their sacrificial resistance became a symbol and rallying cry for the revolution. It also made the British reluctant to be sucked into a war, considering how stretched their resources in southeast Asia were during the period after the Japanese surrender; within a few years, in fact, Britain openly supported the Republican cause in the United Nations. It was also a watershed for the Dutch as it removed any doubt that the Republic was a well-organized resistance with popular support.[2] In November 1946, the last British troops left Indonesia. The "Heroes of the 10 November" statue in Surabaya commemorates this battle. 10 November is now commemorated in Indonesia as "Heroes' Day", in memory of the battle.

 

[Gibbs]

Well, in Malaysia, it is more real White guy who fight us, if you read the link you will know, even British deployed its SAS troops to fight Indonesian. They are Commonwealth Nations with has Defense Pact among them. Why dont you read the link further...?

It is in our Independence war where many Indian fighting on behalf of British troops

Negligible...?

Battle of Surabaya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


On 26 October 1945, Brigadier A. W. S. Mallaby reached an agreement with Mr Suryo, the Republic of Indonesia's governor of East Java, that the British would not ask Indonesian troops/militia to hand over their weapons. An apparent misunderstanding about the agreement between British troops in Jakarta (led by Lieutenant General Sir Philip Christison) and Mallaby's troops in Surabaya was to have serious ramifications.

Initially British troops were 6,000-strong lightly armed Indian soldiers from 49th Infantry Brigade of the 23rd Indian Division. When the battle reached its peak, the British sent additional troops which consisted of 24,000 fully armed soldiers from the 5th Indian Division, 24 Sherman tanks, 24 armed aircraft, 2 cruisers and 3 destroyers.[1]

Indonesian forces consisted of 20,000 soldiers from the newly formed Tentara Keamanan Rakyat (TKR; People's Security Troops) and an estimated 100,000–120,000 irregulars. TKR was formed by the former members of Peta, a semi-military organisation during Japanese occupation. The irregulars consisted of pro-Independence mob, armed with rifles, swords, and bamboo spears. Some of their weapons were taken from surrendered Japanese troops.[4]

.

Fair dinkum.. I stand corrected on the numbers of British Indian troops involved in 1945 in Surabaya, But is there any evidence of Muslim soldiers within those ranks refusing to fight the Indonesians as mentioned before ? First time i have heard about it and that would have been mutiny

British Indian army fought in many theaters around the world including North Africa, Yet to find credible sources of any mutiny by any religious groups within the ranks, Except within British India it self, But that was for nationalist reasons not religious

 

[KN-1]

It was Indonesia who likely to aid Pakistan no vice versa

how u can aid us? anyways as i said to @Indos we dont need each other? why should Pakistan be ally with Indonesia when we can easily form alliances with China and US?

China would love to have 2nd route trough Pakistan for trade after malacca starits..

NATO would love Pakistan as ally too stop Chinese influence in the region.. for keeping eye on Iran.. as India is too mean and demanding...

What Indonesia can do for us.. ? i think Sir @Horus should think about it.. this Muslim alliance is headache for us nothing more nothing less..

I am all for anti terror alliance with anyone including India (if they stop calling Kashmiri freedom fighter terrorists)..

 

[Nike]

how u can aid us? anyways as i said to @Indos we dont need each other? why should Pakistan be ally with Indonesia when we can easily form alliances with China and US?

China would love to have 2nd route trough Pakistan for trade after malacca starits..

NATO would love Pakistan as ally too stop Chinese influence in the region.. for keeping eye on Iran.. as India is too mean and demanding...

What Indonesia can do for us.. ? i think Sir @Horus should think about it.. this Muslim alliance is headache for us nothing more nothing less..

I am all for anti terror alliance with anyone including India (if they stop calling Kashmiri freedom fighter terrorists)..

we can help you by investing and spur the growth of economic on your country

or if you country is in ruin after your conflict with India in foreseeable future, we can sent our reconstruction firms and companies

 

[KN-1]

we can help you by investing and spur the growth of economic on your country

or if you country is in ruin after your conflict with India in foreseeable future, we can sent our reconstruction firms and companies

We are not talking about investment neither we need ur investement, better u should invest in ur country first.. and what is ur growth rate at the moment? and thanks for rebuilding offer.. But China can fit in it very well so again u are irrelevant..

we are talking here about military help... can u plz explain how Indonesia can support us militarily..

 

[shhh]

Again, you dodged the question.

Statement 1 : This is what you said, "If Pakistan is supposed to lead the alliance then we should agree on that"
Statement 2 : You also said, "Islam forbids such nationalism which bring conflict of blood with your brother Muslim nation."
Statement 3 : You also said, it is a sectarian war.

Now, if you join this coalition, which you said you should if you lead it, then you are going against Islam. This is as per your own posts. But, let us assume, you are allowed to lead it, which though unIslamic, you decide to do. Then you are fighting Iran. Because, this coalition is sectarian as you pointed out. So, if you lead it you will fight Iran.

Now do you understand my question? What happens if the Pakistani Shia decides to side with Iran, which is his sect, since the concept of nationhood as per your definition is invalid in the larger scheme of things. Will he go to hell? Is he a Shia Pakistani or a Pakistani Shia? If there is no nation state then he is a Shia Pakistani?

I just want to clarify that this alliance is not aimed at Iran.

You two can continue your discussion.

 

[haviZsultan]

Btw I have to ask where have they asked us to lead?

I just want to clarify that this alliance is not aimed at Iran.

You two can continue your discussion.

Then why isn't Iran part of the alliance? It has suffered attacks from Sunni militants both Kurdish and Baloch. So shouldn't they be part. Iraq too is not a part which has severely suffered due to terrorism.

 

[shhh]

Btw I have to ask where have they asked us to lead?


Then why isn't Iran part of the alliance? It has suffered attacks from Sunni militants both Kurdish and Baloch. So shouldn't they be part. Iraq too is not a part which has severely suffered due to terrorism.

Because Arabs will not get into a military alliance with Iran, just like Pakistan will most likely not get into a military alliance with India. Even though we both have suffered terrorism.

Not inviting Iran does not mean that it is against Iran.
If Pakistan does not accept this alliance it wont be part of this alliance, that would not mean that it is against us.

 

[Azadkashmir]

You do not know baniya??????? How long have you been on PDF?

Baniya is a shrewd chap. Typically the business community for whom self preservation is above everything else. He will put inthe least and expect the most.

oh right. but not when its you surya.

 

[haviZsultan]

Because Arabs will not get into a military alliance with Iran, just like Pakistan will most likely not get into a military alliance with India. Even though we both have suffered terrorism.

Not inviting Iran does not mean that it is against Iran.
If Pakistan does not accept this alliance it wont be part of this alliance, that would not mean that it is against us.

I disagree. Muslim countries need to show unity. This is a show of division. You may rightly say that this is not a leap but a token gesture but even that gesture means a lot and shows we are in the camp that seeks to target shias and Iran.

 

[SQ8]

I am a little confused here. Is it ok, if I call in a few of your compatriots to explain more clearly, since I have been asking this query and you are not answering the same? And I am not calling any Iranians, because, that will blow this thread.

@Oscar @waz @WAJsal @Armstrong @Hyperion @Zarvan

Let me also add the ever benevolent @Horus to this?

When discussing religion it is imperative to know two things.

1. Banned for all except senior(long term) members, report otherwise.

2. Do not believe anything regarding scripture unless you can verify it from ten sources or be given exacting translations from reputed scholars.

In this case, you have not been given any concrete references and mostly opinions.