The Clash Of Un-Civilizations And Osama-ism

Chowkies,

Some reportage from my part of the political spectrum; Fair and Accuracy in Reporting. Mr. Mahajan will be coming out with a book this spring.

``We Think the Price is Worth It``

by Rahul Mahajan

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that`s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright`s quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, has been much quoted in the Arabic press. It`s also been cited in the United States in alternative commentary on the September 11 attacks (e.g., Alexander Cockburn, New York Press, 9/26/01).

But a Dow Jones search of mainstream news sources since September 11 turns up only one reference to the quote--in an op-ed in the Orange Country Register (9/16/01). This omission is striking, given the major role that Iraq sanctions play in the ideology of archenemy Osama bin Laden; his recruitment video features pictures of Iraqi babies wasting away from malnutrition and lack of medicine (New York Daily News, 9/28/01). The inference that Albright and the terrorists may have shared a common rationale--a belief that the deaths of thousands of innocents are a price worth paying to achieve one`s political ends--does not seem to be one that can be made in U.S. mass media.

It`s worth noting that on 60 Minutes, Albright made no attempt to deny the figure given by Stahl--a rough rendering of the preliminary estimate in a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions. In general, the response from government officials about the sanctions’ toll has been rather different: a barrage of equivocations, denigration of U.N. sources and implications that questioners have some ideological axe to grind (Extra!, 3-4/00).

There has also been an attempt to seize on the lowest possible numbers. In early 1998, Columbia University`s Richard Garfield published a dramatically lower estimate of 106,000 to 227,000 children under five dead due to sanctions, which was reported in many papers (e.g. New Orleans Times-Picayune, 2/15/98). Later, UNICEF came out with the first authoritative report (8/99), based on a survey of 24,000 households, suggesting that the total “excess” deaths of children under 5 was about 500,000.

A Dow Jones search shows that, although some papers covered the UNICEF report, none mentioned that the previous figure had been contradicted. In fact, papers continue to cite the obsolete Garfield numbers (Baltimore Sun, 9/24/01).

Who`s to blame

The summer of 2001 saw a revival of long-discredited claims that sanctions are not to blame for Iraq`s suffering, but that Saddam Hussein bears sole responsibility--an argument put forward in a State Department report (8/99) issued shortly after the UNICEF report on the deaths of children. Seizing on the fact that infant mortality had decreased in northern Iraq, which is under U.N. administration, while more than doubling in the rest of the country, where the government of Iraq is in charge, the State Department accused Baghdad of wide-scale misappropriation of funds from Iraqi oil sales earmarked for humanitarian purposes.

Michael Rubin of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who spent nine months as a private citizen in northern Iraq, has pushed this argument in at least eight op-eds in papers ranging from the Wall Street Journal (8/9/01) to the Los Angeles Times (8/12/01). These op-eds follow the same basic theme: Since conditions in the north of Iraq are much better than the rest of the country, Saddam must be taking oil-for-food money and using it to buy weapons; Iraqis don`t want sanctions lifted, they want Saddam out; the U.S. should support the overthrow of Saddam.

In fact, oil-for-food money is administered by the U.N., and disbursed directly from a U.S. bank account to foreign suppliers, so direct misappropriation of funds is impossible. Allegations about misappropriation of goods on the other end have repeatedly been denied by U.N. officials administering the program in Iraq (e.g. Denis Halliday, press release, 9/20/99), a fact that has garnered virtually no media coverage (Extra!, 3-4/00).

The disparity between north and south in Iraq has to do primarily with structural factors not considered in mainstream media coverage, including the fact that the north, Iraq`s breadbasket, is far less dependent on imported food. Per capita, citizens of the north receive 50 percent more oil-for-food relief, and much more humanitarian aid.

While Rubin was given space for his misrepresentation of the effects of sanctions, critics of the sanctions were virtually shut out of the debate. When the Bush administration put forward a proposal for a new, supposedly less deadly embargo known as ``smart sanctions,`` only one major newspaper (Seattle Times, 5/14/01) carried an op-ed that criticized the plan for not doing enough to help the Iraqi people. Among those who could not get published were Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, both former coordinators of the U.N. oil-for-food program who resigned because the program failed to prevent the humanitarian disaster caused by sanctions.

Biological warfare?

With renewed concern about biological warfare in the U.S., it`s worth noting an instance of the use of disease for military purposes that has gone almost uncovered. Last year, Thomas Nagy of Georgetown University unearthed a Defense Intelligence Agency document entitled ``Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,`` which was circulated to all major allied commands one day after the Gulf War started. It analyzed the weaknesses of the Iraqi water treatment system, the effects of sanctions on a damaged system and the health effects of untreated water on the Iraqi populace. Mentioning that chlorine is embargoed under the sanctions, it speculates that ``Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons,`` something that the United States disallowed for many years.

Combined with the fact that nearly every large water treatment plant in the country was attacked during the Gulf War, and seven out of eight dams destroyed, this suggests a deliberate targeting of the Iraqi water supply for ``postwar leverage,`` a concept U.S. government officials admitted was part of military planning in the Gulf War (Washington Post, 6/23/91).

A Dow Jones search for 2000 finds only one mention of this evidence in an American paper--and that in a letter to the editor (Austin American-Statesman, 10/01/00). Subsequent documents unearthed by Nagy (The Progressive, 8/10/01) suggest that the plan to destroy water treatment, then to restrict chlorine and other necessary water treatment supplies, was done with full knowledge of the explosion of water-borne disease that would result. ``There are no operational water and sewage treatment plants and the reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above normal levels,`` one post-war assessment reported; ``further infectious diseases will spread due to inadequate water treatment and poor sanitation,`` another predicted.

Combine this with harsh and arbitrary restrictions on medicines, the destruction of Iraq`s vaccine facilities, and the fact that, until this summer, vaccines for common infectious diseases were on the so-called ``1051 list`` of substances in practice banned from entering Iraq. Deliberately creating the conditions for disease and then withholding the treatment is little different morally from deliberately introducing a disease-causing organism like anthrax, but no major U.S. paper seems to have editorialized against the U.S. engaging in biological warfare--or even run a news article reporting Nagy`s evidence that it had done so. (The Madison Capitol Times--8/14/01--and the Idaho Statesman--10/2/01--ran op-eds that cited Nagy’s work.)

Decreased safety?

While there has never been much sustained attention in U.S. media to the costs of sanctions inside Iraq, one might expect the renewed concern for safety to occasion critical re-appraisal of whether U.S. policy towards Iraq contributes to or undermines American security. But there has been no such re-examination of, for example, the December 1998 bombing campaign known as ``Desert Fox.``

Contrary to much subsequent reporting, Iraq did not expel U.N. weapons inspectors in December 1998; rather, the U.S. withdrew them in preparation for conducting the unprovoked, unauthorized military strike. Many critics at the time suggested that this would make it impossible to conduct future inspections--especially after it was revealed that the CIA had been using weapons inspection as a cover for military espionage (Washington Post, 1/6/99; Extra!, 3-4/99)--rendering verification that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction impossible. This analysis got little play in the media at that time.

The de-stabilizing effect of the airstrikes was evaluated at the time by analysts like the Merchant International Group (London Times, 1/1/99) as likely to increase the threat of terrorism. Yet more recent U.S. policies have followed a similar approach. In July 2001, the U.S. decided to dump a proposed protocol for inspections and other mechanisms designed to give teeth to the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, preferring instead to rely on surveillance and espionage coupled with unilateral enforcement (New York Times, 7/25/01)--presumably through more strikes like Desert Fox, and like the August 1998 bombing of the El Shifa plant in Sudan, which turned out to produce pharmaceuticals, not chemical weapons. Since then, it has been reported that U.S. bioweapons research ``pushes`` the limits of the 1972 treaty, and that the Pentagon is even planning to produce a new strain of anthrax, ostensibly to test anti-anthrax procedures (New York Times, 9/4/01). Even before the September 11 attacks, bombing of Iraq had dramatically increased. In February 2001, two dozen U.S. and British planes attacked Iraqi radar installations, some of them out of the ``no-fly`` zones. In August and early September, there were at least six more pre-planned attacks to degrade Iraqi air defense. This was part of a comprehensive plan for multiple strikes, with a U.S. government official quoted (on MSNBC, 9/14/01) as saying ``Hitting targets one by one doesn`t draw the same kind of attention or reaction. It takes longer, but it should eventually get the job done.`` It`s certainly true that the bombing campaign didn`t receive much notice from a Gary Condit-fixated media.

Independent military analysts like George Friedman of Stratfor (a private intelligence company) had concluded that this sustained attack on Iraqi air defense was a prelude to another major bombing like 1998`s Desert Fox. This is particularly relevant once again, with frenzied attempts by commentators to link Iraq and bin Laden, or to assert that such a connection wasn`t necessary to justify a renewed bombing of Baghdad (William F. Buckley, National Review, 10/9/01). Laurie Mylroie, an analyst noted for a 1987 New Republic article urging the U.S. to support Saddam Hussein (``Back Iraq,`` 4/27/87), has been making her rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows and op-ed pages (e.g., Wall Street Journal, 9/13/01; CNN Crossfire, 9/27/01) peddling her book, Study of Revenge, claiming that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, based on the questionable analysis of the identity of one man.

TV`s drive to convict Iraq may have something to do with the fact that Iraq has real targets for bombing campaigns, unlike Afghanistan, which is already in ruins after more than 20 years of U.S., Soviet and other foreign meddling. Although no immediate plans to bomb Iraq have been revealed, if the Bush administration follows the advice of hawkish pundits like William Kristol and Fred Barnes, don`t expect U.S. journalists to do a better job than they have so far in explaining the bombing`s impact on the people of Iraq--and on U.S. security.

Rahul Mahajan, a leader of Peace Action and the National Network to End the War Against Iraq, is the author of the forthcoming The New Crusade: America’s War on Terrorism (Monthly Review Press). He can be contacted at rahul@tao.ca.

Rsaxena,

I agree, however the point I was making was that

You have repeatedly called Pakistan`s nationhood as stupid, outdated and medieval, which may or may not be true. Would you say the same about Israel because whereas in Pakistani nationhood religion was just one of the factors with self determination in muslim majority areas playing an important part, whereas Israel is almost wholly based on a religious concept of having a zionist state (an ideal I am not too averse too considering the circumstances).

Sincerely

YLH

In the last post it should read:

but dont show us your upbringing and your lack of good family values by throwing in my name unnecessarily into every single post that you write.

not

but dont show us your upbringing and your lack of good family values by throwing in my name unnecessarily into every single post that you right.

Dr.Abdussalaam : A Great Pakistani hero

I wonder why Jay keeps using my name. I have submitted to chowk atleast two articles on Dr.AbdusSalaam, and anyone who knows me knows I am a passionate admirer of Dr Abdussalam who was also a family friend of mine... his cousin`s daughter is married to my uncle who lives Luton England. Hamidm is right. Dr.Salaam and other people were and still are generally accepted as heroes despite Zia`s official denunciation of him.

Jay doesn`t give two sh-ts about Dr.Salaam, he just wants a stick to beat Pakistanis with. Have it your own way, but dont show us your upbringing and your lack of good family values by throwing in my name unnecessarily into every single post that you right.

It was my policy with my dogs in Pakistan to ignore them as long as they bark, and it worked with them.. I guess they were more civilized.

-Yasser

Tahmed: ``This is no job for an ordinary man, it is a job for superman...where the hell is temporal!!``

He is busy seeing the world. He`s left me incharge till he returns. Unfortunately, we have very different styles. No patience for (a), tried Tried (b), doesnt work.

``(c) send in a post to chowk on behalf of truth and justice every time.``

This is where he`s needed... My way of cursing the false and injust threads is not very diplomatic. I hearby pass his torch to you. Do your thing...

Hamidm,

`.....inspite of the fact that basnat is the only festival that is really celebrated with any fervor in pakistan and most pakis are addicted to indian filums, we continue to deny that most of us are converts who, whether we like it or not, have heeng running in our blood ....... of course, some of us are luckier than others and are the proud descendents of muhammad bin columbus and mahmud ghazni, but not many - most of us are descendents of raja dahir and that pitiful prithvi .........it is really pathetic when high school kids in pakistan give you a blank look when asked about ashoka, chandra gupta, maurya, harsha or their grand-daddy, hanuman the monkey-king .... and it was not like this before the caliphate of hazrat zia .... history books used to start with the indus valley civilization instead of the conquest of sindh and we were dang proud of mohenjo-daro and harrapa ........`

Thankyou.

:)

YLH

tahmed

Well then Perhaps Poster Z can stop standing up for anyone instead of picking and choosing, while ditching people based on personal dislikes.

After all it is the job for the superman right?

-YLH

Somebody please restrain `Rana Ransher` ... he has become out of control. He needs his rabies shot immediately.

Tahmed

John Pilger, quoted Naiz Naik.

Please do not confuse the issue, point I was making was that a point of view, that has a measure of credibility, exists that US was going to attack Afghanistan in October - but that the events of 9/11 provided a trigger and were a coincidence. I find it incredible that the world most powerful, most rich country is at war with the poorest, least powerful. I am also deeply offended by suggestions that taliban and/or AlQaida personnel are less than human and deserving of being treated as soldiers.

I don`t want to go over how horrible the events of 9/11 were or that decent hard working people have made a life in the US - I believe you already know me enough to know where I stand on that score. However; alliegence and loyalty does not mean that thinking persons agree that the US play combatant, prosecutor, judge and jury - nor do I believe suspension of civil liberties on suspicion is defensible - such a situation will only affirming that might makes right and that the only rules in international behaviour are rules of the jungle - If this is the case then how can come to judgements about the events of 9/11?

To Romair:

UNDERSTANDING THE PARANOID MUSLIM MIND PART 2:

THE CASE OF A YOUNG PAF OFFICER.

I have debated whether or not I should share the following with you. Being a patriotic Pakistani and an admirer of the Pakistan Air Force, hailed as one of the best airforces in the world, I feel constrained to do so. 25 years ago, this kind of immature nonsense would have qualified this individual for a courtmartial.

The Background:

The individual in question was a senior of mine at the PAF College Sargodha many moons ago. Let me briefly tell you about the PAF College`s History. It was started in 1953 and almost all of its staff was British or British Educated. The education they received was a first rate one after which they appeared for the British Senior Cambridge examinations. This era stretched from 1953-1971 producing some of the finest names in PAF and BAF Histories. Many of the Sargodhians went on to become Air Chiefs and AVMs. Perhaps the most famous amongst them was Farooq Feroze Khan the erstwhile Pakistan Air Chief and then Joints of Chief, a very liberal western oriented man of grace and class. Also the current BAF`s Chief is from the same period.

Things changed however in 1972 when Bhutto converted the PAF college from a British to a local school thereby giving it a high dose of ideology which he felt was necessary to sustain the Post-Bangladesh Pakistan. This ideology became rabid and anti-western under Zia. I joined PAF College in the mid 1990s and left almost immediately disgusted by the heavy emphasis on Islam and Islamic ideology. One of my seniors there was Mr. Junaid Najmi. I remember once Mr.Junaid Najmi suggested that Pakistan`s creation was wrong. Now whereas I disagree with that statement vehemently, I did assume he was a liberal, mistakenly. However as it became clear to me later on that the only Muslims who really opposed the creation of Pakistan were the Islamic fundamentalists who wanted to convert entire India and perhaps the entire world to Islam.

I have decided to share this with the chowkies because I feel it is necessary we look our faults and shortcomings in the eye instead of sweeping them under the carpet.



THE DIALOGUE:

AOA, and THEN they asked me why I left the PAF college ... if any educated PAF officer like yourself can be so brainwashed by the Mullahs in the mosques, then Pakistan kaa allah hi hafiz hai ... read my answers to your assertions.

`DEAr yasir,

aoa. let me tell u what i mean. i`m not a mad person. nor shall i betray my nation/country. i don`t hate jews for merely being jews. i hate their deeds.



Answer : I was one of the staunchest opponents of Israel a few years ago. However the facts on the ground are that Israel as a state isnt that bad. I have studied them for a long time, and I think by emotionalizing the Palestine issue as a `Muslim` Issue we are not only burning bridges for Pakistan but also ruining the legitimate struggle of the Palestinian People. You say Jews are bad... Allah knows best right? But what I see is that Hamas and Hezbollah blow up innocent civilians, women, elderly and the children of Israel. In the Quran it is clear that you can`t blow up innocent civilians.

` Muslim is supposed to hate the evil in all shapes.`

Answer: Then oppose the brutal killing of innocent Jewish children who Hezbollah and Hamas kill routinely. Hezbollah and Hamas dont attack Israeli army, they attack innocent children. Or is it allowed to kill innocent children just because they are the yahudis....

`feel embarssed that the life of a muslim has become so cheap n the life of a non-muslim so precious. kill thousands of muslims n no one will spk. kill one KAFIR and the complete world will cry. WHY????????????????? `

Answer: Please for God`s sake give up this distinction. A Human Being is a Human being, regardless of religion caste or creed.

`.............it is because as clearly told in our religion, ALL KAFIRS ARE ONE NATION. THEY CANNOT BE OUR FRIENDS.`

Answer : There is NO where in our faith that it says something like that. You are probably pointing to one verse about yahud-o-nasara but that is time specific instruction to the Prophet in his battle of Khyber. Ofcourse every nation has its self interest.

`but still it does not mean that one can simply go out and stsrt killing the non-muslims just

because they are non-muslim. what we r supposed 2 do. we the muslims

are supposed 2 develope strength for fighting the forces of SATAN, these american and british and jewish armies. once we find ourselves ready for that, we must challenge them: 1. they should embrace ISLAM. 2. or they should acceplt supremacy of islamic govt. 3. otherwise the sword will decide between us and them.`

Answer: Give up this war mongering. In Islam there is NO such thing as an `offensive` Jihad. Every Jihad is defensive. We dont need to challenge them for anything. We, the Pakistanis, need to become Economically and socially strong. We HAVE to feed our poor. Educate our children. Provide health care. WE DONT NEED TO GO TO WAR. WE DONT! Please take this silly notion out of your head.

` but there are lot of conditions for commencement of JIHAD. we must find them and then go for it when the conditions are fulfilled. but be sure, that if u are a muslim state, and somebody out of these non-muslims attacks u, the JIHAD is on. yes, if there is no threat 2 any islamic state, or to the lives, property and religion of muslims living in a non-muslim country, the JIHAD then remains in preaching the good teachings of ISLAM 2 our muslim as well as non-muslim brothers (remembers MUSLIMS are one brother hood and all the man-kind is descendant of HAZRAT ADAM alaih-as-salam. so we have brothers in islam and then brothers in humanity). we are supposed 2 look after the worldly life as well as the AAKHIRAT`S life of our all these human brothers.my aim is not to kill the KAFIRS but to kill the KUFAR i.e. i wish 2 make such an effort that all the people over the world should embrace

islam and go to JANNAT.`

Ans: Sad to say... Please give up the Pakistan Air Force and join the Taliban. I am shocked that a person of such fundamentalist ideals which I am going to tell you very frankly as NOTHING to do with Islam., is allowed in the Pakistan Air Force a well renowned institution. 25 years ago the kind of hate-filled rhetoric you are spewing would have qualified you for a courtmartial from the Pakistan Air Force. It seems to me that the hate and propaganda fed by Zia`s regime into the minds of young people is finally taking effect in Pakistan.

` i`ve tried 2 make myself clear 2 u. i don`t know how far i`m successful. if it satisfies u, well and good. if not, may be we can continue discussion on the subject further (if u want). salam. najmi. `

Answer: You Najmi bhai have not satisfied me but have put me under tremendous anxiety. In what you have said, I see the decadence of the Muslim World and of Pakistan. Muslims were once the harbingers of Progress and civilization. Ours was the greatest civilization on earth in the 11th century. It was the crusaders who thought like you. It was the crusaders who brought militancy to Islamic lands... and destroyed the peace in the world. Your mentality right now is indicative of that mindset. Like us, Europe of 11th century was barbaric and backward, and like the West, Islamic world was then the beacon of light and progress. We should find our way through the example of the Golden Age of Islam when Islam became the bastion of liberalism, modernity, education and explosion of Ideas. If we become strong educationally and scientifically, maybe people in the west will come to admire us again. Until then forget it... You will have to kill every single one of them to make them `Muslim`.

Sorry for any harsh Words,

Sincerely

Yasser Hamdani

Akash,

No see the problem is not with me. The problem is with your intolerance of a dissenting view. I for one imbibed the `value` system that you agree with after reading the life story of Mohammad Ali Jinnah in the west. In Pakistan a different picture of the Quaid was painted, one of an Islamic hero, but in the west I came across authors mostly western and Indian who presented a secular modern picture of the man, which impressed me greatly. Let me make something else clear... I am not a liberal by inclination, it is because I see the major influences in my life to be as such.

Your problem with me is not of personalities, for why should you care what personalities I like. It has to do with your hatred for Pakistan and Mr. Jinnah, and your eternal intolerance of a opposing view. You find it offensive that I imbibe my secularism and democratic value system from the very man who you`ve been taught to hate. You want me to declare that no it was Gandhi who taught me this. Well guess what, reading about Gandhi in the west wouldnt have converted me to a secular liberal for a 1000 years.

So you see, the personality of Mr.Jinnah as the fatherlike figure is extremely important in my life for giving me a role model to look upto, very similar I must add to how I view my own father, an upright educated hardworking honest and well dressed businessman. I for one am ready to admit my shortcomings to get to the conclusions I have reached on my own. It is as if Mr.Jinnah led me to these conclusions which have now become embedded in my personality.

So your conflict with me is of an eternal nature. Anyone who insults Jinnah, is insulting me.

Sincerely

Yasser Latif Hamdnai

hamidm # 325;

[i suggest that if we have to identify with someone, let us identfy with our most recent masters - the british ... now here is a real civilization - they gave us the railways, the kutchery, cricket, pants with two legs, and of course, gin and tonic]

dont forget scotch!

[namaste ( with a silly hand-clasp, sheepish smile and head-wag )]

LoL man you are so damn funny its unreal! I love you man!

:-)

anNy;

[its not you..its freud..actually it is you..u know what? im just going to go now and study]

- Actually, if it is Freud, its probably your Mother. Or your Father. Or that time you got stung by a bee as a two year old.

;-)

take care and good luck with exams!

love

Harpreet

Urstruly:
You still don`t know what an Islamist is and what a non Islamist is .......
do you read newspapers (non Islamist ones ie ) aka Rest of the Civilized Worlds newspapars


Allah O Akbar
Death to the Infidel

Dost-Mitter # 272 & 271

Thank you for your input sir.

You say

`` If the threat of armed jihad is taken out of the equation, the ``clash`` becomes merely one of competetition among ideas and ideologies in the world, which should be encouraged by everyone.``

Reply:

Please read your sentence by replacing the word ``Jihad`` with ``war``- see how just the change of one word changes the whole paradigm of thinking. The issue of war vs. Jihad was discussed in detail in my article Jihad: Paradoxes...I will repeat the same argument-and you are well familira with it already.

# 271

I`d actually put the ``Phase II`` into the objective #3-not expliciltly-but that is what I meant.

I liked this paragraph very much:

``But to the extent that your statement is valid, shouldn`t it cause some introspection among thinking Muslims? Is the West`s hostility towards Islam solely because it`s the sole opposition to the Western cultural/economic juggarnaut? Or does it have anything to do with the inability of the muslim intelligentsia to provide enlightened leadership to deal with the contemporary issues (ijtehad, if you will) while leaving the field free to the fundamentalists, with their emphasis on incendiary slogans of armed jihad and umma uber alles. After all, it wasn`t Huntington who divided the world into a dar-ul-islam and dar-ul-harb. The ``clash of civilisations`` is inevitable only if Islam is hijacked by Islamists.``

Reply:

You have discussed very important point. I usually refer to something as a movement called ``fundamentalism``. This movement is a movement of introspection and it is taking place in all most every segment of Muslim civilization-the West usually refers to it and mixes it (deliberately) with the extremism. This movement is a movement of education, reform, and awareness. As I have told earlier, this is a self-propelled phenomenon and it has more to do with the increasing interaction with other cultures and civilizations. Muslim world cannot remain isolated and it has never been like Soviet Union, therefore this process is slow, subtle, but effective. And this phenomenon has saved this civilization from a Martin Luther. So you wont see something of that sort as it is commonly expected.

Please also make the distinction between Fundamentalists and Extremists as I have alread explained it to Shammi.

And your comment:

``The ``clash of civilisations`` is inevitable only if Islam is hijacked by Islamists.``

Please explain what is a non-Islamist. I dont think that such a specie exists. It is either you are one of us or you are not-kind of thing. Some other interlocutor once put it even better than me. I paraphrase ``Either you are patriotic or not, there is no such thing as `kinda patriotic`; similarly a woman gets pregnant or not-there is no such thing as ``a little bit pregnant`` or ``kinda pregnant`` etc. I hope you understand this delicate point.

jay #295
On a personal level, its best to avoid making the same mistake, ie, making no distinction between an abstraction and a human, in exactly the same way. Else you know what a mess that can create...