Taliban : An Analysis
Sameer January 1, 2002
#33 Posted by hamzadafaqui on January 2, 2001 10:08:07 pm
Some food for thought for muslims & munafiques alike.
_________________________________________________
Islam
Let us now examine Islam. Why is lslam so astonishingly successful? Why is it resistant to secularization? I shall begin by offering a model of what traditional Islam was like (without going into the early History of Islam). To put it simply, Islam, at least that of the arid zone between the Hindu Kush and the Atlantic and the Niger bend, was divided between a high culture and a low culture - a high Islam and a low Islam - and these two coexisted in an unstable way. Most of the time they were peaceful, but nevertheless had conflicts at fairly regular intervals. The chief difference between the two is that high Islam does not permit mediators (it has a special name for the sin of mediation: Shirk), while the world of low Islam is full of them. High Islam encourages a direct relationship between a unique deity and the individual believer; it is not attached to ritual, contains little magic and supernatural belief, and is heavily moralistic, scripturalist, puritan, monotheistic and individualistic. It is the Islam of the scholars - the high Islam recognized as valid by the believers but not practiced by them. It is not practiced because it does not correspond to the needs of the lower classes and above all the rural Muslims, who for obvious reasons require a much more Durkheimian religion - i.e., a religion in which the sacred has its mediators, its incarnation, and which mirrors the social structure. Most of the rural Muslims were encadrés, incorporated in rural autonomous or semi-autonomous congregations, village lineages, tribes, clans and the like. For their internal organization and life they had a Durkheimian religion where the sacred is incarnated in periodic rituals, in sacred objects, sacred practices, sacred persons. One can say that an upper-class, urban, individualistic, puritan, ``protestant`` Islam (which is strangely united by the theologians and jurists who are its main carriers, despite the lack of a central organization and any kind of central secretariats and hierarchy) coexisted with a fragmented, ``catholic`` Islam which had the ``catholic`` characteristics of hierarchy, ritualization, employment of the sensuous forms of religion, of mystical exercises etc. One can see how this fits well with Durkheim`s theories of religion having the function of underwriting, rendering visible, and legitimating the communal organization in which Muslims lived. During periodic attempts of self-reformation these two forms came into conflict, but most of the time they coexisted harmoniously. On this issue I agree with the theory best formulated by David Hume about the oscillation in the religious life of mankind between protestant-type and catholic-type religions. In periodic outbursts of zeal and self-reformation the puritans would temporarily prevail, but the exigence and the demands of social life would again lead to a swing-back to a personalized, hierarchical, ritualized, non-scriptual religion with an ethic of loyalty rather than an ethic of rules. Thus Islam existed in a permanent oscillation between unsuccessful reformations and reversions to the old cultural habits. And, of course, there is a specific difference between Islam and West-European Christianity in this matter: in Western Europe the hierarchical, ritualized loyalty-ethics is at the center and carried by an institution rather than by abstract doctrine, while the individualist, scripturalist, puritan version is fragmented and relatively marginal. In Islam it is the other way around; the central tradition is individualist and scriptual, and the fragmented deviationists are hierarchical, ritualistic, etc. - a kind of mirror image.
As far as I can see there is nothing to stop Islam oscillating between these two forms. The oscillation was noted by the superb Muslim sociologist lbn Khaldun around 1400, and echoed by Friedrich Engels in a passage where he obviously uses lbn Khaldun without actually quoting him. He says‹contradicting the main thesis of Marxism - that all classes and class-societies are inherently unstable and due for internal destruction through their internal contradictions. In this passage the dreadful ethnocentrism of the two founding fathers of Marxism comes out as he specifies that the instability of classes and class-societies applies to ``us`` Europeans, whereas ``those`` Orientals, especially Arabs and Muslims, are locked in a kind of cyclical world which never manages to break out. And, admittedly, our social conflicts are distorted through the prism of religious language, but at least when the religious conflict is over something new emerges and we reach a higher level. All the orientals do is go around in a circle.
My theory of why Muslim fundamentalism has the astonishing strength that it does is the following: modern conditions unhinged the pendulum of this unstable oscillation and permanently and definitively shifted the center of gravity away from the pluralistic, hierarchical, organizational, Durkheimian style to that of high Islam. Of course, the reason why this happened is that the process of modernization, the political and economic centralization employed by the colonial and post-colonial states destroyed those communities that had provided the basis for the Durkheimian or low culture style of Islam. By turning clansmen, lineage members, villagers, and tribesmen into labor migrants and shantytown dwellers, it atomized the population and prompted them to find their identity in a high religion, in a high culture, that provides an identity shared by all Muslims, uniting them against the outsiders. Previously there did not exist a national identity in Muslim countries. Most people were first and foremost members of a local community under a local authority. Modern Muslim nations, especially in ex-colonial countries, are simply the summation of Muslims in a given territory. But this does mean that lslam provided the identification against the other.
It provided a ratification of their transition from a rural to an urban world, and it provided an idiom for expressing their change of status from that of rustic ignoramuses to people aspiring to urban sophistication. It also provided them - as is presently visible in the bitter and tragic conflict in Algeria - with a means of criticising their current rulers. It provided an idiom for those non-westernized people who take their Islam seriously, as against the technocrat Mamlukes who govern them in virtue of their access to western technology. I think it is in these terms - the reaction of recently urbanized, disoriented Muslims who are separated from their previous saint cults and local structures but who need to define themselves against an exploitative, semi-westernized upper class - that the wave of Muslim fundamentalism should be understood.
[This article is based on the transcription of a lecture Gellner gave in October 1995 in Heidelberg at a conference organized by the Deutsch-Amerikanisches Institut on ``Religion als Kultur und Antikultur`` (Religion as Culture and Anti-Culture). This was most probably Gellner`s last lecture as he died early November 1995 in Prague. The eminent anthropologist and philosopher had been an active participant in many events of the Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Vienna.In the framework of the TERC-Program he served as the first European Chair in Social Sciences and Humanities at Warsaw University, and he was a contributor to Transit.
The lecture was originally transcribed by Caroline Schmidt Hornstein and published in the Internationale Zeitschrift für Philosophie ed., Günter Figal and Enno Rudolph, No. 1/1996 ].
Rest at:
[http://www.eurozine.com/article/2000-08-28-gellner-en.html]
_________________________________________________
Islam
Let us now examine Islam. Why is lslam so astonishingly successful? Why is it resistant to secularization? I shall begin by offering a model of what traditional Islam was like (without going into the early History of Islam). To put it simply, Islam, at least that of the arid zone between the Hindu Kush and the Atlantic and the Niger bend, was divided between a high culture and a low culture - a high Islam and a low Islam - and these two coexisted in an unstable way. Most of the time they were peaceful, but nevertheless had conflicts at fairly regular intervals. The chief difference between the two is that high Islam does not permit mediators (it has a special name for the sin of mediation: Shirk), while the world of low Islam is full of them. High Islam encourages a direct relationship between a unique deity and the individual believer; it is not attached to ritual, contains little magic and supernatural belief, and is heavily moralistic, scripturalist, puritan, monotheistic and individualistic. It is the Islam of the scholars - the high Islam recognized as valid by the believers but not practiced by them. It is not practiced because it does not correspond to the needs of the lower classes and above all the rural Muslims, who for obvious reasons require a much more Durkheimian religion - i.e., a religion in which the sacred has its mediators, its incarnation, and which mirrors the social structure. Most of the rural Muslims were encadrés, incorporated in rural autonomous or semi-autonomous congregations, village lineages, tribes, clans and the like. For their internal organization and life they had a Durkheimian religion where the sacred is incarnated in periodic rituals, in sacred objects, sacred practices, sacred persons. One can say that an upper-class, urban, individualistic, puritan, ``protestant`` Islam (which is strangely united by the theologians and jurists who are its main carriers, despite the lack of a central organization and any kind of central secretariats and hierarchy) coexisted with a fragmented, ``catholic`` Islam which had the ``catholic`` characteristics of hierarchy, ritualization, employment of the sensuous forms of religion, of mystical exercises etc. One can see how this fits well with Durkheim`s theories of religion having the function of underwriting, rendering visible, and legitimating the communal organization in which Muslims lived. During periodic attempts of self-reformation these two forms came into conflict, but most of the time they coexisted harmoniously. On this issue I agree with the theory best formulated by David Hume about the oscillation in the religious life of mankind between protestant-type and catholic-type religions. In periodic outbursts of zeal and self-reformation the puritans would temporarily prevail, but the exigence and the demands of social life would again lead to a swing-back to a personalized, hierarchical, ritualized, non-scriptual religion with an ethic of loyalty rather than an ethic of rules. Thus Islam existed in a permanent oscillation between unsuccessful reformations and reversions to the old cultural habits. And, of course, there is a specific difference between Islam and West-European Christianity in this matter: in Western Europe the hierarchical, ritualized loyalty-ethics is at the center and carried by an institution rather than by abstract doctrine, while the individualist, scripturalist, puritan version is fragmented and relatively marginal. In Islam it is the other way around; the central tradition is individualist and scriptual, and the fragmented deviationists are hierarchical, ritualistic, etc. - a kind of mirror image.
As far as I can see there is nothing to stop Islam oscillating between these two forms. The oscillation was noted by the superb Muslim sociologist lbn Khaldun around 1400, and echoed by Friedrich Engels in a passage where he obviously uses lbn Khaldun without actually quoting him. He says‹contradicting the main thesis of Marxism - that all classes and class-societies are inherently unstable and due for internal destruction through their internal contradictions. In this passage the dreadful ethnocentrism of the two founding fathers of Marxism comes out as he specifies that the instability of classes and class-societies applies to ``us`` Europeans, whereas ``those`` Orientals, especially Arabs and Muslims, are locked in a kind of cyclical world which never manages to break out. And, admittedly, our social conflicts are distorted through the prism of religious language, but at least when the religious conflict is over something new emerges and we reach a higher level. All the orientals do is go around in a circle.
My theory of why Muslim fundamentalism has the astonishing strength that it does is the following: modern conditions unhinged the pendulum of this unstable oscillation and permanently and definitively shifted the center of gravity away from the pluralistic, hierarchical, organizational, Durkheimian style to that of high Islam. Of course, the reason why this happened is that the process of modernization, the political and economic centralization employed by the colonial and post-colonial states destroyed those communities that had provided the basis for the Durkheimian or low culture style of Islam. By turning clansmen, lineage members, villagers, and tribesmen into labor migrants and shantytown dwellers, it atomized the population and prompted them to find their identity in a high religion, in a high culture, that provides an identity shared by all Muslims, uniting them against the outsiders. Previously there did not exist a national identity in Muslim countries. Most people were first and foremost members of a local community under a local authority. Modern Muslim nations, especially in ex-colonial countries, are simply the summation of Muslims in a given territory. But this does mean that lslam provided the identification against the other.
It provided a ratification of their transition from a rural to an urban world, and it provided an idiom for expressing their change of status from that of rustic ignoramuses to people aspiring to urban sophistication. It also provided them - as is presently visible in the bitter and tragic conflict in Algeria - with a means of criticising their current rulers. It provided an idiom for those non-westernized people who take their Islam seriously, as against the technocrat Mamlukes who govern them in virtue of their access to western technology. I think it is in these terms - the reaction of recently urbanized, disoriented Muslims who are separated from their previous saint cults and local structures but who need to define themselves against an exploitative, semi-westernized upper class - that the wave of Muslim fundamentalism should be understood.
[This article is based on the transcription of a lecture Gellner gave in October 1995 in Heidelberg at a conference organized by the Deutsch-Amerikanisches Institut on ``Religion als Kultur und Antikultur`` (Religion as Culture and Anti-Culture). This was most probably Gellner`s last lecture as he died early November 1995 in Prague. The eminent anthropologist and philosopher had been an active participant in many events of the Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Vienna.In the framework of the TERC-Program he served as the first European Chair in Social Sciences and Humanities at Warsaw University, and he was a contributor to Transit.
The lecture was originally transcribed by Caroline Schmidt Hornstein and published in the Internationale Zeitschrift für Philosophie ed., Günter Figal and Enno Rudolph, No. 1/1996 ].
Rest at:
[http://www.eurozine.com/article/2000-08-28-gellner-en.html]
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#34 Posted by ram-rahim on January 2, 2001 10:08:07 pm
Sameer:
You should take English 101 again.
Do you understand concept of thesis sentence?
May be you should keep any future articles under 30 lines.
You should take English 101 again.
Do you understand concept of thesis sentence?
May be you should keep any future articles under 30 lines.
#35 Posted by hamidm on January 2, 2001 10:08:07 pm
sameer
i agree with every thing you say, except:
``For Pakistanis, their interests are better served by an amalgamation of rich native cultural heritage with only a sprinkle of Islamic civilization``
..... even a sprinkle of islam (the political kind) is a receipe for disaster ... can you imagine having a ``little`` bit of communism or fascism or plain and simple madness as part of a political system .... this approach is rife with danger ... islam must be confined to the mosque, personal hygiene and annual firework festivals - anything more than that will leave the doors open for the high priests to sneak back in ........ we must start by removing (slowly) all vestiges of official islam from public life ....let`s start by shutting down ptv channel-4 which spouts meaningless arabic all day long; do away with the AH calender which nobody can figure out; eliminate the parallel sharia court and throw out the silly hadood and blasphemy laws; ban polygamy and the burqa; drop the handle ``islamic republic`` and go back to being plain old pakistan ......... and first of all remove prohibition which, along with kite flying and hairy armpits, would be most visible sign of recovery from this insidious disease .........
....... i know the politically correct thing to say is, `` oh, but the problem is not with islam `` and ``it is a great religion which has been hijacked`` and other such mealymouthed phrases to smooth the islamist feathers .... the fact of the matter is that political islam, like medieval christianity and twentieth century communism, is a totalitarian nightmare that cannot be allowed to fester .....
.... of course, this has to be done slowly and carefully so as not to stir up the snakes nest ....
...... does this sound radical? of course - but then look at what we are up against ...........
i agree with every thing you say, except:
``For Pakistanis, their interests are better served by an amalgamation of rich native cultural heritage with only a sprinkle of Islamic civilization``
..... even a sprinkle of islam (the political kind) is a receipe for disaster ... can you imagine having a ``little`` bit of communism or fascism or plain and simple madness as part of a political system .... this approach is rife with danger ... islam must be confined to the mosque, personal hygiene and annual firework festivals - anything more than that will leave the doors open for the high priests to sneak back in ........ we must start by removing (slowly) all vestiges of official islam from public life ....let`s start by shutting down ptv channel-4 which spouts meaningless arabic all day long; do away with the AH calender which nobody can figure out; eliminate the parallel sharia court and throw out the silly hadood and blasphemy laws; ban polygamy and the burqa; drop the handle ``islamic republic`` and go back to being plain old pakistan ......... and first of all remove prohibition which, along with kite flying and hairy armpits, would be most visible sign of recovery from this insidious disease .........
....... i know the politically correct thing to say is, `` oh, but the problem is not with islam `` and ``it is a great religion which has been hijacked`` and other such mealymouthed phrases to smooth the islamist feathers .... the fact of the matter is that political islam, like medieval christianity and twentieth century communism, is a totalitarian nightmare that cannot be allowed to fester .....
.... of course, this has to be done slowly and carefully so as not to stir up the snakes nest ....
...... does this sound radical? of course - but then look at what we are up against ...........
#38 Posted by sac on January 2, 2001 10:08:07 pm
Excellent article as usual Sameer Sahib.
urstruly:
A true gem from the Lance Naik in Detroit:
``Third world countries cannot have capitalism because they don`t have capital``
.......Wah saain Wah...
But can you be Islamic without Islam????
later
-sac
urstruly:
A true gem from the Lance Naik in Detroit:
``Third world countries cannot have capitalism because they don`t have capital``
.......Wah saain Wah...
But can you be Islamic without Islam????
later
-sac
#39 Posted by scout on January 3, 2001 1:19:44 am
hamidm #38,
``and first of all remove prohibition which, along with kite flying and hairy armpits, would be most visible sign of recovery from this insidious disease..``
you think men should shave their armpits? how revolutionary. i`m beginning to like your ideas.
i agree with the rest of your post, we really need to get religion out of politics and social structures to get anywhere in this world.
``and first of all remove prohibition which, along with kite flying and hairy armpits, would be most visible sign of recovery from this insidious disease..``
you think men should shave their armpits? how revolutionary. i`m beginning to like your ideas.
i agree with the rest of your post, we really need to get religion out of politics and social structures to get anywhere in this world.
#40 Posted by DRUMZ on January 3, 2001 1:19:44 am
Sameer: The product of ``american democracies`` should tell us why they`re not trusted.
Khmer Rouge vs Taliban is an odd analogy. They didn`t live by the principals of communism. I have yet to see how medieval the Taliban was. Were they not (largely) following the hadis of Muhammed?
The problem is ISLAM. What is true islam? Islam the system is an annoyance and a disease. Islam of the spirit is not. The taliban were following Islam, whether moderates like it or not. U cannot divorce the taliban from Islam without being HERETICAL.
The taliban are perhaps the stupidest leaders in human history - However, a LOT of their beliefs are demonstrably islamic. This is the real problem. U can imagine where the west would be if it stuck to the fairy tales in the bible.
Religion must remain absolutely unadvertised and completely private. Anything else is an abhorrance (only someone who doesnt know a damn thing about it would disagree)....
Khmer Rouge vs Taliban is an odd analogy. They didn`t live by the principals of communism. I have yet to see how medieval the Taliban was. Were they not (largely) following the hadis of Muhammed?
The problem is ISLAM. What is true islam? Islam the system is an annoyance and a disease. Islam of the spirit is not. The taliban were following Islam, whether moderates like it or not. U cannot divorce the taliban from Islam without being HERETICAL.
The taliban are perhaps the stupidest leaders in human history - However, a LOT of their beliefs are demonstrably islamic. This is the real problem. U can imagine where the west would be if it stuck to the fairy tales in the bible.
Religion must remain absolutely unadvertised and completely private. Anything else is an abhorrance (only someone who doesnt know a damn thing about it would disagree)....
#41 Posted by DRUMZ on January 3, 2001 1:19:44 am
Look out for the new movie (forgot the name) about the american war in somalia. I bet my life it will be proven that the US military helped make this film - remarkably on time considering the COWARDLY Americans will now go after Somalia.
I cant decide what I hate more America or Islam? How bout an American Muslim...
I cant decide what I hate more America or Islam? How bout an American Muslim...
#42 Posted by semipreciousme on January 3, 2001 1:19:44 am
“Muslims in general and Afghanistan in particular need to clean up and open up their mind. Like Communism and Khmer Rouge, Islamic and Afghanistan problems are of their own creation. It is hypocrisy to loathe about decadence and filth halfway around the world while your own home is full of garbage.”
….well said, sameer saab….but i’m afraid the muslims most in need of a dire reality check are blinded to the realism of the world as it is today and can be found wandering and cutting-n-pasting about with visions of sugarplums and the islamic glory of yesteryears dancing in their heads….
….well said, sameer saab….but i’m afraid the muslims most in need of a dire reality check are blinded to the realism of the world as it is today and can be found wandering and cutting-n-pasting about with visions of sugarplums and the islamic glory of yesteryears dancing in their heads….
#43 Posted by M.A.Jinnah on January 3, 2001 9:01:03 am
#: 39
scout
hamidm #38,
``and first of all remove prohibition which, along with kite flying and hairy armpits, would be most visible sign of recovery from this insidious disease..``
you think men should shave their armpits? how revolutionary. i`m beginning to like your ideas.
i agree with the rest of your post, we really need to get religion out of politics and social structures to get anywhere in this world.
Your hero LIKES hairy armpits b/c it is UNISLAMIC& sign of `recovery` from Islam(disease)
I dont care if you like Hamidm,but dont misrepresent Islam
scout
hamidm #38,
``and first of all remove prohibition which, along with kite flying and hairy armpits, would be most visible sign of recovery from this insidious disease..``
you think men should shave their armpits? how revolutionary. i`m beginning to like your ideas.
i agree with the rest of your post, we really need to get religion out of politics and social structures to get anywhere in this world.
Your hero LIKES hairy armpits b/c it is UNISLAMIC& sign of `recovery` from Islam(disease)
I dont care if you like Hamidm,but dont misrepresent Islam
#44 Posted by jay on January 3, 2001 9:01:03 am
Bhardwaj 33,
There is no need to waste so much of space to reproduce an article. For every article that blames the hindus for division, there are an equal number of articles that blames the muslims for it. For me that type of history is of no use, it has no predictive power, no extrpolative usefulness.
Who was responsible for partition has to be judged by the outcome. There were according to various estimates nearly 20 percent hindus in the region, now pakistan. Now there are only less than one percent. What happened to them, the pakistani believers of TNT ``eliminated` them. Now tell me who caused the partition, who believed in TNT. As a further extension you have blasphemy laws, created taliban. Now here is an extrapolation for you, pakistan will become more jihadic.
Now tell me about your version, hindus are the cause of division, why are so many muslims even now in india. FULL STOP.
There is no need to waste so much of space to reproduce an article. For every article that blames the hindus for division, there are an equal number of articles that blames the muslims for it. For me that type of history is of no use, it has no predictive power, no extrpolative usefulness.
Who was responsible for partition has to be judged by the outcome. There were according to various estimates nearly 20 percent hindus in the region, now pakistan. Now there are only less than one percent. What happened to them, the pakistani believers of TNT ``eliminated` them. Now tell me who caused the partition, who believed in TNT. As a further extension you have blasphemy laws, created taliban. Now here is an extrapolation for you, pakistan will become more jihadic.
Now tell me about your version, hindus are the cause of division, why are so many muslims even now in india. FULL STOP.
#45 Posted by jay on January 3, 2001 9:01:03 am
Hamidm 38,
The fundamental issue in pakistan is the conflict between the mohajirs and the locals. As far as I can guess, you are a local do not care much for the religion, the TNT is alien to you, and well jinnah, who was he? So you are for the secular, trying to hark back to the society of pre-pakistan days.
But there is another group, the mohajirs, the out come of a darwenian selection process who subscribe to the social values emnating from the TNT. They are the creators and the sustainers of the jihadic society that pakistan is evolving into. When you plunked in the ceremonial march, these are marching to the heights of kargill to become shaheeds.
Pakistanb is for the mohajirs, and they want the islamic republic. Tell me hamidm, pakistan ka matlab kya. Long live the islamic republic, and what the world needs is an iraquisation of this country so that the jihadic frontiers can be effectively controlled.
Secular, progressive pakistan is as absurd as vegetarian pirannahs, coke sipping dracula, and KKK memebers with mother teresa. Pl leave the jihadists alone.
regards and best wishes
jay
The fundamental issue in pakistan is the conflict between the mohajirs and the locals. As far as I can guess, you are a local do not care much for the religion, the TNT is alien to you, and well jinnah, who was he? So you are for the secular, trying to hark back to the society of pre-pakistan days.
But there is another group, the mohajirs, the out come of a darwenian selection process who subscribe to the social values emnating from the TNT. They are the creators and the sustainers of the jihadic society that pakistan is evolving into. When you plunked in the ceremonial march, these are marching to the heights of kargill to become shaheeds.
Pakistanb is for the mohajirs, and they want the islamic republic. Tell me hamidm, pakistan ka matlab kya. Long live the islamic republic, and what the world needs is an iraquisation of this country so that the jihadic frontiers can be effectively controlled.
Secular, progressive pakistan is as absurd as vegetarian pirannahs, coke sipping dracula, and KKK memebers with mother teresa. Pl leave the jihadists alone.
regards and best wishes
jay
#46 Posted by ali1 on January 3, 2001 9:01:03 am
Reply # 39 scout
[you think men should shave their armpits? how revolutionary. i`m beginning to like your ideas.]
Most maulanas shave their armpits. I guess you are too much of a prude to ever find this out. Most males in rural Pakistan go to the nai to get their armpits shaved.... this you will find out once your parents marry you off to your cousin in the Seraiki belt.
[i agree with the rest of your post, we really need to get religion out of politics and social structures to get anywhere in this world]
This is only possible in Communist societies. Religion is very much part of politics in US, India etc. But this can be complicated, so go watch a Govinda Kapoor or Brad Pitt movie instead.
[you think men should shave their armpits? how revolutionary. i`m beginning to like your ideas.]
Most maulanas shave their armpits. I guess you are too much of a prude to ever find this out. Most males in rural Pakistan go to the nai to get their armpits shaved.... this you will find out once your parents marry you off to your cousin in the Seraiki belt.
[i agree with the rest of your post, we really need to get religion out of politics and social structures to get anywhere in this world]
This is only possible in Communist societies. Religion is very much part of politics in US, India etc. But this can be complicated, so go watch a Govinda Kapoor or Brad Pitt movie instead.
#47 Posted by jay on January 3, 2001 9:01:03 am
JIHADIC FRONTIER,
Increasing number of countries, including the muslim ones are recognising that pak frontiers are of a psecial nature, and need special condition to leave. Musheraff has indicated that there is a plan to name it as The jihadic Republic of pakistan. From dawn of today
Travel restrictions
Dubai, which had stopped issuing visas to Pakistani nationals, has now decided to oblige us provided we travel business class by Emirates Airlines only and make a deposit of Rs100,000, refundable upon return. Furthermore, the air ticket must be non-refundable.
Certainly, very few can afford to visit Dubai under such severe conditions.
Saudi Arabia, too, has made Umra very difficult by creating a lot of hurdles. Their new regulations do not apply to the Egyptians and Turks because their governments have refused to accept the new Saudi regulations.
Our government must take up these issues with the respective regimes, with whom we apparently have very good relations, to facilitate our travel to these countries.
Such restrictions from brotherly Muslim countries is indeed painful.
SALIM D. DADABHOY
Karachi
Increasing number of countries, including the muslim ones are recognising that pak frontiers are of a psecial nature, and need special condition to leave. Musheraff has indicated that there is a plan to name it as The jihadic Republic of pakistan. From dawn of today
Travel restrictions
Dubai, which had stopped issuing visas to Pakistani nationals, has now decided to oblige us provided we travel business class by Emirates Airlines only and make a deposit of Rs100,000, refundable upon return. Furthermore, the air ticket must be non-refundable.
Certainly, very few can afford to visit Dubai under such severe conditions.
Saudi Arabia, too, has made Umra very difficult by creating a lot of hurdles. Their new regulations do not apply to the Egyptians and Turks because their governments have refused to accept the new Saudi regulations.
Our government must take up these issues with the respective regimes, with whom we apparently have very good relations, to facilitate our travel to these countries.
Such restrictions from brotherly Muslim countries is indeed painful.
SALIM D. DADABHOY
Karachi
#48 Posted by babu on January 3, 2001 9:01:03 am
hamzad afaqui # 22
Most of your complaints are about legalistic treaties. India and Pakistan have signed most of those treaties. Have India and Pakistan bothered to comply with them 100% ?
On the other hand US signs treaties they plan to comply with. A quick primer on US legal system: Treaties are as legally binding as the various sections of the constitution. It is not a light matter.
#49 Posted by babu on January 3, 2001 9:01:03 am
Fatimah # 35
USA has a right to make alliances with foreign states. Some of them have benefited Europe, Japan very well. The only questionable alliance is with Israel. Even Israel is fairly restrained state. They treat Arab and Palestinians better than Arab states treat their citizens.
USA has been isolationist in the past. The rest of the world was not inclined to leave USA alone. The Taleban would be ruling Afghanistan if they kept a leash on Osama. Didn`t they claim that ?
If my neighbor is a lazy slob who spends his time drinking and gambling, I am not going to help him unless he agrees to mend his ways. Too bad if it hurts you.
#51 Posted by Ras Siddiqui on January 3, 2001 11:00:40 am
Peace Rally
To stop war between India-Pakistan
Date: Saturday, January 5, 2002
Time: 10:00 A.M.
Place: Union Square
San Francisco
Corner of Powell and Gary
Please be on time
Please urge your friends to attend. All peace loving people are invited to participate, regardless of nationality, color or creed.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- ahmedmadani: Heenga= Assfoetida spice ... The Correct Turn
- banneditem: While I aplaud FQ's... Hop Aboard the Interfaith
- Cobra: stupid article.... The Indian Obama!
- Shah2: How ironic people WITHOUT... Hop Aboard the Interfaith
- tahmed32: #220 that is exactly... The Correct Turn
- laddu: Re: # 218 Mian, Aap hi... The Correct Turn
- tahmed32: kaalchakra #210 tradition, old... The Correct Turn
- tahmed32: laddu mian: your understanding... The Correct Turn
