The Localization Of International Politics

Uh-oh...I see mullah urstruly and comrade masadi going at it...is it too early for the beer and pretzels?

Feroz writes <<< re: Masadi

My only comment to your post would be that American Israeli foreign policy is a church issue. It is in this sense, why the role of the ``Bible Belt`` is so crucial in the formulation of the Republican Party`s internal politics and hence, the implentation of its internal political views on a national level. >>>

Nothing that the US elite does as ``foreign policy`` is a ``church issue``. It is converted into a church issue for legitimation purposes. Regarding Israel there is little difference in the support for Israel on both sides, and Republicans have used the morality debate to mobilize the Evangelical vote and not Israel. Regarding the churches the better educated, that belong to the Presbyterian, Episcopalian and Methodist groups are quite critical of Israel while the comparatively less educated Evangelicals that reside in the ``Bible belt`` have a wide representation of red-neck, anti-Semites in their midst with no love of Jews but a support of Israel in fulfillment of their apocalyptic theology. If appeals to this group regarding Israel is to be made it will have to be done using this theology and I can assure you no member of the US elite will make this blunder. Among the Evangelicals that vote democratic, which includes the very religious African Americans in the south, Israel is not an issue that determines voting and for those that vote Republican, Israel is again not an issue that determines their vote.

Re #20 <<< I hope the Allah that you believe does not discriminate between Muslims and non-Muslims >>>

Justice sees no labels otherwise it is no justice, such is explicitly taught by the Quran.

re: All

I have a small window to post a few replies and will not be able to address all of you.

re: Masadi

My only comment to your post would be that American Israeli foreign policy is a church issue. It is in this sense, why the role of the ``Bible Belt`` is so crucial in the formulation of the Republican Party`s internal politics and hence, the implentation of its internal political views on a national level.

re: tahmad32

Sirji, from the vantage point of the Israeli military, the political aim of this war is to remove the sites of the Hezhbollah rockets and prevent them from targetting northern Israel. Towards this end, Israel wants to create a buffer-zone and then, once the international stabilizing force for Lebanon (ISFL) arrives, it hopes to withdraw and let the ISFL disarm the Hezhbollah and prevent any future Hezhbollah ingresses into the buffer-zone. The critical aspect of the Israeli military startegy in this sense is not to frame the context of its military operations in southern Lebanon in terms of any geographic references, such as advancing as far north as the Litani River. The aim of the Israeli military operation is not to measure occupied real estate, but to vacate the presence of the Hezhbollah from the region.

The biggest military problem and the unanswered question facing the Israeli military planners is not how to defeat Hezhbollah or when it will be defeated, but how long will the Israeli military be in occupation of the buffer-zone in southern Lebanon before the ISFL is fully deployed. It will take considerable time for ISFL to deploy and the logistical problem is not only one of deployment, but it is also one of agreeing on the ``rules of engagement`` under which ISFL will operate. The NATO force that deployed into Bosnia took nearly six months of diplomatic wranglings to decide its rules of engagement and it would be reasonable to expect ISFL to have a similar ``teething`` problems.

re: hamidm

Hamid sahib, I have no idea what or where is the Lebanonese army in all of this crisis.

Ciao

Masadi sahib

(It is the domain of Allah alone to determine the level of submission of his creation and labels prove nothing. )

I wish all of us could subscribe to the above belief. I hope the Allah that you believe does not discriminate between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Regards

masadi

I disagree that the statement ``I am a Muslim`` is or should be the minimal standard of one being a Muslim. If it were so, Holy Prophet (pbuh) wouldn`t have to face stonning in Taif, various assassinationa attempts on his life, confinement into a canyon for three years along with his friends and family, executions of his disciples, exiles, wars, and persecution. All people of Arabia had to do was to say ``yeah yeah we are muslims`` without going thru the troubles of persecutions and killings and everybody would have lived happily everafter.

Masadi Sahib,
Thank you for that very important observation. You may disagree with anyone, but declaring someone to be a non-Muslim against their will is itself a sin.

Salim_Chauhan writes <<< Why don`t we just allow anyone who wants to call herself/himself a Muslim to be a Muslim? >>>

I disagree with the beliefs of the Ahmadi`s but I agree with your above statement. It is the domain of Allah alone to determine the level of submission of his creation and labels prove nothing. Any attempt to monopolize the label by certain groups, to the exclusion of others is illegitimate, an old trick, and amounts to sectariansim which is explicitly forbidden by the Quran. I am also wondering about sectarians who use the ``furqaan`` verse of the Quran when it suits them (even though that verse is there for determining the truth and not for giving groups the authority to label others as Non Muslim) while forget that verse while legitimating all hadith, even extra Quranic ones and even using them in their theology to abrogate verses of the Quran. They are then, according to their own criteria, being just as non-Muslim as the Ahmadis.

For example take this verse of the Quran

``These are the ayats of Allah which we rehearse to you in truth, then in what hadith will they believe after Allah and his ayats.`` (45:6)

And the sectarians almost in unison, going against the Quranic recommendation say, we will believe in Bukhari, Ibn Ishaq, the Ahl ul Bayt, the rightly guided caliphs, Muslim, Abu Dawd, the tafsir of ibn kathir, a whole bunch of faqihs etc etc. So my point is, according to your own criteria of using the Quran as furqaan (2:185) you are non-Muslims, as much as the Ahmadis.

That said, this thread is not about discussions on religion, so if you all would like further input from me on these issues, I suggest some appropriate thread.

Salim

I am quite surprised that you are confused and saddened. The reason, however, for your confusion is simple i.e. you do not use the `criterion of judgement` to overcome your confusion. Let me expalin what the `criterion of judgement` is. Consider the verse.

The House of Imran 3:03

``It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong). ``

In the Qura`n the Arabic word used for `criterion` is Furqan, which is another name for Qura`n. The Qura`n itself stipulates in no uncertain terms the very belief that is anathema to the belief of Mirzaiat.

The next source to help overcome your confusion is the the person thru which this Criterian was transmitted to us i.e. Holy Prophet (pbuh). He in more than 450 sayings have explained the faith of End of prophethood.

If these two criterion can not help you overcome your confusion then I can only pray for you that Allah show you the right way.

On a side note I would advise you not to be beguiled by appearance. They have diferences that are more pronounced than us. For example, the deadly persecution of Irish catholics at the hands of protestants in the mother of all democracies for the past 100 years is an eye opener. Recently, after 9/11 when West launched its third crusades against Muslim world, Pope opposed this naked aggression in no uncertain terms. In retaliation in almost every protestant dominant state, almost every Catholic priest has been renederd a potential pedophile, who molested hunederds. Coincidence? I don`t thinks so.

#13, Urstruly {``So if you are intrested in bringing different people together then you should become accomodating and tolerant to other points of view and give your brother the benefit of doubt as Holy Prophet (pbuh) has made incumbent upon every Muslim.

Having said that, the issue with Mirzais is different. ``}

Urstruly Sahib,
I am encourage by the first part of your response and somewhat confused, saddened, and even perplexed by the dichotomy presented by your position on Ahmedis. Why don`t we just allow anyone who wants to call herself/himself a Muslim to be a Muslim?

The sectarian violence and misuse of Islam as a tool for certain royal houses of ill-repute are some of the reasons for our dismal state. If Mormons, Evangelical Christians, Jehova`s witnesses, Christian Scientiest, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Episcopaleans, Catholics, Greek, Russian, and Armenian Orthodox, Copts, and numerous others can get together in opposition to Islam why can`t Sunnis, Shias, Ahmedis, Druze, Bahais, Ismailis, Alawites, and others get together in the name of Islam?

#13, Urstruly {``So if you are intrested in bringing different people together then you should become accomodating and tolerant to other points of view and give your brother the benefit of doubt as Holy Prophet (pbuh) has made incumbent upon every Muslim.

Having said that, the issue with Mirzais is different. ``}

Urstruly Sahib,
I am encourage by the first part of your response and somewhat confused, saddened, and even perplexed by the dichotomy presented by your position on Ahmedis. Why don`t we just allow anyone who wants to call herself/himself a Muslim to be a Muslim?

The sectarian violence and misuse of Islam as a tool for certain royal houses of ill-repute are some of the reasons for our dismal state. If Mormons, Evangelical Christians, Jehova`s witnesses, Christian Scientiest, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Episcopaleans, Catholics, Greek, Russian, and Armenian Orthodox, Copts, and numerous others can get together in opposition to Islam why can`t Sunnis, Shias, Ahmedis, Druze, Bahais, Ismailis, Alawites, and others get together in the name of Islam?

Re: # 12

Personally, I think it is haraam (forbidden) for any Muslim to identify himself by any other name except ``Muslim``. Here, in Qura`n, Allah has explained once and for all about what is that which makes people divide themselves into sects.

Ironically they broke up into sects even after the knowledge had come to them, due to the jealousy and resentment among themselves. If it were not for a predetermined decision by your Lord to respite them for a definite interim, they would have been judged immediately. Indeed the later generations who inherited the scripture are full of doubt.

..................... The Council 42:14

There should remain no doubt in anyone`s mind after reading this verse as to what is that which divides humanity. I don`t want to defend anyone`s faith but if by treasonous ``Wahabis`` you mean Saudi Monarchs, I would agree with you. But what would you say about Taliban and Osama; by your own scale of justice then they are not treasonous. So one of the two can be true - either Wahabism is irrelevant in this equation or it is not. The above quoted example would tell you what is relevant. Similarly, by your logic a case can be made of Iraqi Shias who have become collaborators with those who have destroyed their nation. So if one say that Iraqi shias are treasonous because of Shiaism then how do you explain Iran and Hizbullah. So in this case Shiaism becomes irrelevant.

The moral of this story is that one has to practice first what he preaches. So if you are intrested in bringing different people together then you should become accomodating and tolerant to other points of view and give your brother the benefit of doubt as Holy Prophet (pbuh) has made incumbent upon every Muslim.

Having said that, the issue with Mirzais is different. The difference of opnion with them is not polemic or doctrinal in nature, au contraire this difference is at the level of the core of the faith. In other words if Muslims become Mirzai (Allah forbids), it would be the end of the faith of Islam that was revealed upon Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) and vice versa if Mirazis become Muslims that would be the end of their faith. In other word these two faiths are mutually exclusive. This is not a case with other religions viz a viz Islam. As a Muslim I consider myself more Christian and more Jew than the Christians and Jews themselves. I might differ with their doctrinal issues but I have no problem with their respective faiths. So in other words Miraziat is not a sect, its a separate faith, hence the Quranic injunction does not apply. And as I have said millions of times before, I have absolutely no problem with their faith either as long as they do not call themselves Muslims or Ahmadi. If they want respect for their faith, they have to respect mine.

Urstruly #10, {````O! Isreal your territories span from Nile to Euphrates`` ``}

Urstruly Sahib,
If Muslims are really concerned about this prospect, they need to unite and meet the danger headon. The First Crusade was brutally successful for the invaders - they massacred all the Muslim and Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem, occupied an area much larger than today`s Israel - including huge parts of Syria, all of Lebanon, and chunks of Turkey - Edessa, Antioch, Tripoli, Sidon, Tyre, Jaffa, Acre, etc.

The counter measures by Muslims included bringing all resources under one authority - starting with Nuruddin Zengi and the closing of the ranks among Arabs, Turks, Kurds, Shias, Sunnis, and even Druze. You can start by accepting the Ahmedis and Shias as brothers, telling the treasonous Wahabbis to reform or be expelled.

#10 by Urstruly on August 2, 2006 12:05pm PT


So in this regard behind every attrocity that is being committed against Arabs by Israelis there is an American blessing.


An american blessing and your tax $$..

Re: # 7

Qazi Sahib

More than Jews, the American Evangelists are vocal about their plans for the state of Israel expanding from the East bank of river Nile (Egypt) to the river Euprates in Iraq including Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and large part of Saudi arabia; including Medina. In my opinion this is not really an Isreali aspiration but this is the part of Evangelist prophecy according to which an Israeli state will be established in that area described above right before the second comming of Jesus Christ (pbuh). What problem could Jews have if Americans are fighting their wars and expanding ``democracies`` in the middle east on their behalf. So in this regard behind every attrocity that is being committed against Arabs by Israelis there is an American blessing. In the recent invasion of Lebanon, US has become more open in its intentions. That will also explain why Iraq was attacked and occupied.

Israelis have been quite candid about their territorial aspirations and have issued coins depicting their geographical expanse through their coins. A 10 Agorott (equivalent of 1 cents) coin, in Israeli denomination, shows this map below. Not only the coin but the main enterance into Israeli Kennest (parliament) bears this inscripotion ``O! Isreal your territories span from Nile to Euphrates``

#5 by Urstruly on August 2, 2006 8:14am PT



but same man cannot live one day without justice


Justice as in paki army men being prosecuted for whacking a whole bunch of bengali muslims?

#4 by dost-mittar on August 2, 2006 7:37am PT


Urstruly#2:

Good post.


good post my ass...maulana urstruly has no problems with the chicoms using their veto power to protect Pakiland when it killed a heck of a lot of muslims...

Maulana urstruly`s wahabi brothers are doing a qana every day in IRaq...How many tears/posts for that? NADA..

Ferozk, Urstruly & dost-mittar

Very nice article like always and thoughtful comments indeed!

Would any or all of you like to comment on the possibility that Israel is up for acquiring more land, which over the time may become a historical reality regardless just or unjust?

The motive for this expansion being the simple fact that population density in Israel is high as compared to surrounding Arab countries except Palestine; birth rate in Israel is 17.97 births/1000 population whereas death rate is 6.18 deaths/1000 population as estimated in 2006. Does it argue for the desire for more land and current conflict may end up Israeli occupation of some part of Lebanon on the pretext of defence and security?

Regards

Tahir Qazi

Feroz,
Thank you for raising this very important and immensely related subject to the atrocious events in Lebanon. The illogical, inexplicable, insane, and ``out of touch with the rest of the world`` support given by the US government, press, and people to the murderous Israeli actions can be easily understood by listing the following factors:

1. Many Israelis are actually American Jews
2. Israel, thanks to billions and billions of public and private funding from America, looks like an extension of the US
3. Blind support for Israel from the right-wing, fundo, whacko, bible-thumping evangelical Christians (Falwell, Robertson, etc...) due to their belief in Armageddon and the prophecies of the Book of Revelations.
4. Jewish influence in elections with money, publicity, and organized pressure (AIPAC, B`nai B`rith, ADL, etc...) - just look at poor Mel Gibson and you will understand.
5. Jewish influence on the media (TV, Radio, newspapers, magazines, Hollywood) that presents Israel as a free, democratic, western outpost besieged by crazy, violent, Islamic Ayrabs.
6. Stupidity of ``Islamic`` organizations such as ISNA, ICNA, CAIR, AMC, and others in not understanding American politics, endorsing and compelling Muslims to vote for George Bush in 2000, and engaging in useless and asinine interfaith nonsense.
7. Irrational, thoroughly stupid, and harmful statements, acts, and images portrayed by Muslim fanatics in US, UK, European and Muslim countries (bravado rhetoric, burning of US flags, beards, hijabs, men in shalwars, etc..)
8. Acts of terrorism (9/11, 7/7, 7/11), designed to increase hatred for Islam and Muslims among westerners and other non-Muslims.
9. Hypocritical and deceitful policies and actions of several Muslim governments in saying one thing to their public and kissing the western rump in private (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, and Indonesia are the most notable ones)
10. Shia/Sunni divide, Wahabbi brand of Islam, Hindu/Muslim riots, treatment of women, etc all tend to combine and create an anti-Islamic culture everywhere, especially in US and the west.

Re: # 4 Dost

As for accepting the the verdict of history is concerned I always quote the truth, which is cast in stone ``A man can live upto erenity with half a loaf of bread as long as he is sure that he will get his half; it doesn`t matter if other is getting three or more, but same man cannot live one day without justice``. And that is the reason History is always fluid and everchanging and not stagnant and stillborn.

Hi Feroz:

I fully agree with your general statement but not with your hypothesis as it applies specifically to the US today. While the US politicians always have their eyes on the polling numbers, in this case, they are more persuaded by the geopolitical realities as they see them.

All US administrations in the post-Suez period have supported Israel fully. Bill Clinton may now seek to assume the mantle of an elder statesman and shed tears for the victims of Israeli bombings, but I do not recall his opposing the relentless expansion of jewish settlements on the West Bank under his watch. To his credit, he did arrange a summit between Barak and Arafat to seek a permanent solution to the Palestinian problem but when it failed, he put the entire blame for its failure on Arafat, not recognizing the pressure Arafat was facing from his own constituents following the Oslo agreement.

As for Bush, he is the original proponent of the doctrine of massive retaliation in the post 9/11 world and is in no position to criticise anyone else. Israelis may not be acting at the behest of Americans but Americans certainly have no love for Hezbollah or their Iranian mentors. As for bombing children, the US has been doing so in Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq. And lest we forget, Clinton did his share of bombing of Iraq during his time in the White House.

As for the Christian Right, I am not aware of any strong voices in support of Israeli bombing. Indeed, Pat Buchanin, a prominent member of the Christian Right, has condemned both the Israeli action and the US support for it (See behram`s post#547 on the Gill board). To the extent that domestic politics and the coming elections are playing a role, it is more via the influence of the powerful AIPAC lobby. Several US politicians depend upon the AIPAC lobby for financial and media support during the election and can ill afford to antagonise it at this time. While hubby Bill is expressing his support for the victims of the Israeli bombings, wife Hillary Clinton, with an eye on the White House in 2008, is fully supporting the Israeli actions.

As for the timing, I do not think that the bombings will last till November. The Israeli war machine is quite capable of achieving its objectives long before then, at least in the short run, unless the war expands to include Syria and other players.


Urstruly#2:

Good post. However, a time comes when people have to accept history`s verdict which is not always just. A big part of the Middle East problem is the inability of the Arab world to truly accept the reality of the presence of a Jewish state in their midst. While Israel may be persuaded at some point to return more or less to its 1967 borders plus Jerusalem, it will not accept any solution such as the rights of the refugees to return which would endanger its Jewish majority status at a future date.

AMERICA EXACTS THE REVENGE UPON LEBANON



``A year after 9/11, Richard Armitage, then the Deputy Secretary of State, was asked at a Washington forum whether the Bush Administration had plans, in its war on terrorism, for the Lebanese Islamist group Hizballah, factions of which the U.S. believes were responsible for the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. service members. Armitage, a bear of a man, gave a chest-thumping reply. ``Their time will come,`` he vowed. ``There is no question about it. They have a blood debt to us, and we`re not going to forget it.`` - Time

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1220505,00.html

There are two immediate outcomes of the Judo-American invasion of Lebananon and they are going to effect not only the domestic politics of many states in the world but international politics as well.

The first outcome is the awareness of the fact without the shadow of doubt that US and West have absolutely hijacked and monopolized the world institutions like UN, IAEA, ICJ and many many more. No other nation in the world can even call a Security Council session unless it gets a nod and wink from Western nations. On the other hand Western nations can make any international institution to `fall in`, as it is termed in military, at moment`s notice.An example, to support this is issue of Iran.

The second outcome of this invasion is the failure of the institution of the ideal of the nation state. As the global sedition against this abduction of truth and justice by West is on the rise, and as the the West responds to it by deimating and occupying nation states on one hand and blocking their access to justice on the other hand, the failure of nation state becomes inevitable. In other words, there will be an emergence of the lawless and vigilante bands of societies and cultures with in the geographical boundries of many many nation states. It is a vicious circle. The people who are wronged will do vigilante justice, West will respond in kind at nation state level, nation state is further weakened, and people will see more reason to have vigilante justice.


The core reason for the inevitability of this future is the failure of West to establish rule of justice while they have the power. Instead they try to fill up te vacuum for justice with more exploitation, more injustice, more terror, and more oppression. In any society, strong does not need law to protect itself because it is already powerful, the law in fact protects the weak because it cannot protect itself. The only way a society can exist is when strong feels that it is of greater good to abide by the law. Unfortunately, Western civilization has utterly failed to fill this vacuum. And nature hates vacuum.

re: HP, Asadi, tahmad32 and Hamidm

I have read the posts/replies and will respond in detail, as soon as I have some time.

As to my analysis/post, the situation in the Middle East is very fluid right now and with events creating a dynamic of their own, nothing can be stated with any certainity. The point of the post was to suggest that people look at the domestic politics as one of the reasons, but not necessarily the only reason for this war and since we live in a global neighborhood, all politics do become local issues and there is no such thing as American or British or Pakistani politics, because all national politics have global implications.

Ciao