Terrorism is Nobody's Monopoly

DM, 320

When you state question in terms of Muslims and Non-Muslims, you are going back to the notion of dar-ul-islam and dar-ul-harb…by presenting the issue in Muslims versus Non-Muslims, you would be forcing me to choose sides based not on the merits of a case but my identity.

You hit it right on the nail. The most dangerous aspect of this notion of us-vs-them is that it is an open invitation to the nefarious clash of civilizations.

Re: # 321

Godot:

You are so correct, increasingly narrower choices are presented to create sharper differences. The rest becomes history as the sharp divide becomes the issue.

Anil

Re: # 321
GODOT you beat me to it by a few minutes; and put it neatly in a more coded manner!
thanks

HE#270:

Godot has addressed your comments in his interacts with you. I would only point to your opening sentence:

``What forum should be used to peacefully resolve disputes between Muslims and non-Muslim occupation forces?``

In my opinion, the question itself is problematic. When you state question in terms of Muslims and Non-Muslims, you are going back to the notion of dar-ul-islam and dar-ul-harb. In reality, these are political issues; Muslims in Chechnya and Muslims in Phillipines may have grievances against their governments but the issues have nothing in common. Each problem should be dealt on its own. I may sympathise with the Palestenian cause but not with the cause of the Muslims in Thailand, but by presenting the issue in Muslims versus Non-Muslims, you would be forcing me to choose sides based not on the merits of a case but my identity.

Re: # 320
a small query DM sahib - arent dar-ulislam and dar-ul-hard meant to be those places where islam Rules and those places islam doesnot rule respectively if so then surely going by the arguments of many here on chowk and elsewhere this whole world is dar-ul-harb since there is no true islam anywhere. Logically if this isthe case then the people wanting an islamic state consider the whole world at odds with them. Further this means that they are at war with all the nations of this world. This is globalisation of conflict and not conflicts dependent on local factors. A sum total of local battles is better than a total globalisation of the war!

(I take you point however with the examples you give and am in full agreement with the general thrust ofthe argument - so really no disagreements there 8-() )

this is interesting. Apparently catchy is watching some TV program of a seminar in Islamabad. There are many speakers and here his paraphrasing of what transpired there

#3 by catchy on September 15, 2006 5:02am PT

Mahathir has expressed his doubt that 9/11 was a planned to accuse Muslims. He also said in response to a question that Muslims need to go back to basics of the religion and reduce friction among themselves related to religion interpretation. He did not feel Khilfah is mandatory to progress for Muslims. According to him decline of Muslims started when they stick to learning religion only and stopped learning in arts and sciences. He also suggested to use other currencies than Dollars for exchange to weaken US imperialism.

Imran Khan made a point that Muslims are being judged by their political beliefs and not by their religious beliefs. As long as their politial beliefs don`t clash with US interests, their religious radicalism or violation of human rights does not bother US.

this is interesting. Apparently catchy is watching some TV program of a seminar in Islamabad. There are many speakers and here his paraphrasing of what transpired there

#3 by catchy on September 15, 2006 5:02am PT

Mahathir has expressed his doubt that 9/11 was a planned to accuse Muslims. He also said in response to a question that Muslims need to go back to basics of the religion and reduce friction among themselves related to religion interpretation. He did not feel Khilfah is mandatory to progress for Muslims. According to him decline of Muslims started when they stick to learning religion only and stopped learning in arts and sciences. He also suggested to use other currencies than Dollars for exchange to weaken US imperialism.

Imran Khan made a point that Muslims are being judged by their political beliefs and not by their religious beliefs. As long as their politial beliefs don`t clash with US interests, their religious radicalism or violation of human rights does not bother US.

``Terrorists have a common goal in India—attack and create fear—whichever way easily leads to it they just follow it. Their religion is terrorism and nothing else. ``

Well said.

The biggest threat today are the Maoists than Pakistani Jehadis. But that does not take away the need to focus on these ISI supported and trained Jehadis who are also trying to pollute the IM-s with their Islamist ideology. We can also see some some indian ulemas joinging with the MMA mullahs to create a cross border Islamist influence in order to push Jehadism within indian population as well. We need to be wary of them in the future and must bust them before they start brainwashing the local IM-s with the material support as well as ideological propaganda from across the border.
The root of all the troubles are the Paki Islamists and these terror masters like HP and the ideological propagandists like Masadi. They create the propaganda trying to obliterate the difference between State-Deterrence the Terrorist Killings by the Jehadis . By doing so they seek to ``legitimatize`` the ultimate Islamist agenda of terrorising liberals into submisssion to THEIR will - which they claim is the will of the almighty!!!

#315 and ofcourse Corporate take overs!

#314 we see this everyday in our work place - where bosses make use of our talents to better themselves - since we cannot make proper use of them within the context of the work environment.......

Masadi`s arguments reminds me of a lecture I attended way back. In the lecture, the learned person at the lectern made a few statements, and then went on build his lecture around these. (What his thoughts were and my were then and are now is immaterial). Anyway here is a series of statements paraphrasing some of them.( please note: I may not necessayly subscribe to them but merely stating these here for argument sake)


(a) If you cannot make use of God given resources, why should you complain when others make use of it.

(b) If you cannot add value to your resources, you should not complain when others add value to YOUR RESOURCES.

(c) If you cannot make use of your resources to better yourself and your people, then others will invite themselves to do it. If in the process, others occupy your lands, either by proxy or directly, YOU cannot complain.


It appears that this is a cyclic process and the world has gone through this cycle many times. Maybe what we are witnessing today is a repeat of this cycle. various countries are in various stages of this - is my guess.

# 242

Muslims were in a constant state of war against Quraish which started with Guerilla warfare and turned into full-fledged combat only when they had gained sufficient strength and sufficiently weakened Quraish. One part of that warfare was attacking the Quraish`s supply lines/logistics in hit and run tactics which these people term as `looting` caravans. The very same disruptions to their supply-routes drew in Quraish into the first real battle at Badar where they were defeated.

is that why muslims are constantly in a confrontationist mode all the time ?

muslims did not enter europe as traders but as invaders-rapists , and got kicked out of spain , in a fitting manner.

HP writes <<< The Manichean division of the world is too simplistic and using labels liberally often results in neglecting the variances that exist and change from society to society. >>>

HP is correct in this assertion you cannot use a broad brush to fit things neatly under conservative and liberal. There are two types of conservatives clearly seen in modern US society, a society that because of its very evolution and myriad of immigrants had no conservative ideology or common value other than the economic. There are the classical conservatives that C.W. Mills described as the ``practical conservatives` and there are the new more sophisticated conservatives like the Neo-Cons. Among the classical conservatives are the people that will outdo every mullah in their conservatism while among the sophisticated conservatives are those that will go all over the board as long as the broader class interests are being met.

I`ll let C. W. Mills do the explaining

(quote)``In the higher circles of business and its associations, there has long been a tension, for example, between the `old guard` of practical conservatives and the `business liberals,` or sophisticated conservatives. What the old guard represents is the outlook, if not always the intelligent interests, of the more narrow economic concerns. What the business liberals represent is the outlook and the interests of the newer propertied class as a whole. They are `sophisticated` because they are more flexible in adjusting to such political facts of life as the New Deal and big labor, because they have taken over and used the dominant liberal rhetoric for their own purposes, and because they have, in general, attempted to get on top of, or even slightly ahead of, the trend of these developments, rather than to fight it as practical conservatives are wont to do.(end quote)

The difference between the US and our parts of the world is that in the `old world` the history has been different, they have had a genuine conservative ideology, as might exist among small groups in the US but not on the larger national scene that is why those societies appear to be, from a distance the very antithesis of liberalism. That is where the Quran comes in as a rational/scientific challenge to deeply entrenched conservatism of `value-societies`, and it presented itself as such from day 1. `` Do not go to extremes in your religion ``, ``the middle path`` ``nothing is forbidden to you except a,b, c`` and so on are extremely ``liberal`` ideals, as is the economic redistribution of the surplus to achieve equity. We have seen the problems of conservative religious ``ideological`` societies, we have seen the problems of conservative ``non-ideological`` societies like the US, we have seen the problems of liberal ``ideological`` societies like the SU, now is the time to give a liberal ``non-ideological`` society as recommended by the Quran, ``to see which one of you is best in deed`` a chance to fluorish. Therein lies the hope for our parts of the world, a liberal, non-ideological society, the problem is how it will emerge and in Muslim societies possibly the only path is through the Quran.

# Various : HisExcellency.

Your #219 is worthy of reproducing which I believe is an excellent summation:

At present, there is no peaceful modus operandi for a just solution to Middle East problem. The new World Order and its principal proponent are perceived to be inimical to interests of Muslims, especially in Middle East. Hence the growing desire to smash the World Order and create a new one. No Justice, No Peace!

You have further clarified in your #270 by asking :``What forum should be used to peacefully resolve disputes between Muslims and non-Muslim occupation forces?:

It is true that no forum exists towards the above. As for the United Nations it is no more even a peace-keeping body as it could not prevent destruction of South Lebanon.

Regarding Hamas and the 1967 borders, if you recall Hamas had announced its decision to accept the right of Israel to exist a short while after having won in elections, which Israel immediately dismised as being `insignificant and an internal decision of Hamas` and continued to blockade and financially strangle the PA. What else can Hamas do?

But why should the question of 1967 borders be in any dispute in the first place? It should be quite clear Israel has to do that, no question about it, after the unanimous UN resolution 242 dated Nov 22,1967 adopted under the binding Chapter VI of the UN charter, which makes mandatory the ``withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict``. So why is there still debate about the 1967 borders?

Fact is that Israel is following a policy of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population in league with the major UN powers, depopulating whatever areas it can and expanding on them, making life impossible for the locals so they are forced to leave. But these Palestinians know all this well enough so they continue to sit in refugee camps on the west bank and refuse to leave despite whatever Israel throws at them.

Israel did the same thing in depopulating South Lebanon recently and it would have expanded into that as well if not thwarted by Hazballah. As the world saw, the residents rushed back to their bombed out homes as soon as the shooting stopped despite the immense danger it could start all over again at a moment`s notice. It was for the reason that they know if they don`t return, Israel will build settlements on Lebanese soil as well in the name of self-defence and noone would have objected.

So you`re right in your conclusion: Hence the growing desire to smash the World Order and create a new one. No Justice, No Peace!

#220 by GT

“Very similar to what I have been thinking lately. I do not know whether or not the West can win this war. But I do believe that this is a war that liberals can win. “

I looked at your recent two posts(#s280, 246) too on the issue but I think you are going all over the place with this. The Manichean division of the world is too simplistic and using labels liberally often results in neglecting the variances that exist and change from society to society.

You statement above and Irfan Hussain’s quote assume that the current war is between liberalism and conservatism. Irfan makes another mistake when he claims that moderate are being radicalized. Radicalization of a moderate would actually lead to liberalism whereas Irfan is implying the reverse.

The first question is whether the West leading the war against the so called conservatives is liberal?

Strangely enough, the sections of the western society and the leadership supporting the war are genuinely conservative from the western pov. They may appear way too liberal for the conservative ME but in the western society these guys are definably conservative. That leads us to consider that even if the West wins the war, it would still be a conservative victory. Now we get to a point that we know that whether or not the west can win this war is immaterial as in both cases (west’s defeat or victory) only the conservatism would win. So the strategy which you are mistakenly calling tactics, should be for the liberals to win on both sides and that is the real issue whether the liberals can win on both sides of the fences or not?

One aspect of this clash of civilization is that the conservatives fighting this war on both sides will attempt to beat the liberals first before they begin the victory parade probably together.

One more thing for you to consider is how we define liberalism or even conservatives in the Societies outside of the western hemisphere. From the western pov, both terms can be defined though lots of flexibility would be required in placing the labels. In the societies outside of the West, and for this discussion’s purpose we assume in our part of the world, how would you define liberal or conservative? Imo, that is where Irfan Hussain’s term moderate comes in. Generally speaking there is no liberalism in our part of the world within the same broad context that we use in the west. Similarly the western concept of conservatism cannot be applied in our part of the world.

We now have two sets of people on both sides of the war. We want liberals to win in the West and we want moderates to win in our part of the world. Now consider this: a western conservative could or would be far too liberal for a moderate in our part of the world.

So I will amend your statement to say that this is a war that both liberals and moderates can win. Since we are dealing with entirely different thought processes, we will need to have two strategies for that victory. One strategy would support the moderates to win and the other would be for liberals to win in their respective sphere of influence in the West or in the East.

Now I am going to throw a curveball at you. Before the second WW, even the fascist were considered liberal. Most of the fascist came out of the liberal or even the communist ranks. I think the greatest fascist Mussolini himself was one time a communist sympathizer and a firebrand trade unionists. Remember both his and Hitler’s political parties were “socialist” parties. Interestingly, most of the neo-cons in the US have reached their conservative positions via the Trotskyism. The point is that the labels are difficult propositions and we need to distinguish between the differing situation from one theatre to the other to find a multifaceted strategy and not one size fit all tactics.

More later...

Re: # 310 HP,

HP,

Your post is terse and I may have missed a lot. Let me respond to what I think your main points are:

1. ``The Manichean division of the world is too simplistic and using labels liberally often results in neglecting the variances that exist and change from society to society.``

I tried to keep the definitions as broad as possible. Your input will be appreciated.

2. ``That leads us to consider that even if the West wins the war, it would still be a conservative victory. ``

Quite possible. May I add that a lot of people in the West may also term it as a liberal victory. But your point, I think, is that it does not matter who thinks what and I agree. I do so primarily because in this war of attrision there won`t be a clear cut end for a long time. And in the course there will be several `victories` and `defeats`.

3. ``So the strategy which you are mistakenly calling tactics, should be for the liberals to win on both sides and that is the real issue whether the liberals can win on both sides of the fences or not?``

Absolutely. The real issue is for the liberals to win on spheres currently dominated by strong states in the west and fundamentalists in the east. A liberal need not associate herself with any side.

4. ``One aspect of this clash of civilization is that the conservatives fighting this war on both sides will attempt to beat the liberals first before they begin the victory parade probably together.``

This is something very important for people to understand. In my last post, I did hint that even innocuous liberal interventions may invite death in the east. People should be very cautious in what they do. In the west, I think, the main problem is superficiality. Let us talk more on this.

5. ``One more thing for you to consider is how we define liberalism or even conservatives in the Societies outside of the western hemisphere.``

I propose that specific religio-political issues be kept out of the definition, in other words I suggest that my definition should do. I would be happy to take up challenges on this for I think this is an important point.

6. ``We want liberals to win in the West and we want moderates to win in our part of the world.``

No. I want liberals to win in both parts, even if the liberals from these two parts do not see eye to eye on most issues other than what I define as the 5 core requirements for a person to be liberal.

7. And the great curveball: Here you are actually pointing at the achiles heel of liberalism.

Hitler was not a socialist. He took up their symbols to (successfully) lure liberals into his fold. German liberals were trying for quick fixes. They even killed Rosa Luxemburg who was trying to calm things down.

I do try to handle this issue in my posts: The liberal ceases to be a liberal when she tries to impose liberalism on others through short-cuts. The liberal, like the angler, has to be patient. Furthermore, her job is to protect whaterver individual right exists and if possible to enhance individuals` right to choose. It might very well mean that the liberal ends up challenging the victorious liberal state that deviates from the principles of liberalism. Thus, like Jehad it is a lifetime process. It does not end. The liberals` war is a war of attrision. Hence, it stands a very good chance of winning this war.