Sher Shah Suri

yasser,
Unlike most of your articles ,I dont agree with you .I dont think Sher Shah Suri should be glorified ,or identified on the same lines as Ashoka.The difference between the former and the a latter is like chalk and cheese.
After the massacre of kalinga Emperor ashoka underwent a spiritual transformation.He became a man of peace ,a man who believed in service to his people.
Sher Shah Suri ,although a brilliant Military strategician was not a great ruler.Do you recall the massacre of surrendered Rajputs of the Malwa.

I think Timurlame,ghori ,ghaznavi,abdali and sher shah were all muslim invaders.They are painful part of Indian History.Recently on the History channel they were showing how timur massacred 80,000 infidels or kafirs in delhi and made a pyramid of skulls.Jesus thats barbaric and cruel.I wish Hindus were more united and agressive and perhaps more cruel in regard to their agressors.
Anyway lets not get stuck with the past.Times have changed............

Regards
Nandan

Correction:

``And hold fast to the rope of Allah and don`t go astray`` is wrong and should read.

``And hold fast to the rope of Allah and don`t create differences``

Only meaning and my translation.

Farangi Kush# I am neither firmly rooted in Islam nor moored (can you explain this grammarian English).

I am a Muslim by tradition. And my reading of Islam is also rooted in the tradition. And that had no effect on me, as far as my outlook towards world is concerned.

First I was and am Sunni. I lived with Iranians, mostly Shias. Then I came here in US with much different faiths and outlook.

But even before that due to some severe circumstances, I had to take the help of God or God helped me.

Since that time my belief in God as all powerful, creator of all things, and God of Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Shias, Sunnis of all creations has strengthened.

The thing which I found is that Ayah ``And hold fast to the rope of Allah and don`t go astray`` although commented by scholars as referring to Quran in my humble opinion is related to Allah Himself. For every action, every movement, I know that I have to respond to God in the hereafter. And that is why I am away from Islamic bias or for that matter MQM bias. Justifying actions of Muslims because they are Muslims or justifying actions of a person because he/she belong to my community.

That is why you will find my posts awkward.

I don`t know whether I am right or wrong. Only time will proove it.

Progress or subjugation of universe in my opinion is a task for which human is destined. Or more knowledge. Whether it comes from Muslims, or Christians or Hindu does not matter.

For me Shia Islam historically has been twisted to keep their adherents in the group, but its historical anti-establishment policy has been its positive point.

Sunni Islam though more fundamental in beliefs has been twisted to suit the rulers and that has been its drawback.

But ultimately both will lead to the same final point.

``La Ilaha Illallah``

Which has been the message of all prophets from Adam to Mohammed PBUH.

Those are my humble opinions and only God knows better.

Wassalam.

krashid:

You are firmly anchored to Islam and proudly moored as a muslim.The route one takes or recommends after this is all for the love of it.

So your disagreements & displeasures at some of my determinedly `aashiquan` viewpoints are honey & sugar to me.

``kissi ka dard ho kurtay hain teray naam raquam

gilla hai jo bhee kissi sey,teray sububb sey hai``

Your heart is obviously on the right side.Once that is decided the rest is just details.

wassalaam

Siagalph 235 #908

Being youthful is not a criteria for logical or illogical thinking.

First, American foreign and Internal policies are a necessity of corporate America, which have been achieved over the centuries by the hard struggles of so called liberals, mostly blacks and women in America. As far as the foreign policy of America is concerned it is also driven by the same concern. It does not matter whether liberal Mosaddaq was worse than fair king Shah of Iran which America supported. Or Saudi king regime is better than the opponents who are struggling for their voice.

For the majority of people in our region, if they have to succeed, they have to look for their destiny and interest in their own homeland and country.

As far as Iran is concerned, it was a revolution against Imperialism or American interest in Iran which was detrimental for the progress of majority of Iranian people. Now an independent Iran is carving its own destiny. First there is surge in moderate elements and people are fighting for their rights on all fronts and are successful. Second inspite of the previous fundamentalism, one thing which kept fundamentalist in power was their commitment to the education, infrastructural building and rural development. Those things are paying Iran now in the form of a strong rising midle class and more enlightenement. That is what third world countries need.

Third world don`t needs puppet of American interest. They need puppet of people`s interest.

Ref ylh #: 913

[India is indeed a Democracy, but let us not forget that One Man One vote policy is also being abused there.

65 years ago, VeerSavarkar had also put forth the ideal of one man one vote so that the Hindu Majority will perpetually rule.]

Using the same logic, the US adopted one-man, one-vote so that WASPS would rule in perpetuity and the UK adopted one-man, one-vote so that the English could lord it over the Welsh, the Scots, and the Irish.

Hasn`t prevented the Hispanic population from exploding in the US and already being the majority in New Mexico, with California to follow soon. Hasn`t prevented cities like San Francisco, New York, LA, Chicago, Washington, DC, etc., from electing blacks as mayors.

Hasn`t prevented the Irish, the Welsh and the Scots from demanding devolution in unitary England and winning it.

I see less and less value in a Rutgers education. Do you want to try and transfer to some other school?

Sigalph,

I totally agree with what you have stated. India is indeed a Democracy, but let us not forget that One Man One vote policy is also being abused there.

65 years ago, VeerSavarkar had also put forth the ideal of one man one vote so that the Hindu Majority will perpetually rule. The rise of Hindu fundamentalism is definitely a step in the direction of fascism... Dont you agree?

-YLH

Krashid,

I totally agree that Bhutto`s downfall was the caused in no small measure by his efforts to create such a block.

However, there are two things I want to stress:

1) We will have to make this block a Pan-Muslim instead of a Pan-Islamic Block,

2) The leadership of this block should be an ally to the west and not its enemy.

3) The Block should harbor any fantasies of Islamic Empire all over the world but should be contained in its borders.

4) States should retain maximum sovereignty.

5) Gradual but persistent movement towards a Pan-ThirdWorld deal should be achieved.

Pakistan Zindabad

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

YLH #906

Your approach is good.

I think one of the reason of downfall of Bhutto (Z.A) was his pan Islamic approach with its attendent risks to West.

I think, it is the need of the hour.

The only problem is once it starts working, its agenda may be hijacked by so called Islamist. a la Pakistan.

re krashid

Doctor sahib, I am perhaps both youthfully idealistic and naively direct when I disagree with your analysis of Iran. It is indeed moving in the right direction, but when you hit the bottom of medievalism there is no other direction to go. A theocracy where unelected zealots reserve the right to interpret God`s will for all of us is a model of development that I hope most countries avoid.

As for India, it will remain a democracy USA notwithstanding. I know it is quite fashionable in leftist circles to blame the US for killing democracy in Iran and Chile and Algeria etc etc. I don`t buy that socialist nonsense. Allende and Mosaddegh and the FIS were democrats in the fashion of Herr Hitler: one man, one vote, one time. India, compared to them, has been holding hundreds of elections where parties change power specially at the state level.

It is an extremely bitter pill for us non-Indian South Asians to admit but the fact is, and the world recognizes, that for all its myriad faults India is a democracy. And so is the United States.

And if it is not clear dear Kabuliwallah, one of the Major reasons I am promoting a Muslim Union instead of an Afro-Asian Union, is because the greatest short term threat to Pakistan in my opinion is from India,... in an Afro-Asian Union we will not be able to stop India from entering, but in a Muslim Union we can exclude you guys... it is a matter of self interest, and has nothing to do with hatred towards India, or religious based loyalties.

-Yasser

So What do I mean by a Union of Muslim Countries as opposed to one single Huge Muslim state... Nobody is going to interpret or dictate any Islam or Constitution. The Union itself can only deal in three things 1) Economic Cooperation, 2) Defence, and 3) Foreign Policy, leaving all states to their own agendas. To answer your and Sigalph`s question, I think the Muslim Union in its formative phase should only include countries with Muslim Majorities ie where the Muslim Community is the largest. Hence India is not included.

I have no love for Arabs or anyone else, I think this is a practical solution to the problems posed by the competition of the rapidly growing Economies of US, and Europe.. and the rise of the ICBM making neighbours.

Why a Muslim Union is necessary is simple, ... Religion can serve to bring these nations together, but that doesnot mean that every Muslim in the World will be a citizen and a member of this Union. The citizens of such a union will involve both Muslim and Non Muslim citizens of the Muslim Majority states, and no other Muslims. Hence Indian-Muslims and Muslim Americans will have no stake in such a union.

History has ample evidence especially in Turkish War of Independence, and the Pakistan Movement, that Islam, if not rammed down peoples` throats, can become a very effective Unifier. I am not suggesting a system which is viable in theory but a suggesting a system which is viable in practice.

It is in the common interest of all Muslim States and all citizens of those Muslim States regardless of religion caste or creed, that these Muslim States come together in a Muslim Economic Union and possibly a defence one also. In short I am suggesting a ``Cabinet Mission`` type scheme for all Muslim Countries and later all third world countries (excluding India and China because they are already one billion each and hence powers in their own accord).. so that we can together create an Economy, and a world which is safe for all.

Such a Union, idealistic as it may seem, will pave the way for a safer world because you will contain and marginalize fanatics amongst Muslims while providing a very effective counterbalance to the rising Hindu fundamentalism in India.

As for what Islam? Well I think such a Union will celebrate the existence of secular Muslim Majority states like Turkey, accept the middle paths of states like Pakistan, and yet allow for medieval monarchies like Saudi Arabia. One day, Economic prosperity and social stability will lead to greater consciousness and education amongst people

allowing them to transform all states of the Muslim World into full fledge Secular states. By then hopefuly, the threats of Hindu fundamentalism etc and these Muslim States (and third world states) will be at parity with the US and Europe. At that point maybe we can talk of expanding these Unions into a World Economic Union and a Confederation of the United States of the World.

Thus such a step will eventually lead to a United Humanity..... in a few centuries.

-YLH

ylh #902

There are some very interesting development in the region.

There is increasing co-operation between Iran and other Arab countries.

I think Iranian leadership of OPEC during last year, leading to rise in oil prices probably has changed the thinking of Arab countries. Moreover the moderate regime of Khatami probably believes in economic based politics.

I think Arab countries slowly want to come out of the shadows of America to keep their profit intact. And with further Industrialization of rest of world oil demand will increase.

Your idea is good and makes sense economically. If the wealth of Arab Nations is invested prudently especially in Muslim countries rather than rotting in American banks, it can have a positive impact on overall economy of Muslim world.

Siagalph235:

You have probably very wrong notions regarding Iran. Iran is one of a few countries in the world who dictate their own policies. Although there is a rift between fundamentalists and moderates , but it surely is progressing in the right direction. The country which at one time was dependent on foreign countries for skilled labour is now self sufficient. Their initiative for education and infrastructural building is going to strengthen Iran in a more substantial way.

As far as India is concerned. Let America put its foot there, dictatorship will automatically come.

re: ylh # 902

Come on man, who is going to set the constitution of this group of Muslim countries?...does the country HAVE to be muslim majority to join, initially even?...or can it be a muslim minority...if the country is muslim majority, how muslim?...in the sense that how do they interpret Islam?...like Turkey or Taliban?...would the members be Islamic or Muslim...do you think their outlook on issues would be the same?...and then what about those countries, which might be significant players and mostly non-Muslim, who have had a history of conflict with one or more of the countries in this group and located in the vicinity of the members of this group?...should they feel insecure?...if not, why should they feel secure?...and what gives this group the right to patronize other third world countries in giving them entry only later?...why not at the start?...do you think you would have liked it if the UN initially constituted countries only from the West and then later decided to ALLOW third world countries in?...do you mean to imply (by not letting `em in at the start and only giving them membership when it is ``firmly in place``) that non-Musliim countries would by their nature be opposed to this group of Muslim countries?...if that is the case, then why?...just curious


I know exactly what `secular` means...I also know that this word has been raped over and over by politicians in India...but that is another matter...seriously tell me, what percentage of Muslim countries are secular?...if Islamic countries are to play a role in this group, would religion not play a significant if not a dominant role?


Kabuli

re ylh and D8

I hope your exams went well. Have a good summer wherever you are.

Please don`t consider the following comments condescending. Perhaps they are just a result of seeing idealism and relaism collide. But frankly, this D8 thing is another illusion like OIC, Arab League or SAARC or the Indian Ocean Initiative-you name it. A lot of money wasted,a lot of junkets for diplomats and bureaucrats, a lot of nonsensical resolutions not worth the paper they are printed on.

Fundamentally, it is questionable because it brings pariah nations like Iran into it. If progressive Muslim majority countries are to come into the 21st century, they can only do so in the company of societies where political and economic freedom is at least given lip service. India and Turkey are such countries. Iran and Nigeria are not.And speaking of D8 let`s not forget that India is probably the 3rd or 4th biggest Muslim.

Only Pakistan can improve Pakistan. The only help that is worth is that of other democracies and free economies. The rest, OIC, D8, are of extremely limited value.