Huntington\'s Clash of Civilizations Thesis 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

Huntington\'s Clash of Civilizations Thesis ``Let us direct our efforts towards challenging their projected perceptions of reality, looking past the official distractions and untruths, only then can consciousness be cultivated and peace and development achieved.``

Noble sentiments!

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?

Most of your article was a summary critique of Huntington`s thesis, but no where did you offer an alternative to that thesis. Critique for the sake of a critique is generally a non-productive gimmick. I have nothing against the cultivation of consciousness, but I am not sure how a consciousness can be cultivated by an anti-thesis against a thesis that does not lend itself to a synthesis of the two arguments for a mutually beneficial understanding and a possible resolution to the problem.

I might be in the minority on this issue, but my understanding is that what the world needs are solutions to its problems and not the affixation of the blame.

I do not have the solutions for ending global problems but I am willing to listen to those who have ideas for solving the world`s problems but I do not have the patience to listen to people, whose idea of solving the world`s problems is to practice an intellectual version of a ``blame game``.

Ciao

Last Gasp of the Imperial Misadventure There can be no last gasp of imperialism as long as history lasts because that would be the end of the history itself.

The American imperialism in Iraq is the most recent edition of an old story and this story will continue in a different context and in a different manner with different observers, listeners, and narrators long after we have ceased to echo our opinions upon the passions of our times.

Ciao

India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute re: Ranjit

The answer to your questions is very difficult because the situation inside Pakistan does not lend itself to any firm conclusions.

Politically speaking, there is movement towards liberalization, but the opposition is coming from the conservative wing of the PML-Q, which opposes all ideas of a government rapprochment with PPP. The government will not oppose an alliance with PPP, but the condition is that Benazir Bhutto will have to give up the prime minister`s chair. MMA is fragmented over the issue of Women Protection Bill and Musharraf is seeking new alliances minus MMA.

The situation is too fluid to make any long lasting conclusions and it will remain as such till the next elections scheduled for the end of 2007.

Ciao

India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute Re: # 45

I am not supporting the insurgency against India or the people who support it, if that is what you assumed.

I was merely stating the reality of political power in Pakistan.

Ciao

India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute Re: # 8

Once the army is convinced, you have convinced the politicans in Pakistan.

The Islamic minded parties are around 3-5 percent of Pakistani politics and granted, they might be a nusiance, but they will never control the foreign policy because that is the preserve of the military in Pakistani politics and has been since the 1950s.

Politicans in Pakistan are not interested in foreign policy; they are interested in powers of privelege and perks. As the saying goes, the army has them by the short and the curly and once they army decides, the hearts and the minds of the politicans will gladly follow. :)

Ciao

India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute Re: # 11

The jehadi spirit (for what ever that means) took a mortal blow when the MMA was proven to be a politically minded party. The situation in Pakistan is fluid and it is unsettled because the nation is in the process of changing; changing from the policies of the past. As to FATA, the point to remember is that FATA has always been unruly and if you have not visited the region, you can be easily forgiven for believing CNN. :)

If you are really and trully interested in understanding the region and its politics, I would suggest that you read Rahimullah Yusafzai; an expert on the region who writes for The News in Pakistan and is also the ``voice of BBC`` and has been reporting on the region for the past 30 years.

Ciao

India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute Re: Arjun # 16

The emerging reality is that Kashmir will be finally solved according to the Shimla Agreement of 1972.

Shimla moved the process to the settlement of the issue one step closer to a final solution, when it superceded United Nation`s demarcated line of the cease-fire and converted it into an actual Line of Control (LoC). The LoC is, in actual reality, the defacto border between Indian and Pakistani Kashmir and it is only matter of formalizing it into a dejure international border. In that respect, the process is moving forward but it still needs to navigate the emotional minefields in India and Pakistan vis-a-vis Kashmir.

Ciao

India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute Re: HP # 17

I would concur with your opinions.

Ciao

India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute Re: # 18

It was not Nixon`s political legitimacy but his anti-communist credentials that allowed him to make the rapprochement with China in the 1970s.

As to Aiyer, you seemed to have missed the point again. Aiyer offers a non-diplomatic channel between Pakistani officaldom, especially Musharraf, and Indian policy makers. It is in this sense, where his usefulness lies and not in his political popularity within Indian politics.

Ciao

India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute Re: Ranjit # 3

A U-turn is not necessarily a bad idea.

A person can continue to break their heads against a brick wall in the hopes that the wall will disappear or they can turn around and search and find another way around the wall.

If Lemmings had ever learned of U-turns, there would be a lot more Lemmings in the world today! :)

Ciao

India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute Just as only Nixon could go to China, no civilian leadership in Pakistan has, or will have, the courage to solve the Kashmir issue. The crux of the matter is that if there has to be change in the mind-set of the army, it will be a result of ``in-house`` change and not because the army has suddenly decided to obey a civilian leadership. Furthermore, it is a stale stable that suggests that Pakistani army is determined to hold on to Kashmir, because in the recent past, the threat orientation of the Pakistani army is not focused on Kashmir but internal problems and issues.

As to the pronouncements from Islamabad about Kashmiri policy of Pakistan not changing despite Musharraf`s ``out of box ideas``, attention has to be paid to substance and not form when it comes to deciphering India-Pakistani political labyrinths. The indications that some thing might be afoot, came from the Indian prime minister himself, because Manmohan Singh would not have welcomed the suggestions of Musharraf if they had been merely pro forma proposals. Musharraf cannot only suggest alternations in Pakistan`s Kashmir policy, but he can also implement them and in this, he would have the institutional support of the army. The recent statements of Indian foreign minister, on the floor of the Indian parliament, that India would have to re-consider its idee fixe in regards to border disputes with China and Pakistan, also suggest a movement towards a rapprochement on the issue.

A possible endeavor towards a solution will have to start with the admission of the problem and the problem hindering the resolution is not Kashmir, but the intractible nature of domestic politics in India and Pakistan. It is still too early to cement a conclusion on these parleys, but if there is a realization in both India and Pakistan that the official political prisms need to be changed, then there is a reason to expect more gradual, but meaningful movement forward on this issue. Another caveat to be considered, is the appointment of India`s High Commissioner to Pakistan as the foreign secretary. It is safe to assume that having spent time in Islamabad, the new Indian foreign secretary would be knowledgeable about Musharraf`s private thoughts on the issue and will be able to bring these ideas to the attention of Indian policy makers. Another indication that serious progress is being contemplated on the issue, would be the appointment of Pakistan`s next High Commissioner to India.

In the case of India-Pakistan diplomacy, common sense would suggest to look towards newspaper headlines, but also to listen to the silence of the Holmesian dog that did not bark in the night. A confirmation of this can be glimpsed in the newspaper articles in Pakistan, because there are certain newspapers, which have arrogated upon themselves the mantle of Kashmir`s defenders and when the offical policy continues in a bureaucratic status, these papers do not devote much space to the issue, but when the policy meanders; they suddenly start to ring alarm bells and the bells are ringing in Pakistan presently. These papers have a good reason to be concerned, because the Indian government recently reconsituted a committee on Kashmir to study the issue/problem and one of the names suggested for it was Mani Shankar Aiyar.

This name, itself, would not mean much, but when nuanced with the fact that Aiyer is an old friend of Kasuri, the Pakistani foreign minister, and the two have have been friends since their days in Cambridge, the Track-Two diplomacy suddenly takes on added importance and meaning, because we now would have two people engaged in the process, who have the means; the familarity and the trust to by-pass the traditional bureaucratic obstacles and machinations.

There is a growing institutionalization of the peace process in India and Pakistan and this reality would suggest that it now needs to be geared into the next phase, which is to move beyond dialogue to discuss the solution. The process is still to fragile to embark upon an instant solution, but it is robust enough to predict that it is not so vunerable to sudden twists and pit-falls of Indian-Pakistani politics. This is the level of comfort; confidence that the peace process needed and now that it has achieved it, both sides will be willing, in private but not yet in public, to move away from their stated positions on the issue. The important consideration to remember is that it is a process and as with any other process, the yardstick of success is, and will not be, necessarily the attainment of certain politically popular aims, but the continued viability of the process itself.

Once this happens, the next phase would be to prepare the local political sentiments in both India and Pakistan of the offical fait accompli on the issue and as things stand, that is the general direction in which this process seems likely to progess. This might not be the begining of the end of the problem, but it is certainly the end of the begining of the problem. In a lighter vein, the joy of the journey sometimes does not reside in the haste to reach a particular destination, but in the manner how one reaches the end of the journey.

Ciao

Which Islam? Correction to post # 116

The following statement should be read as:

I was under the impression that Quran was Allah`s final word to humanity. Pray inform me when did it become the word of Muhammad (PBUH), who was a mortal. Since when did Islam became known as Muhammad (PBUH)`s authority?

Ciao

Which Islam? Re: Raw_Dust # 102

Islamic politics in the 21st century are the politics of the nation-states based on the Westphalian model of 1648. Islam does not exist in a political vacuum, but in a political environment, which is influenced and shaped by the realities of the day. However, it is a different debate whether the believers of Islam are willing to accept the reality of their environment or not. Even before the onset of colonization into Muslim lands, the fabled Ummah was divided geo-politically and it is also worth mentioning that the political unity of the Ummah ceased after the death of Muhammad (PBUH). Islamic politics in the 21st century have to exist in the 21st century. Period. Islamic politics cannot exist in the past.

Hence, Islamic politics in the 21st century are marked by the dynamics, whereby Islam is struggling to reconcile its ideology with the secular world, within which it exists. The present and the future of Islamic politics will be influeced by the events in the 21st century not by any past centuries. Parenthetically speaking, a revivial of the Islamic political power in the international arena, will be made possible by not harking to a past world that does not exist anymore, but by learning how to adapt Islamic political-religious thought to the limitations of the politics of 21st century and beyond. Presently, Islamic political thought is confused because it seems intent on re-creating the 7th century in the 21st century and instead of learning from the failure of its idealism; it further reinforces its own institutional failures by persisting with a bad idea.

The question is: what happened to the state or the ideal of the state created by Muhammad (PBUH) and why it did not survive Muhammad (PBUH)`s death?

As to Islam and secularism; granted that Islam was borne on the idea of religious militancy, it should also be pointed out that once Islam had physically secured itself within geographic political bounderies, Islam did favor a balance between politics and religion. Hence, to suggest that Islam did not have a balance between politics and religion is a misleading statement. Incidently, Islamic political thought and experience is not a monolithic example, and Islamic political thought and religious influences varied regionally and were unique to their governace style. In other words, no two Muslim kingdoms dispalyed the same style of government or the same manner of politics. In a religious sense, the Muslims might have had one common belief structure, but politically they differed from one another on the issue of politics and were not averse to fight wars against one another from time to time.

As to the destruction of the idols, it would be instructive to remember that once they had been destoryed, Islamic code did not allow the persecution of non-Muslims on religious grounds and that example is more telling of the nature of tolerance within Islamic politics than the act of destorying the idols itself.

There is no mythical clergy in Islam; it exists and its influence can be felt in a tangible sense around the world and its teachings expouse a very militant version of Islam, which politically supports the religious politics of these politically opportunistic clergy.

You said and I quote: ``At that time there was only one thing with which people would abide by and that was Mohammad`s word (Quran) and his authority and that`s what is referred to as Islam``.

I was under the impression that Quran was Allah`s final word to humanity. Pray inform me when did it come the word of Muhammad (PBUH), who was a mortal. Since when did Islam became known as Muhammad (PBUH)`s authority?

Ciao

Which Islam? Re: # 82

The question was not how the Caliph gets appointed. There is no point in discussing how the Caliph gets appointed, because there are no more Caliphs and none will be appointed in the future either. :)

The question, posed by Urstruly, was whether a state can get powerful leaving its religion behind and the answer was no; it does not have to.

Islam did create a space between its theology and its politics in the early days and it was only once a heirarchal clergy was able to establish itself and dominate politics was this space destroyed. To suggest that Islam never had a heirarchal church is wrong, because one exists presently within Islam and has arrogated upon itself the devine mission to interpret Islam and its theology for the rest of the Muslims.

Furthermore, thank you for making my point about the knee-jerk reaction within Islam to discredit people who seek answers via questions and as you have proven, Muslims have debated the issues for the last few hundred years by calling each other names as your calling me an ``ehmuq`` proved. :) lol

The question is: other than calling each other names, what has the Muslim intellectual thought accomplished in the last few centuries?

When will the Muslim thought accept the fact that it is living in the 21st century and not the 7th and stop wishing for the glorious past to return?

Ciao

Which Islam? re: Urstruly

I was scouring the replies to this article, when I came across your thoughts on the Renassiance in the west.

Renassiance was not about ``leaving`` religion, but rather it was the outward expression of what was termed as Northern Humanism. Northern Humanists, people like Sir Thomas More and Erasmus, wanted to combine religion with secular knowledge of the Greeks and the Romans. In simple terms, they wanted to combine the humanism of the ancient world with the religious scholasticism of the medieval Europe. What is often ignored or overlooked is that the people, who participated in the movements that led to the Renassiance, were deeply religious people themselves and they had no wish to discredit Christanity; they simply wanted to erase the doctrinal flaws in Christanity, which had resulted from the abuse of religion for personal-political power.

For example, in the 1200s, there was religious movement known as Dolchism. The Dolchites were a group of people, who believed in the poverty of the church. They were eventually slaugtered by the church, because they had started to kill the rich bishops. Hence, what is termed as a Renassiance, was acutally a culmination of many different ideas on how to reform the chruch and its theological practices and it was never about athesism as it is wrong assumed. Martin Luther, who started the Reformation, did so not to break up the Chruch, but to reform it by removing the malpractices, which existed in it; simony, and indulgences. For example, the church used to advertise indulgences by saying that ``the minute the coins rings in the coffer, the soul to Heaven springs`` :)

Even in the Age of Enlightenment, people like Voltaire, Kant and Rousseau were extremely religious persons, but they also believed that there should be a balance of moderation between religion and the secular life. They all called an equality between state and church and what they were opposed to was the domination of the state by the church. The religious war of Europe had convinced them that religious influence in politics was dangerous and it was for this reason that they argued for a ``wall seperating religion and politics.``

Urstruly, your assumptions are wrong, because the historic experience of Europe proves that Euope became a great power, when it created a balance between its religious policies and its political concerns and learned to treat the two as ``seperate but equal`` parts of its daily life. Europe did not become great, as you seem to suggest, by leaving its religion.

Islam was great, because it had established a balance between its secular pursuits and its religious obligations in its early days and once that balance was destroyed, we saw the over intimidation of the state by the religion. Islam does not need to leave its theology behind to regain its greatness, but it needs to re-equate the balance between its secular experience and its religious experience. This is the genius of secularism, which we Muslims need to understand and we have to stop reacting to secularism with a knee-jerk insecurity that prompts us to kill the messenger due a misunderstanding on what the message really means.

Ciao