Muslims in America

dm #184 no doubt an arab middle class developed, but it was never politically strong. in pakistan, the middle class has been strong enough to clip the wings of musharraf and reduce him to being a "convenient idiot" for zardari to keep for now. in the middle east, dictators are firmly in place.

While there was big talk of pan-Arabism and nationalism under Nasser, these various kings and dictators of the arab world made sure that there would never be a political union of the kind formed in europe, let alone a separate country. You can blame this on "western interests" if you like - I happen to believe that as long as the middle east nations fail to produce true democracies, they will remain what they are - a patchwork of kingships and dictatorships, all pointing to the west and isreael as the "enemy" in order to take attention away from their own lawless rule.

Since Islam tries to capture first political power, then dhimmifies large % of populace before gradual conversion to Islam, this population of new converts acquires this skill of internalizing externally imposed identities, and later the elite have it easy in manuevering/fooling this populace.

I would like to explore and find which groups among Muslims are more progressive or not so subservient. In descending order I feel this is the list:

1. Anglophine rich elite and rich sects as Agha Khani, Khojas, Bohras and Katchis
2. The poorest of the poor
Sindhi
Balochi
Hazara
Northern Territories (Shia)
Punjabis
Kashmiris
Pathans
3 Middle class

As I understand you are also saying that there is one response of internalizing the identity by subservient populace.

Masadi Sahab,

You are saying all identities are externally imposed. As I understand there is one response of internalizing the identity by subservient populace.

Can we focus on this internalization process? My theory is the people who can internalize this externally imposed identity must have been used to such process. Did the process of Islamization of non Arab lands/civilization caused this subservient "Ji Sarkar" populace?

Since Islam tries to capture first political power, then dhimmifies large % of populace before gradual conversion to Islam, this population can be manuevered easily.

Faith needs to be redefined other wise in its present form it's fatal for the civilization. We have word called Vichar. Which is for "charing' walking into future. You can walk ahead if you know where you qare at present. This weird faith in religius dogma, esp Islam keeps one always backword looking, fixeted one personalities and tribal socities. This faith is very gross, materialistic in its own way and deadly to oneself, ie one is not even a thinking human.

tahir:

Bhai, I have already read it, or rather a translation, as the quran, as I understand, is only the original in arabic. And I read it in a language I understand - Urdu.

As for not understanding the word of God, bhai,I am one of those pathetic beings whose ears, according to the Book, are sealed to the message.

later....

I think you need to read my post more carefully, it is not how they defined themselves, it is how they chose to define groups within India for the ulterior motive of separation of the kind they wanted, and succeeded in it; if they had used other ethnic or racial identities they would have caused division into 1001 parts which they neither sought nor desired.

Masadi Sahab,

You have not answered why the feudals and Muslim Babudom did not identify themselves more on linguistic lines. What is in Islam religion which makes the believer sacrifice all other identities?

in #200 read "therefore the two divergent responses can be .."


therefore the two divergent responses in addition to turning inwardly can be

The self and self-identity develops and depends on how others see you, the identity givers are thus those that commandeer your social structure, to develop any self-worth a subservient group turns inwardly because its mainstream image (as seen by the colonials or the America elite at the current time) is not one it can coexist with comfortably, therefore the two divergent responses can be i) deculturation, as we see in Japan/S Korea and due to globalization a good percent of the subservient countries and ii) a reproduction of the image those dominant groups have of the subservient group, i.e. Muslims are terrorists, and so a response is you see yourself as a terrorist and become one and iii) turning inwardly with little to no interaction with those that have defined you as inferior, only iii has a concept of self-worth, the others are mere slaves....

Truth writes "Would you please elaborate. Sindhines, Punjabiness, Marathiness, Bangqaliness or Tamilness are blurred identities compared to Islamic identity???..."

Neither the brits nor the feudals were interested in dividing India into 1001 parts, division using the religious identity was thus quite expedient for their motives, using the other identities would definatley blur the rationale behind the kind of division they sought...

Masadi Sahab,

"Those elite chose to use the "Islamic" identity because in India the other identities could not have been used for separation due to their blurred nature."

Would you please elaborate. Sindhines, Punjabiness, Marathiness, Bangqaliness or Tamilness are blurred identities compared to Islamic identity???

If British had made job reservations based on language or economic status and not on religion then would we have different history, present and future? If Mughal had done the same in their court, then...

Identities are enslavements. The people who can be easily exploited and enslaved are given first an identity. The newborn first learns his mother tongue. Mother tongue identity should be the strongest identity. Since we cannot escape from identities, to keep one self free from identities one need to acquire number of identiites. A good life is harmony and balance among these identiites. Islam asks for demolishing of all other identities. Such intense identity one might need when one is facing a mortal threat. Islam tries to creates such threats all the time to perpetuate itself. It's unbalanced system, +ve feedback system. What do you think?

Lot od assertions on my part, many too strong! Please correct.

g'night.....and may God damn the sellout peons of the West, and may he damn the most prominent one of them on this site, tahmed...

By the way, if America were to introduce "Democracy" into the Arab world, the first thing those "democratic" governments, if they were real democracies, would do (as revealed by opinion surveys poll after poll) is cut off all links with the US, throw their companies out and unite under one banner- all these things the US has opposed using its guns and using Israel, so this "democracy" slogan is just a lie that even an ordinary mind can see through. The US will never allow democracy in an area that it wants to use and abuse, such would be to its detriment.

Just recently we saw how the US subverted any remnants of democracy in this nation by its so-called diplomacy, killing of those that didn't agree with their army deal, and trying to isolate the opposition, as a result we see the US/Pak Army FARCE that is currently parading as "democracy". Do you think tahmed is such a goddamned fool not to know this and the US track record in south asia, in latin America, even in US occupied Japan and Korea where the people come second, first come US demands and the standing foreign armies within a so-called "sovereign" nation, ensuring that even ignoring deculturation of the kind we have seen in those two slave nations, they remain fully subservient to the US...

....and may he (Tahmed) feel the pain, the suffering and the helplessness of each and every Iraqi victim of the barbaric US aggression, and I hope he is similarly victimized in this life as well...

Here is how this snake tahmed began his "Open letter to those opposing the Iraq War"

(Quote) http://www.chowk.com/articles/6036

Bush says that after the war is over, the US (along with UK)will focus on introducing democracy in Iraq. The question then is: do you think democracy
is a good idea? If your answer is "no", then clearly there can be no more discussion.
If you answer is "yes", then the next question is: Can Bush be trusted to make a reasonable effort at doing what he says he will for the Iraqis?
If your answer is "no", then ponder this: Many of you trusted the US enough to come an live here (I wont get into the reasons you left). Others trust the US enough to apply for immigrant visas and wait in long lines hoping to come here one day. If you can trust your life and the life and future of your children with the US, why do you find it so hard to trust the elected President of the US when he says that aims to introduce democracy in Iraq and has no intention of turning it into a colony?

http://www.chowk.com/articles/6036 "


----

So the fool thinks that when America talks about invading (and killing and displacing millions), it is all about democracy, which is still missing in Iraq like the WMDs, and the electricity, water and sewage and a good percentage of the population as well. This snake in his bs rhetoric just to support and worship the white man unconditionally, because he pays him a few $$ and saved him from a Pakistani existance, is totally and completely responsible for those killings together with his masters for which Allah will assing this hypocrite to the lowest portion of hell, with the rest of his kind. May God damn him, destroy him and make whatever he loves a source of anguish for him...