Huntington's Clash of Civilizations Thesis

Salim,

It will survive if Muslims learn to adapt

Muslims will never adapt. It is these Chuteyas from the two foregoing interacts who will adopt, or be beheaded.

Rgds.

anil #86 {``Salim sahib:
{``Your answer is better than my question.
Don`t you think, in all the situations you have quoted system survived, the persons who were killed?

I know Bush wants to bomb Iraq to stone age, the system will survive him too. ..Hillary already said that she will end the war in January 2009, if it did not end before. ...I somehow think near the best period of Islamic society there must be a stability and contiuity. Or is it that people did not care for continuity, as they may be felt it came from the finality of book and messenger?``}

Anil Bhai,
Some more excellent questions. The fact is that the system always survives, but usually in a very different form. The Papacy of today is NOT the disorder that prevailed at the time of Urban II or the Medicis. The man in the flowing robes is still called a Pope, but his sway is confined to a few blocks on the other side of the Tiber.

Islam as a religion and a social philosophy needs to go through a thorough metamorphosis. It will survive if Muslims learn to adapt just as the majority of Crusading Conquistadoring Cretans changed into the humanists they have become today. Secularism, separation of mosque and state, individual rights, human rights, and freedom of conscience will save the day. Islamic ``civilization`` is only 500 years behind the west - and considering that it started in roughly 600 AD - that`s almost a century`s worth of catching up. :)

#119 by masadi on February 4, 2007 4:38am PT

So the ``muslim lands`` are not ``liberated``? That is exactly what the propaganda of the OBL and his cronies in order to sell Jehad. And once they are ``liberated`` , there would be ``real`` democracy ruled by mullah elites like Asadi!!
Lo, Hamein gadhaa banane ko ek aur Chuteya aa gaya hai!!

Re: # 119 ``Regarding Ranjit, his BS and yours regarding Muslim elites have already been answered multiple times. Let a viable institution arise in Muslim lands that takes care of the needs of the locals moreso than guage itself to the desire of the external masters and we can then discuss the relative morality of Muslim elites compared to others. In a neo-colonial setup, where elites are structurally and organizationally bound to do the bidding of their masters, upon fear of death, let alone withdrawl of power and privilage, we cannot talk of those lesser elites without looking and the world drawn up by the bigger ones. Comprendey? ``

You are such a blowhard..LOL!. Muslims are incapable of building viable political, social institutions by themselves. That is why we are needed to help you inefficient folks out. blame..blame..blame..tsk..tsk..tsk

feroz writes <<< The world is not changing, which makes me wonder why are you tilting at windmills? >>>

I am having serious doubts as to your ability to comprehend simple sentences. I was talking about a few years/months period, not that the `world is not changing` since its creation. You seem to take comfort in historical determinism regardless of social structure or the instruments of power generation. Not knowing the structure that produces uniform decisions for these elite, who are using them, or having been forced to alter them, in order to maintain their privilage will make useless all programs towards solution, intermediate period or not. You are not only ignorant of the US institutional structure and the resulting projection of them in the current world order, you are also naively unaware of what Marx proposed. The Soviet Union did not represent any stage in the Marxian revolution, it was an implant that moreso than internal pressures was led by external definitions of reality forced upon them by the US. Stating, in your usual nonsense (contrived complexity) way that an intermediate level would led us guage the rise of elites or not is mere BS which has become the norm for pseudo scholars, like your goodself in our parts of the world. Also there is no such thing as a uniform `human nature` but you wouldn`t know because you think history works with mechanical regularity.

Regarding Ranjit, his BS and yours regarding Muslim elites have already been answered multiple times. Let a viable institution arise in Muslim lands that takes care of the needs of the locals moreso than guage itself to the desire of the external masters and we can then discuss the relative morality of Muslim elites compared to others. In a neo-colonial setup, where elites are structurally and organizationally bound to do the bidding of their masters, upon fear of death, let alone withdrawl of power and privilage, we cannot talk of those lesser elites without looking and the world drawn up by the bigger ones. Comprendey?

bulleya, what you think about .65% population of work using 3% of the world resoruces? is that fair and why don`t you talk about it?

Re: # 113

Presto!

The world is not changing, which makes me wonder why are you tilting at windmills?

The world will be dominated by the ``elites`` regardless of the many crocodile tears shed for it. The elites, always a minority in one way or another, have always exploited the majority and though the classification of the elite may alter over the years, their basic dominance over power will remain constant. In order to end the dominance of the elites, we should certainly educated an awareness about them, but even more importantly; we should seriously consider what is/will be a viable replacement/subsitute to the ``elites``?

Professor sahib, identifying the source of the problem is the easy part, but coming up with a practical solution to the problem is what seperates the Einsteins from ordinary professors.

Karl Marx had a similar idea and he too wanted to get rid of the ``elites`` who in his day and age were identified as capitalists and industrialists. He wanted a classless society and he wrote his thesis in which he talked about the ``dictatorship of the proletriat``. He called it a phase towards pure communism, but it did not turn out to be a phase as much as it became a political reality. The people who made up the ``dictatorship of the proletariat`` in Russia became the political and economic elite of Russia and pure communism as envisioned by Marx never took roots in Russia.

Castigating against an ``elite`` and wishing to end the system of ``elitism`` does not answer the question of what and how a society will exist when it is in the process of transition from an elitist control to a majority control. Who will lead this change and who will organize it? Will such a change, ironically, not create its own ``elites`` and whose who argue for such a solution, are they not also elites in a sense?

If the movement from an elitist control towards popularism requires leadership and organization and coherence of ideas/ideals, then it will create its own class of elites in order to necessiate such change. The alternative to this is anarchy and even nilihism if such a change is to be considered and implemented sans elitism without any organized leadership. The need/requirement of moving to a classless society from a class dominated society will require an intermediary phase and this phase will determine whether the transition will be successful or not in the final analysis. Just as the historic example of the ``dictatorship of the proletriat`` in Russia proved, the most beneign political intentions can be corrupted when tempted with absolute power and thus, there is no iron-clad surety that can gurantee the intermediary phase will not end up as the final outcome and create its own set of elites, who do not wish to give up their power over the society.

The solution to this problem is a gurantee that a society`s transition from an elitist system to a popularist system will not end up creating another elite group. The key ingredient in this is not the political machinations of the proposed change or its logistics, but the role of the human nature in faciliating such a change. Historically speaking, examples of political alturism have been rare to the point of being non-existent and to hope for one, while contemplating such a change, is simply making a request to open Pandora`s Box. In theory such a change might be laden with the possibilities of good, but in practice it will likey create circumtances of uncertainity that might be exploited and the people exploiting it will be ``elites`` who wish gain from such a situation.

There is a reason behind the saying ``fools rush in where angels fear to tread``. Without any compelling reason to believe that a replacement of one political-economic system will result in a positive result, it would be naive to even advocate such a change without framing/creating a replacement/subsitute to an intended system that is to be changed. Otherwise, it would be like discovering one`s self dealing with a flat tire in the middle of no where and finding out that there is no spare tire in the trunk.

Well, professor sahib, do have a spare tire in your trunk to change one that you claim is punctured? :)

Ciao

P.S.: I would like you to answer Ranjit`s comments about Muslim elites.

Now, everyone`s sucking up to China! Everyone quotes references of China! Haha.

- When people got sick and tired of centuries of imperial domination and usurping of their resources under kings and feudals, one man rose against it. Now, everyone sucks up to China!

- He ordered students to burn down schools and colleges, and enroll in the Red Guards instead which they did. Now, everyone sucks up to China!

- He trained corps of young girl students how to use a bayonet with a chilling cry of `shaaka` to stab and move it down so the intestines hang out. Now, everyone sucks up to China!

- He ordered reactionaries and collaborators to be killed, beheaded, and dumped on the street and ditches by the millions. Now, everyone sucks up to China!

- He ordered `all` books to be burnt to be replaced with just one `little red book`. Now, everyone sucks up to China!

- He ordered sons and daughters to not only disobey their own fathers, but to drag them blindfolded to public theatres and denounce and humiliate them publicly, which they did by the hundreds of thousands. Now, everyone sucks up to China!

- He ordered the elite and intellectuals to be thrown out of their own bedroom windows. Now, everyone sucks up to China!

- He announced the death of the old culture. Anyone who disagreed was immediately put to death. Now, everyone sucks up to China!

- He imposed a single penalty for every crime i.e. a bullet through the head; with the cost of the bullet recovered from the convict`s family. Now, everyone sucks up to China!

- He closed his country to the outside world, put his people through an immense poverty grind in re-training, and told everyone else to eff off. Now, everyone sucks up to China!

- The same man`s body is respectfully preserved since thirty years for public who come in thousands to pay their respects every single day, to the very man who had killed more of his own people than anyone else in history, combined. Now, everyone sucks up to China!

The dimwits who cheer at Muslims blowing up Muslims as some kind of a weakness to be celebrated, should learn some lessons from the above. This is the actual clash of civilizations that US is afraid of. It knows Muslims are ten times, if not more, capable of doing this to them as well as collaborators within themselves, than the above Chinese gentleman ever did. Because they don`t want to suck up to Muslims as now they`re sucking up to China!

This is why they want to de-fang, de-claw, and domesticate Islam in `enlightened moderation` as some kind of a new `Scientology` through their pardoned turkeys. So that they can continue to steal Muslim`s resources through their appointed CEOs, COOs, and CIOs; expropriate their lands, turn their populations into slave markets for worthless consumer goods, hang their elected prime ministers, and invade and fracture entire Muslim countries if nothing else works.

Well, I`m sorry. But this won`t be.

Cheers.

Re: # 94

The Roman Empire in western Europe ended due to many reasons and though religion and barbarian onslaughts played their part, they were not the only reasons. Political corruption, the involvement of the Roman army in politics, the failure to reform the Roman bureaucracy, the independence of Roman governors to question the writ of Rome, the inability to raise tax revenues were notable reasons that contributed to the decline of the Roman Empire.

Islam, or for that matter Muslims, did not play any role in the downfall of the Roman Empire. Roman Empire had started to politically decay after the death of Caesar Augustus in 14 AD and the only reason why it existed till 476 AD was the reforms of Diocletian, who divided the vast Roman territories into a western and an eastern half. It was a political decision to abandon Rome as the administrative center of the Empire and move it to the east, because it was becoming very difficult to defend Rome against barbarian attacks that started the process of lessening the Roman influence in the west. Hence, it was a political realization that Rome was becoming militarily undefendable, which accelerated the decline of the western half of the Roman Empire and not the defeat of the Roman legions by Muslims.

Muslims did cause the defeat of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 AD, but they cannot be credited with defeating or causing the defeat/decline of the western Roman Empire, because in 476 AD, there was no Islam or Muslims. Period.

The question is: how was it possible for the Muslims/Islam to defeat the Roman Empire in the west when neither the Muslims or Islam even exist as a political or a religious force in 476 AD?

The only way in which such a possibility might be even considered possible, would be for the Muslims to travel back in time, from the early seventh century back to the late fifth century, and defeat the Romans in western Europe!

Therefore, to claim that Muslims/Islam played a role or helped in ending the Roman Empire in western Europe is historically wrong.

Ciao

hamid writes <<< but just look at how the world`s gdp has grown over the past hundred years and keeps on growing and growing and growing ........ >>>

As has global population, and the number of people living on less than $2 a day, and in the LDCs those living on absolute poverty have doubled. All your benefits of an increased life expectancy etc are accuring to a select few while the number of people dying today at early ages, is more than it ever was in the past, given sheer numbers. You and your friend feroz who wants to obfuscate crimes of the West against humanity might call all this ``blame game`` and a ``rehash`` but they remain well documented facts, and that idiot ranjit comparing US domination to Muslim elites as feroz was doing in the past in one of those ``rehashed``articles, shows complete ignorance on how the world system operates...learning a few events of history of the people you worship, i.e. the West does not make either of you any smarter...

Feroz writes <<< This was a re-hash of your old articles >>>

Einstein, the world hasn`t changed since I last wrote my articles, so if you find similar themes in this one, that is not my problem but shows your infantile intellect that seeks new `soap opera` type episodes in writings that seek to understand a quite standardized world

Re: # 87

Four major European powers/empires ended after the First World War in 1918 and not three.

1- Welhelmine German Empire
2- Tsarist Russia
3- Ottoman Turkey
4- Austria-Hungary

Ciao

Re: # 109

This was a re-hash of your old articles. There was nothing new in this article. Calling me ignorant will not solve the problem and neither will prove any thesis of yours. Other than revising your previous articles, do you have anything new to state?

A simple ``yes`` or ``no`` would just fine.

Ciao

Re: # 104

The western Roman Empire collapsed in 476 AD and in fact, it was the total lack of administrative order in western Europe falling the defeat of Rome and the inability of the Visigoths to politically organize themselves, which significantly helped the Muslims in their conquest of Spain.

In fact, had the Roman Empire continued to exist and had there been political stability in western Europe around the time of Muslims invasions, there would have been a marked resistence to Islamic conquests and the Muslims might not have even reached Tours in France.

Ciao

Feroz writes <<< My question is, other than an idealistic expectation, do you have a practical solution which can be considered as a tangible anti-thesis to Sam Huntington`s argument? >>>

The purpose of this writing, which apparently escapes you, is trying to understand what keeps the status quo and the problems of the world going. If you do not understand the nature of the problems, any attempt at solutions will be a shot in the dark and quite futile. I guess you want to keep people busy with futility, and instead of challenging the article....which you are itching to do...you offer banalities like ```no solutions are offered``. There are no easy fixes and this wasn`t a solutions paper. The last part dealt with the source of the problem that of authority and consciousness. The problems of the world cannot be fixed by band-aid patch work and mechanical solutions....people have been trying that for generations and failing...it need a system wide solution which isn`t possible except by rejecting the authority of those that are projecting gimmicks like```the clash of civilizations`` for global consumption. If all you can understand after reading (or pretending to read) this article is a ``blame game``, then I am sorry you are more ignorant than I had suspected.

Re: # 103

Hamidm sahib:

``...now i am throwing my considerable weight behind john mcain to clean up the mess .......``

Hillary Clinton ki taraff... janab... Hillary Clinton.... support the winning horse.