Ha Ha To the Axis of Evil Speech

Asif # 35

You are absolutely correct. Even Huntigton has written in his thesis that Democracy in Islamic countries favours Islamists.

``I dont care how enlightened or unenlightened your views are, and I dont care how immature or mature you are: you have no right to use such language on chowk.``

I don`t care what misconceptions of greatness or

`un`greatness you have yourself, you don`t have the right to proclaim anything.

Asif Naqshbandi:

``YLH--insha Allah tum ussee jaggah jaogay jahan tumhara Ataput hai...``

Thankyou, Inshallah, yes I will go whereever God will decide where I will go after this life is over . I am sure God knows a little better than you where he went. Don`t you think? Or are you the harbinger of divine revelation as well? Habib-e- Allah perhaps to know where Kemal Ataturk is .. heaven or hell?



Tahmed,

If `bhonkna` is an insult so is `Ghulam` which is where my contention with Asif Naqshbandi starts. I was not the first one to curse him out. Like always, my insults are retaliatory, though usually 10 times as harsh.



Ali1

Sigalph has shown himself to be the most balanced and sophisticated chowkie that I know off along with Patrick.

ylh # 30

[Therefore I need allies like Sigalph and Aisha Sarwari... if only there were more on this planet like them.]

Aisha I can understand, but why do you need Uncle Tom as your ally?

Romair

Yes, I agree that Israeli interests are served by a section of American policy - but it`s not the entirety of American policy. You are of course 100% correct that the interests of Americans and Muslims are pretty much the same and are compelling. This is understood in policy making section in America, I think.

But I think it`s not fair to think that Arabs or Muslims have only the role of victim to play. If Israeli interests are served by their lobby and co-religionists here - what prevents Arabs and Muslims for effecting the same or greater measure of influence?

The bigger problem for Arabs and Muslims has been to articulate that our values and Ethics are the same as theirs - yet for this to be practically factual, not theoretical - the world must see the values of Tolerance, Pluralism, Freedom of conscience, Representative goverance, a free and participatory economy, institutionalized in our political economies.

The Middle East as a source of cheap energy no longer holds a monopoly, and Israel as as Watchdog now has reached a point of dimishing returns: therefore the American desire for a peace between Israel and Palestine - the cost of technology to liguify Gas is of strategic significance - Alternate means of energy, especially fuel cells is also of strategic significance, especially Military - The largest reserves of gas are not in CA or ME, but under the Arabian sea - that`s why Indian exclusive economic zone keeps growing - and Pakistani do not want to believe this because they a still wedded to the pipeline idea.

By the way an excellent read ``The Black Tulip``

by Milt Bearden, who can CIA operations during Mujahid/Soviet war.

Asif Naqshbandi

You have raised several very interesting ideas:

1. Neither the Ethics nor Morality nor the Unity of Muslims is antithetical to US. As a matter of fact it was UK that formed the idea of ``the Arabs`` when such a idea did not exist after the end of the Osmani Khalifat. We as Muslims must also we mindful that those whom we wish to see us as friends and brothers - to them we also have an obligation to see as friends and brothers. For anybody else to look out for us, we have to look out for them.

2. Oil - My brother, the world is awash in oil, like diamonds - it`s price is always artificial and has to be supported.

3. I have a post on Sameer`s board with regard to values, charachter - please review it and I would very much appreciate your comments.

4. The truth is that in it`s present manifestation political Islam scares the West and it`s opinion makers. The see it as hostile to it`s interests and it`s values. But this need not be the case. Reason, Liberty, Tolerance, Pluralism, Freedom of Conscience, Representative government - are ISLAMIC values and tradition. I am not saying that Muslims do not have enemies, As a Muslim, I think we most certainly do. We need friends to and enemies to see us the way we really are - our enemies argue that irrational and hostile is how we really are - a total disfigurement of our history and tradition - we can challenge this evil by making it clear that we will refuse to participate in the oppression or suppression of anyone, most of all ourselves. This evil is designed to evoke a hostile response from us - because they realize the ``injustice`` of it will evoke a response in us - but we must be careful to do away with ``injustices`` in our own lands and thereby frustrate such designs.

to the person who asked about who I include in the ``kafirs`` statement:and to tahmed123]

Sorry i didn`t reply in my last posts:

There are kafirs who although they are non-Muslims too do not bear enmity towards Islam (inlcuding political Islam eg Naom Chomsky, Robert Fisk, a lot of the ignorant masses); We have no quarrel with such people. Then there are the kaafirs who oppose/confront/hate Islam --these are the kaafirs I was referring too. Unfortunately these are all those in power who call the shots and the so-called ``educated`` people generally.

re romair 32

``While I would perhaps understand the domestic backlash, I think the US`s foreign policy barbarisms have reached disgusting levels. And I don`t want my tax money paying for that any longer.``

I am supposing you`re not going to file your 1040 this year? Please.

It is sad to see people who benefit from the protection of the Eagle to refuse to pay for that protection. Sad, but understandable. Feel free to send your saved tax money to the PLO :)

For the record, I`ll be happy to pay a cent more this year to help prop up the defenses of Israel. That country, along with Turkey, is the only true friend of America in the region. Fighting terror is costly. We have to be willing to pay the price.

asif 34

``sigalph---you are a Muslim and yet you want the defeat of Islam?``

Dude, I am talking about POLITICAL Islam. I think you know it but, as all Islamists do, are trying to fudge the matter.

`` Well done. With Muslims like you--who needs external enemies? Muslims like you are exactly the kind of Muslims America is willing to tolerate...those who do not oppose its hegemony! May Allah guide you and me!``

America is MY country. What on earth are you talking about? Patriotism is a part and parcel of imaan according to the hadith that your kind obviously overlook. And POLITICAL Islam is a threat to this country and all others; yes, I want it crushed without any delay. In our civilization political religion has no place. Alhamdolillah!

Akash #31 I dont think you will get a straight answer to your question from this Naqshbandi about who are these kaafirs he darkly refers too. All I can say is that this man speaks for himself, and in violation of what is in the Quran. I am also satisfied, after some interaction I had with him on another board, that this man does not give two hoots about what is in the Quran, nor does he have a clue what he writes about.

ylh #28 Please mind your language. You are welcome to air your views, but not to pollute it with such insults. I dont care how enlightened or unenlightened your views are, and I dont care how immature or mature you are: you have no right to use such language on chowk.

hobbytv #33: ``US policy is about US interests,``

I cannot agree with this. US foreign policy, unfortunately, is not about US interests. It is about Israeli interests. This is the tragedy. And American citizens are paying the price for Israel`s human rights violations.

It is in the interest of the US to have friendly relations with Arabs. They both need each other. Americans have the money and technology and Arabs have the natural resources. In purely Machevillian terms, what does the US gain from Israel? Nothing. It gains an ally against Arab enemies, who wouldn`t be enemies if the US was not support Israeli policies (both of the humane and inhumane variety), to begin with. The US, every years, give Isreal one thousand dollars per Israeli citizen (4 billion dollars/4 million Israeli). Yet it is unwilling to spend this money on its own homeless.

Arabs traditionally admired the Americans, as did most other colonised countries. Arabs overwhelmingly want to migrate to the USA. Based on this, how can US interests be in battling countries which have no way to strike the US, apart from terrorism? It is just creating more anti-American terrorists.

The current US/Arab battle (which may spread to US/Islam battle) is a result of a circle of events which is now turning into a tornado. Israelis occupied Arab lands. Arabs attacked Israelis. US supported Israeli terrorist organizations (the original Middle Eastern terrorist organizations were all Israeli; some of these individuals became Prime Ministers of Israel) and helped them attack Arabs. Arabs got their butts kicked. They couldn`t attack Americans and Israelis through military force, so they became terrorists. The Israelis went after the terrorists with more of their own terrorism. The US was forced into this war due to pro-Zionist lobby. So the US became a target of the attacks also. The US then started attacking Arab countries, all out. I don`t know what the next stage will be, but it cannot be too good.

The question to ask is: would the US and Arabs be allies or enemies, if Israel wasn`t involved? What is the US gaining for itself by being in a state of perpetual warfare with Muslims? The UN votes against the Isralies regularly, with only Israel and America voting in the opposite direction (with a few countries abstaining). Maybe UN resolutions should be honored in the Middle East also, as should Amnesty International reports.

YLH #30:

``A two front ideological war is the need of the day to gain our own footing.``

..instead, why not a ``A Great Jihaad`` like the ones your democratic dictator talked about?

Isn`t Imran Khan looking for volunteers to raise more money for the cancer hospital?

re: ylh

{{Naqshbandi Chootiyah,

Aur Bhonk laanti.}}

snippy snippy

``religion is much more potent as a divisive than a unifying force.``

kya sahee likha hai aapne, dost-mittar ji.

hobbytv miaN,

the USA despite all statements to the contrary does NOT want democracy in any of the Muslim countries because they know that as soon as Muslims are free to choose the kind of state they want then Islamic parties will get a large share of the vote and thus the politics of that country will become Islamicised--something the USA wants to avoid at all costs. Algeria is a good recent example as is Turkey of what happens when Muslim parties gain large numbers of votes/win etc. That is why--and all Western orientalists and political scientists will tell you--it is in US interests to keep Muslim countries ruled by client-rulers who do exactly as the USA tell them but with a veneer of freedom for the people to sell to the public at home. Any serious Islamic opposition is expected--and demanded--to be instantly crushed. That is why the US supports totalitarian and tyrannical regimes throughout the Muslim world--so that they can keep the ``Islamists`` in check by all sorts of methods.

So dont be fooled that they want democracy or a similar system which allows the Muslim people to choice their leaders because they know that the people will choose Islam.

The following extract from a recent book will be enlightening:

Analysing Jordan’s model strategies and mechanisms for manipulating Islamic activism

The Management of Islamic Activism: Salafis, the Muslim Brotherhood and State Power in Jordan by Quintan Wiktorowicz. Pub: State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 2001. Pp: 205. Pbk: $18.95.

By Leila Juma

Of all the West’s client states and regimes in the Middle East, Jordan is arguably the most successful. Its creation (as the Emirate of Transjordan), and the installation of the Hashemite monarchy to rule it in 1922, were almost accidents; both the territory and Abdullah ibn Husayn were spare parts left in the box when France and Britain completed their carving up of the region after the first world war. Within a few years Abdullah was bemoaning his misfortune and demanding to be promoted to Damascus or Baghdad. A few decades later, however, when Abdullah’s grandson, king Hussein ibn Talal, died (1999), his funeral was a major international state event, attended by VIPs from all over the West hailing him as an international statesman. His son, Abdullah II, is now hailed as a model ruler in the Arab world, and Jordan, far from being a bit of nowhere-in-particular, is regarded as a key Western ally in the region.

Explanations of the status accorded to Hussein after his death focused, quite rightly, on his pro-Israeli stance. (It is interesting to note that British prime minister Winston Churchill said, after the assassination of Abdullah in 1951, that ``the Arabs have lost a great champion [and] the Jews have lost a friend``.) However, there was more to it than that. Hussein was also praised for his ‘liberalisation’ of Jordan’s politics during the last decade of his life, which was seen as a model of political development in the Arab world.

The reasons for this are not difficult to see. The West has apparently irreconcilable demands in this area. They want their authoritarian clients to maintain absolute control, to ensure that they can continue to do the West’s bidding without hindrance, while at the same time creating the impression of a popular, open, democratic and representative political system, in order to legitimise the regimes and disarm their critics, both locally and in the West. Both the West and their local clients know, however, that everywhere in the Muslim world the opening of politics to any popular involvement whatsoever inevitably results in Islamic influences emerging, which is the one thing the West fears most. What Jordan has achieved, since Hussein initiated a series of political reforms in 1989, is a limited loosening of politics in order to open the system to public debate, without any significant challenge to the establishment’s absolute authority. It is precisely this that the West would like to see repeated in other Arab countries, such as Egypt and the monarchies of the Arabian peninsula.

The fact that the Muslims’ commitment to Islamic values and principles remains the greatest threat to the success of these efforts is reflected in the title of the book under review: The Management of Islamic Activism: Salafis, the Muslim Brotherhood and State Power in Jordan. In this book, based on research conducted in 1996-97, Quintan Wiktorowicz, an American academic, examines the strategies by which Jordan has sought to manage and control the political expression of Islamic values in Jordan since the beginning of Hussein’s political ``reforms``, by looking at the experiences of both state officials and Islamic groups of different kinds. Among the latter, Wiktorowicz particularly focuses on the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimeen), Jordan’s best-established Islamic organisation, and the Salafis, who have tended to work through less formal networks...[cut