An introspective comparison of various Muslim societies

By hijacked, i did not actually mean anything literal, but there are many other behind the scene activities that i wanted to point out. The Aid, trade and business that West gives us, might be giving the oil states a few hundred billion dollars in aid, but there are harsh strings attached to everything and this is what affects our freedom and sovereignity. It also reduces our capacity to make free and impartial decisions by keeping only our interests in mind. Consider the example of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

In Pakistan, where the US had been pumping billions of dollars of aid during the Soviet era, but in return, Pakistan had to give a lot of intelligence and military support to the Anti-Soviet rebels in Afghanistan and this has indeed hampered our growth as a democratic society as national interests were routinely compromised in order to accommodate the American interests in Afghanistan. The US had never wanted democracy to take roots in PAkistan or in any other Muslim country and for doing so, it has continued to support dictators like Zia UL HAQ and Saddam Hussein. In Pakistan, the rule of General Zia had casted a big blow to our society by introducing non-secular and non-democratic forms of governance and policies, which were in general terms, quite contradictory to the actual teachings of Islam. Such policies and governance in the Muslim world, especially in Pakistan, have been routinely supported by the West, as they can easily pursue and promote their own agendas and goals but only by causing major harm to the others concerned and the these others, are the Ummah!

It is such type of hijacking that i was talking about!

Re: # 2

Speaking of myself, i am from Pakistan.

I should now answer your question about the facade of we having occupied Indian land..

Well, the annals of history show that actually it was the Indian army and government that took up the idea of landing regular army troops into Kashmir...PAkistan only responded back when Indian intentions were clear. Even the prevailing perception that the PAkistani administration had no control over the regular army fighters and other who were resisting the Indians is false. Mr. CDA Dasgupta in his book on Kashmir has presented with an astonishing fact about this... in MID october 1947, Lord Mountbatten came to Karachi (which then was the national capital) to meet Quaid E Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah and exchange views with regards to the KAshmir situation and there it was that Jinnah told Mountbatten that had they been going to Srinagar together, then he would have given the Muslim fighters one day to retreat or else, all their logistical and other supplies and all lines of communication would be cut off completely!!!!!! Even Mountbatten was baffled at the level of control the government in PAkistan had at the fighters who were resisting Indians....


As goes for land occupation, according to Iffat Malik (in Kashmir, ethnic conflict International dispute) and I.H. qureshi (a short history of Pakistan), the way in which KAshmir was to be annexed, was actually all pre-planned... So then again, how can india send troops to a land whose people did not want them???? the security vacuum that was created, was done so by India so that it could pursue its political motives.
Whatever PAkistan did was just counter offensives.......Most of the literary and non literary accounts available today (at least in Pakistan) are a clear indication that it was and is India that continues to forcefully occupy KAshmir and sabotage the on going freedom movement....

Topic is nicely handled and conveyed. Keep it up!! I hope ppl can understand it. I wouldn`t have treated it this way, u know why!

But by the way, your taking the topic to somewhere else. I wanted to know whether Arabisation of Islamic History is logical or not?

I do not have much respect for the westerners. Yeh gori chamri waley saaley apney baap key bhi nahin... Bantey hain bade safedposh..magar insey badey paapi koi nahin... After exploiting others for centuries, meddling in internal affairs of a country/society abjectly, they tend to become innocent that they have done nothing and show ``why do they want to kill us?`` attitude....Huh

Whose materialistic gesture is accorded free legitimacy (and great publicity) and whose met with bags full of suspicion (and deprecation) is also `spiritual` matter. Millions of people live in the West, but all you will hear are the curses and invocations of God`s wrath on the West for all kinds of crimes seen and unseen. That, when the more religiously oriented young men and women are not planning bombings and killings of these (un)helpful westerners and their children.

Bolta, you have to separate out the empty `universalistic` rhetoric of intellectuals who are busy building castles in to salve their own egos, from the actual life and living of real people. Real people know what intellectuals choose not to say.

But I think in the present day scenraio, it has to do more with materialistic considerations than spritual considerations. Because Arabia and in turn Middle-east where Islam was born and grew up also provides rozi-roti to millions of muslims, atleast subcontinental. How can they forget this gesture of Arabia.

My point, bolta, is that you may believe Islam to be whatever you wish it to be, but people who actually follow (not write about) Islam would not gladly ``give`` Islam to the arabs, if they did not in their hearts believe it really belonged to the arabs.

bolta

Those issues have to be clear to the people who think they follow islam. It will be silly to believe in something passionately, and wake up one day to find out that you got it all absolutely wrong.

Let us not go by the vernaculars. The point is how much of Islam is Arabic and how much is non-arabic.....Or is there Arabic Islam or Non-arabic Islam...........or still.. does Islam has to be necessarily Arabic?? Or still ,does the Taj Mahal represent Arabia??

Hijacked? They have pointed guns to your head, against your will?

The problem with the Islamic Ummah or OIC is that it is as defunct as the medern day Commonwealth Group. OK, Commonwealth is connected to a single point i.e. Britain but that is not the case with Islam. Islam though originated in Arabia but it arrived on the scene through Turks and Central Asians. Now, the entire Islam is being hijacked by the Arabs as if they and only they are the custodians of the religion.

Take the case of Hinduism for example. It originated in the Indo-gangetic planes of the north India and then spread to other parts of the land. Now any attempt to unite Hinduism with the seat as modern day UP is bound to fail. No one is going to accept that. As Islam has spread far and wide, it is always welcome to have a centralised spritual seat, like Vatican, but OIC or so-called Islamic Ummah tend to be more than spritual ..and tend to be political.

Indians have occupied `our` land? Assuming that `you` are not an Indian, perhaps an arab, would it not be more accurate to say that you have occupied Indian land?

An informative article for the beginners.

Now one point is that while Islam has spread far and wide but why is that the History of Arabian Region only is considered to be the true History of Islam.

The Islamic History of the sub-continent, though more glorious than any other part of the Islamic World is not all mentioned in the Islamic History.

These are some points that need to be corrected or taken into account by Islamic Scholars..I feel.