Huntington's Clash of Civilizations Thesis

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#1 please post it on UP.

Here is the truth about the Clash of Civilizations:

Shias are really called Shiaan-e-Ali (Friends of Ali). Hazrat Imam Ali was the first cousin and son-in-law of The Holy Prophet (PBUH) and the husband of Hazrat Fatima, the daughter of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Hazrat Ali was renowned for his courage, his strength, and his full devotion to The Holy Prophet (PBUH) and Islam. In fact, he risked his life by staying behind in Mecca in the Holy Prophet`s (PBUH) house to fool his enemies.

After the Holy Prophet`s (PBUH) death, while Imam Ali and the rest of the family were busy preparing the Prophet`s (PBUH) body for burial, the Quraish leaders (Abu Baker, Omar, Othman, and others) gathered to select one among them as the ``Successor`` or Khalifa (Caliph). It was not democratic, because only Quraish men of Mecca were considered for leadership. Imam Ali quietly accepted the decision and for the sake of Muslim unity continued to honor the Caliphs Abu Baker and Omar during their lifetimes. Finally, when Othman was made Caliph, Imam Ali and others noticed the corruption that was surrounding this man. Tribal relatives, mostly of the Ommayyad clan, were appointed to high offices throughout the land. The most notable was Muawiya, the son of Abu Sufyan, who was the sworn enemy of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Needless to say, Othman was assassinated by mobs of Muslims who were fed up with his corrupt adminsitration. Muawiya, who was by now Governor of Syria in Damascus, blamed Hazrat Ali for the death of Othman. Hazrat Ali was proclaimed the 4th Caliph, but Muawiya started a civil war that he evenutally lost. Imam Ali was murdered by so-called Kharijites who were conspicuously unable to murder Muwayiha and Amr Bin Al Ass (the Governor of Egypt). Muwaiya just happened to be out sick that day. (T)

Following the martyrdom of Imam Ali, Muawiya took over the Caliphate after a brief rule by Imam Hassan, who was too weak to take on the Ummayads. Muwayiha restarted the wars of conquest by attacking Cyprus, buidling a navy, and sending the first expedition to conquer Constantinople. Unfortunately, during his last days, he started grooming his son, Yazid for succession (so much for the democracy touted by the Sunnis). Eventually, Imam Hussain, the second son of Imam Ali, refused to acknowledge Yazid as Caliph, and Hussain and all of his male relatives were slaughtered by Yazid`s army in Karbala on the banks of the Euphrates in Eye Rack.

The friends of Ali (Shian-e-Ali) supported Imam Hussain`s struggle against Yazid. The rest of the Muslims, those who were not Shias, later came to be called Sunnis (meaning following in the footsteps of the Prophet PBUH)).

To make a long story short, Shiaism spread to Iran, Iraq, India, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, and as far as Tunisia and Sicily.

The Fatimids were Shias who later became the Agha Khanis.

In 1979, after the fall of the Shah and the Iranian Revolution, the US (under Soodi influence) determined that Sunnis were the good Muslim and Shias were the bad Muslims. This all changed when in 2001, on 9/11, AlKayda`s 19 Sunni Wahabbi fanatic terrorists committed mass murder and mayhem. Now Sunni fanatics are bad in Soodi Arabia and Eye Rack where the Shias are the good guys because they were the enemas of Sadman Houston, who was a Sunni. But in Eye Ran, where the government is Shia, the Shias are bad, even though those Shias of Eye Ran are on freindly terms with the Shias of Eye Rack. To make matters even simpler, the Kurds who are themselves die-hard Sunnis hate the Sunni Arabs and are in cahoots with the Shia Arabs who hate Sunnis. Turkey, which is almost all Sunni, is at odds with the Kurds who are Sunni. The mostly Sunni Punjoos killed the almost completely Sunni Bengalis in East Pakistan in 1971. In the Sudan and Somalia, both Sunni countries, there is civil war and genocide, with Sunnis killing Sunnis.

Bottom line is this. Sunnis love to kill. They prefer to kill Hindus and Sikhs. If they can`t find them, they try to kill Jews and Christians (whom they call Ahl-e-Kitab or People of the Book). If the Sunnis can`t find any Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, or Jews, then they pick on their own Ahmedis, whom they kicked out in 1974. Finally, if they can`t find any of them, they pick on the Shias, starting with the Smilyes first and then on the real Shias the Asna Ashuris. Finally, when there are no Hinus, Sikhs, Christians, Jews, Ahmedis, Shias, then they just start killing each other - witness Soodan, Somalia, Sumatra, Bengal, Turkey, Palestine, and many other places in Africa. :))

private delete

February 2, 2007

Manto Payee, I am very disappointed in your lack of judgment

Manto Payee, I am very disappointed in your lack of judgment

Manto Bhai,
I have always admired your sense of logic, your vision for Pakistan, and even your aspirations for high office. I have supported you against Injuns, against Moolas, and even against those who would deny you membership in Muslimhood.

While I have disagreed with your views concerning the misfortune that is called partition of 1947, I am even more disappointed by your hasty and illogical altercation with Ms. Nadia. I consider her bravery, courage, and determination to take on a whole gang of goons to be the model of Pakistani feminininininity. Moreover, being a Shia of the Asna Ashuri persuasion, she is twice the Shia that you are. This of course is due to your becoming a Smiley, who while Shias, only believe in half of the saintly leaders we call Eye Maams.

When your own community of Sunnis, or ``losers`` as coined by the rag what covereth and protecteth, ejected your esteemed father and persecuted you because of your former faith, it was the Shia Smileys who gave you a home.
What did you do in return?
You joined a gang of hooligans in picking on a single Pakistani Shia female as she struggled to ward off the evil witches who were ganging up and hurling all kinds of abuse and venom at her.
If I were in your place, I would have protected and defended the solitary victim - but then from the results of various threads, it is obvious that she whipped some ass and I am sorry to note that one of them was yours.

I hope that you apologize to Nadia for your faux pas.
Thanks,
Salim Chauhan

private delete

February 2, 2007

While I am offended by the rag what covereth and protecteth ...

While I am offended by the rag what covereth and protecteth ...



Started by Salim_Chauhan on February 2, 2007 9:25am PT

in saying that ``shias stink,`` I can understand her feelings. After all, hanging around and spending too much time with the only flatulent Shia on Chowk, I can see why she thinks that all Shias stink. Also, referring to Sunnis as losers can also make sense, if her only contact with Sunnis is the gay Mullah Atif2 who takes pride in calling himself a loser.

Now on the matter of ``FLYING FUKK,`` it`s obvious that the heavy dose of sugar-coated, lard-laden, and fattening Lahori Dunkin Donuts was bound to take its toll. She is obviously hallucinating about airborne copulation.

As to her asspirations for mass murder of all shias and sunnis, this is further positive proof of the freedom enjoyed by Pakistan`s religious minorities. In free and democratic Pakistan, every religious community, including Christians, has the right to plan murder and mayhem against any other religious community, including the majority Sunnis.

As for her taking over Pakistan, once again she is displaying very common Paki behavior. Anyone can become President of Pakistan, simply by threatening violence and ``taking over Pakistan.``

Let`s congratulate our future First Christian President in declaring her exploratory intentions and wish her well in her endeavors to decrease Pakistan`s population, reduce terrorism by killing Muslims, and rescuing our dear country from Mushy.

Here is the full text of her speech declaring her candidacy for high office:


#57 by Sobia on February 1, 2007 4:21am PT
lol..i don`t give a FLYING FUKK about you sunnis and shias..if i had my way, i`d kill all of you and take over pakistan to be the first christian president..i think sunnis are losers and shias stink...

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Both the articles and the replies so far are too complicated and high for my comprehension...

Typical apologia for OBL. It is not even worth a second look.


``...and what are the sociological processes through which they then become self-fulfilling prophecies and assume a reality of their own. ``

Hitler always blamed the Jews and the West for forcing war onto Germany!! ``Self-fulfilling`` is a dangerous word. It tries to blame the victim for being the victim- like blaming the woman for rape because ``she had it comin```.
The same expression is now being used by the neo-cons for ``muslim victimhood``.
Asadi- you know how to churn out propaganda!!

``In other words, legitimation is achieved by generating an ‘us versus them’ climate of fear and paranoia, or as the ex-U.S. senator, Vanderbilt put it, by scaring “the hell out of the American people”. ``

After every audacious terror attack the Jehadi Rascals announce more terror on ``them`` and instigate all other muslims to follow up with such attacks. This is the real virus of violent view of ``us versus them``. Who is scaring the hell out of Americans by spreading terror- Antrax, snipers, chemicals, trying to procure dirty nuke, blowing up tubes?? And this guy is blaming US and the West for reacting to prevent further attacks??

``the largest conspiracy, playing out center stage in today`s world, a conspiracy that even the simplest mind can grasp, is the fictional account of how the world`s most massive military machine, the U.S. is somehow facing a ‘clear and present’ threat from people living in caves, brandishing ak-47 and world war 2 vintage RPGs. ``

Ah, the cat is out of the bag now!! So, the Dear OBL is NOT TO BE BLAMED? I would say- hang this dog!! He is the real culprit for making my life miserable as a muslim. He is spreading the ideology of hate- he is training people to kill and be killed- he is announcing to the world that he is leading the terror- ...... he must be hanged in public and his co-conspirators who spread his propaganda incarcerated.

The clash of civiloizations is real and it is happening as we speak. Armagadon is inevitable unless Americans are humiliated, defeated, and expelled from Iraq and Afghanistan:

``The Islam of today and the belief sets of Muslims do not constitute a monolithic “civilization”. In presenting it as such, the US elite deliberately confound the facts and present images of oneness that are borrowed from utopian dreams by fringe groups like the Hizb ut Tahrir, which is then generalized to the entire world population of Muslims. Neither are Muslim beliefs so easily classified, so as to form a uniform index of religiosity across national boundaries which can be measured.``

That is the only redeeming statement from Asadi. From being a self professed Quranist who considers all other views as ``false`` the acknowledgement of ``plurality`` of views , perhaps equally valid, is welcome.
But the fact that it is NOT US that is trying to foist extremist groups as representative of muslim voice. It is THESE extreme groups that are doing such acts out of desperation in order to create suspicion in the minds of communities. Every Indian knows that riots are precisely doctored by the communalists to create schism in communal relations. OBL and Al-Qaeeda are trying to incite such communal riots on a world wide scale in order to polarize communities and make the communalists the self proclaimed default ``representatives``.
Every successful terror attack furthers the polarization and makes things worst for the moderate muslims who have nothing to do with these acts of terrorism.

Masadi,

Very well said:

Thus, the real ‘war’ that is to be fought, is between the people and these elite, it is a war over definitions of reality. The U.S. elite, being in command of the cultural apparatus, meaning the mass media and formal education, are winning this ‘war’, having out resourced all opponents.

We see this in abundance on Chowk. Don`t we?

Thanks.

Re: # 3
Salim Sahib:

.``..Othman was assassinated by mobs of Muslims who were fed up with his corrupt adminsitration....``

``....and Hussain and all of his male relatives were slaughtered by Yazid`s army in Karbala on the banks of the Euphrates in Eye Rack....``

Is there a history in the arab world of peaceful and democratic transfer of power? The beginning was hardly promising.

Masadi,

You say:

The Islam of today and the belief sets of Muslims do not constitute a monolithic “civilization”. In presenting it as such, the US elite deliberately confound the facts and present images of oneness that are borrowed from utopian dreams by fringe groups like the Hizb ut Tahrir, which is then generalized to the entire world population of Muslims.

This is absolutely correct. But there`s something called a self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people come to believe a certain untruth, or believe any eventuality is certain to occur, it becomes the truth and actually occurs. It is human psyche.

Although there is no clash of civilizations, simply for the reason that an Islamic civilization does not exist at the present time, but if hammered with the notion often enough some form of it may indeed emerge from a single state and spread outwards. In other words, this clash of civilizations propaganda is self-defeating.

We are lucky to be observing an important turning point in history.

#3 by Salim_Chauhan

Yaar Salim Bhai, yeh aap kis rastey par chal parey? Bhai please do not polarize Chowk further than it already is with this shia/sunni stuff, which is alarming.

Besides, your version of Islamic history is not only factually incorrect, but inflammatory and downright insidious.

Sincerely :)

#10 by anil

Anil, to understand the circumstances in which Usman was besieged and murdered, i.e. the catacalysmic event which was the very source of the permanent schism between Muslims, do visit this link. It is unbiased and authentic and gleaned from the work of both Muslim as well as non-Muslim scholars, alongwith conclusions drawn regarding various critiques of the Usman Caliphate.

You can study this at leisure. In the meantime let`s not derail masadi`s board which is about a key contemporary issue. I don`t know why Salim Bhai is bringing up this subject on this board.

Rgds

Asadi,

This week seems to be special. Two good write ups alongst with yours (so make that three) on Chowk. You argue powerfully for your thesis or should I say hypothesis (at least for me). Given the depth of your arguements let me put forth a simple critique.

Your arguement (alongst with many that you quote including Millss) singularly depends on the assumption that people in general are `stupid` or `uninformed`. And of course Zeemax will agree with it while Tahmed perhaps won`t. I tend to be agnostic about this feature of history given that civilizations (and yes Islamic civilizations and to a much lesser extent Indira Gandhi civilization) have been upturned by people who according to Hamid are `unclothed`.

Having said that, I believe, people tend to get `informed` precisely because of people like you, manto, arjun etc. The common `stupid` people will evaluate you. If you want them to understand then speak their language. You may be offended by this, but if you want to learn about the language of the sub-continent then check out a guy called Gandhi.

I am also very impressed that you have gone back to your roots. A tree hardly returns to its roots. I wish you all the best. The world will listen if you speak their language. They are the judge. And listen to them if you want to learn beyond Mills.

Regards.

Huntington the Sociologist, made an attempt to view the world after the Cold War from a Social point of view. At that time, USSR was fragmenting under the weight of both ethno and ethno-religious nationalism. Soon Yugoslavia was to follow. The disintegration of USSR had unleashed very powerful forces of nationalism and sub nationalism. Huntington therefore theorized that the most powerful dynamic thus was what he broadly lumped as ``Civilizations``. At that point in the mid 90s, many agreed with him and within the Muslim world, many Neo Islamists tried to revive the concept of Ummah. However, quick US domination of the world may have contributed to arresting this lumped notion in many ways.

Economically, within the West, EU was seen the rising economic giant. Soon it was in contest with the APEC and the notion that the focus of international economics would shift to this region. This was followed by the translocation of major industries to China and ASEAN. In ASEAN, the bubble was manipulated to burst and Malaysia began taking of breaking the Gold-Dollar Equation and reverting to Gold in Barter. Both Russia and Malaysia actively pursued this policy and converted much of dollars to Gold. Then came 9/11...

Though this theory was just a hypotheses, it provided fuel for many ultra-realists (political sense not to be mixed with reality), to find clues and pursue them. The rise of Neo Cons and a worldview though the eyes of extremists such as these and Islamic Anarchists like Laden and Co have drawn critics to keep talking of this theory.

Notwithstanding, whether it is flawed or not, the concept thrives in the prevailing violence ridden political and economically cut throat environments

Cheerios

I kind of agree with the basic premise of the article but I do not share your underlined theme that the US or the US elite is doing something unique in the current world. U.S. is relatively new to this whole business of imperialism or hegemony thing but it is certainly not the first large political power to do it. In fact, I don’t think that the US is imperialistic though it certainly appears hegemonic. British were perhaps the last imperialist power and they too were really reluctant to legitimize their imperialism until they were forced by 1857 war in India. The US is currently more into just protecting or promoting national interests and to a certain extent ensuring the well being of its already large and still growing mega/multinational corporations.

The interesting part is that the US corporations and the US government are not doing that to hurt other countries economically. (Until the oil and gas issue pops up, which is something no US admin can ignore or allow any group to molest the oil supplies.) Besides oil, if we carefully examine the current economic scene in the world and especially consider the East and the South Asian economies, the US corporations have passed on lots of business to these countries in an attempt to survive in the American market place. A typical US corporation is passing on manufacturing and other services jobs and work to reduce prices in the US market and they are not using that low cost advantage to trample on other countries and their economies. Really, I should refrain from making it a general comment as there may be a few US corporations that are using that advantage to compete with other nations. However, I believe that is not the norm.

Coming back to the gimmick thing, every propaganda piece or in today’s terms, information piece is meant to be used in gaining strategic, political or economic advantage. This, too, is not something new. Every major war has been preceded by a major propaganda effort in every century and propaganda had been used by every nation rich or poor.

So when you claim “clash of civilization” being a gimmick, you know that it is not designed to be 100% factual; it’s a propaganda piece. The author himself probably knew it and those who swear by it may have some private thoughts about the whole thing too.

Like every propaganda piece, the whole thing has a limited time constrained value and now it is no longer relevant. For the simple reason that US and the authors of Clash of civilization have now found Sunni, Shia, Salafi, wahabi etc. And as they continue to battle in the Middle East, they will find 20 more groups that don’t fit the monolith Islamic civilization meme they started out with.

I think you are still using the terminology and the analytical tools that are now relics of the long forgotten cold war. The problem that we have now is the increasing militarism in the United States. It is getting progressively worst since the current admin took over and now the President of the US likes to be called the commander in chief which is just a ceremonial function of the President. Even the military-industrial complex of the US is more inward looking. It needs wars to keep factories running full steam but what it sells to the US government is much more sophisticated to be used in convention wars like the one they hoped to fight in Iraq.

I was recently reading that out of the total discretionary spending of $875 billion per year, the US is spending $452 on defense not counting the cost of Iraq war. Some would say the spending is still 3.7% of the GDP but in reality 52 cents out of every dollar that US can spend, is being spent on defense. Along with the aggressive tax cutting measures, this defense expense will have an impact on the economy.

However, the question is what the reason of the US belligerency in the international affairs in the absence of any real enemy? People attribute that to oil. The US is aggressive every where there is some prospect of oil and gas. From Middle East to the central Asia and even in South America, we increasingly see that U.S. is taking positions that look for a military solution rather than the diplomatic solutions or even the clandestine operations solutions that were pretty normal for the US in the fifties and sixties.

One obvious reason that comes to mind is the competition for oil and Gas between the US and the other emerging economies, however, imo, the real reason is a growing conflict between the corporations that support trade, small to mid size manufacturing, giant pharma, and technology industry on one side and the large Manufacturers (arms, aeronautical etc.), finance and the oil and gas corporations on the other. This internal conflict is forcing the groups within the US to take hard positions and clearly the Oil, arms and the finance industries foresee a dwindling international influence hence they are aggressive in maintaining control over the resources outside of the US to maintain control over the internal politics in the US.

In other words, I think the issues in the US are internal but the battlegrounds are in small nations.