The Clash Of Un-Civilizations And Osama-ism

Yahuda Goldsteen

Welcome to Chowk!

Scout Reply #: 14

``you can use all your pseudo-intellectual jargon to analyze it, but you won`t get anywhere, so why waste your precious time. go carry groceries for an old lady and do other little good things for people around you. do what you can, what`s in your power to help humanity, and quit with the analyses``.

Like HELLO!!! so why are YOU ``wasting`` your time here imparting knowledge and enlightening the ``ghareeb ghurba`` like myself, huh? Why don`t YOU go and carry groceries for an old lady instead of analysing this dude`s article. Atleast he made an effort and came up with something after researching... and what did you do ma`am if I may ask... except for sitting on that lovely behind of yours? Ajab bayhodgee hai yaar:P

Urstruly:.

[To achieve a reasonable, peaceful, and honorable solution to the problems in Kashmir, Albania, Chechnya, East Timor, Philippines etc.]

So the Arab wants to solve the problem of East Timor and the Phillipines. I can understand Kashmir and Chechnya. But what is the problem with the Phillipines. The problem in the Phillipines is of Jihadi scumbags decapitating westerners and Catholics to try and secede. And whats up with East Timor? Christians have got independance from Muslim Indonesia. Tell me, isnt that self-determination. Or is that only legitimate when it is the Muslim seeking self determination away from the Kaffir?

I would seriously like to hear you explain the situation over these two territories, Phillipines and East Timor. Thanks.

Sarwar

Mr Zakaria is a mediocre intellect, self-absorbed and out of touch with reality.However, He is completely right that Jinnah was a complete rogue, out of touch with the lives and aspirations of Indian Muslims. Unlike Jawahar Lal, he had no sense of history, no poetic instinct, and no great oratorical skill. Unlike Gandhi, he lacked idealim, spirituality and self sacrifice. And unlike Maulana Azad, he lacked knowledge of Islam, Arabic, Urdu and the foundations of Islamic life in India. He was a third rater who founded a third rate state that was ripped apart into 2 even more third rate states 30 years ago. This is no insult to the People of Pakistan and Bangladesh, but a recognition of the reality of the polities they inhabit.

Jinnah did not care a damn for the Muslims left behind in India. Never once did he express concern for them. It was these Muslims, not the Punjabis Sindhis and Pathans who had spearheaded the Pakistan movement (a terrible mistake). Anyway this is history. The 2 nation theory was buried with full honors the day that ``Tiger`` Niazi signed the surrender document, heralding the birth of the Bangali nation. Muslims in India recoginze the two nation theory for what it is..garbage. We are defined by much more than religion..by geography, race, food, etc. and I am part and parcel of India. Bengali Muslims still smart from the insults and trauma they suffered under 25 years of West pakistani rule...the racism of the Pakistani Punjabis who overtly ridiculed the Bengalis for their darker complexions and racial features stands as one of the great racisms of the century. Ironic that equally fair colored Punjabi indians do not despise their Bengali indian compatriots.

It is time that someone exposed Jinnah for who he was...a two timing rogue seeking absolute power and manipulating uneducated and illiterate Muslims. He did not contribute an ounce to independence from England. I dont think he spend a single day or night in Jail (see the contrast with Maulana Azad Saheb). I am only disappointed that the expose of Jinnah flows from the pen of someone so mediocre as Mr Rafiq Zakaria.

Dr Ali Akbar Poonawala

Jammu, India.

`He Did It for Allah` (The Washington Post)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42061-2001Nov30.html

Somewhere in the article above (go to link for details) is a statement by the dead man’s cousin that ‘America is the biggest terrorist’. It reminded me immediately of an identical statement by Romair soon after 9/11. While the characters in the story can seek cover under ignorance, poverty and illiteracy, what cover does Romair seek? That is the sort of moral ambiguity and moral equivalence (If OBL is a terrorist, so is the US government logic) that is a significant part of the problem. It is an exceedingly difficult struggle for the Pakistani middle class to not abandon the segments of society from whence these individuals come, but if they do not succeed, the consequences for Pakistan are dire. At stake is the heart and soul of Pakistan.

Here is an interview with an individual who has seen both sides of an armed struggle, and the poisonous effects it has on society:

The Rediff Interview/Former ISI agent Mir Khursheed

http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/nov/30inter.htm

Re: Yahooda Goldstein

``...Muslims were very violent...``

Yahooda, I do not think that living in Israel would have exposed you to the non-violent, moderate Islam that is practised in the Sub-continent. In the early part of the last century, in the areas of Pakistan where today most of the `volunteers` for Afghanistan emerge from, there was a Muslim man who organized his people in peaceful, non-violent opposition to British rule. His name was Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, also known as Frontier Gandhi. If you do not belive it and would like additional proof, then simply read what is going on today in Bangladesh -- no jehadis coming from there, or read how Indian Muslims have ignore the Afghanistan war. There was an article on the subject posted in the NY Times by Thomas Friedman who knows the middle east quite well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/20/opinion/20FRIE.html

Maulana Urstruly:

It is gratifying to see that you have chosen to use the pen to voice dissent rather than adopting the advice that you gave me. That advice, roughly stated, was, `I shall be expecting you to put a bullet between my eyes, and you should expect me to do the same to you`. As long as you continue to write seemingly well-researched articles on Chowk, full of references and URLs, there still is hope that a clash of civilizations may yet be averted.

While I admire the trouble that you took to write a long article, complete with references, I think that your conclusions are mostly wrong. Take the example of your comment on Huntington`s Reason #3. You claim that colonial education is responsible for `Islamic fundamentalism`, but ignore the fact that many ex-colonies (including those that are Muslim) do not exhibit fundamentalism. You also fail to draw a connection between growth of fundamentalism and a lack democratic governance.

But, do keep writing in the meantime -- I really read your entire article.

Re: Ferozk

I join you in your opposition to Urstruly`s views. I agree with you where you said, ``Even if these laws do curtail the civil liberities, the American legislators are still accountable to their people``.

Indeed Lincoln`s decision to unconstitutionally suspend habeus corpus and other fundamental rights has been vindicated by subsequent events and history. It is pointless to argue for the defence of some laws, when the entire of fabric of society is faced with ruin, as was the case in 1861. The temporary suspension of civil liberties may be necessary to ensure freedom`s eventual victory in the long-run. Nobody would argue today that the US is not better off due to the abolition of slavery and the quelling of the rebellion in 1865.

``The electorate system is still viable in the United States and it is from this, that the bedrock of American civil liberities springs from, and which more than can be said about most countries in the world.``

So very true!

I disagree with you on a few factual matters:

``...According to an agreement, for every state that entered the Union as a free state, there had to be a slave state...``

And which agreement was that? I am not aware of any such agreement.

``... he (Lincoln) ended the slavery to keep the British from entering the war, on the side of the Confederate states...``

Actually no. The British were sympathetic to the South, but due to their abhorence of slavery preferred to stay out of the war. Lincoln ended slavery (through the Emancipation Proclaimation) not to prevent the British from entering the war (that appears to be your hypothesis), but for two reasons -- (a) because he believed that by freeing the slaves the South will be greatly weakened, and the North strengthened, and (b) that by initiating the war, the South should have to pay a price in the form of abrogation of slavery. Lincoln believed that by being the first to attack (Southern attack on Ft. Sumter) and initiate hostilities, the South could not be let off the hook, and that they had fundamentally changed the parameters of debate over slavery. The Southern attack hardened Lincoln`s position from (i) tolerating it in the South as long as it was not expanded to new territories (e.g. Kansas) to (ii) completely eliminating it in the South.

...too bad only you, OBL, and few irrelevant madrassah boys believe this...

Goldsteen #23 ``Bragging about 1.2 billion ignorant, illiterate, intolrent, illinformed, islamic jehadis which has caused so much menace in the world. ``

You dont seem to read too well. Please read my post again and ask yourself if I am ``bragging`` about 1.2 b. people or advising you not to generalize. If you still dont get it, then I think you need to apply the above objectives (ignornat, illiterate, intolerant, illinformed individual) to yourself, and have fun fighting a Battle of the Morons with urstruly.

username #19, ``Like HELLO!!! so why are YOU ``wasting`` your time here imparting knowledge and enlightening the ``ghareeb ghurba`` like myself, huh?``

What knowledge did I impart? I don`t consider it a waste of time telling someone they`re wasting their time. Besides, I can tell anyone whatever I want to, just like you can tell me whatever you want to. So where does that bring us? By the way, what`s ``ghurba?``

``Why don`t YOU go and carry groceries for an old lady instead of analysing this dude`s article.``

Excuse me, dumbo, I did NOT analyze his article. If you want to read an analysis, read sadna`s response to this article. Why don`t you know the difference between an analysis and an opinion?

About carrying groceries, I have done it...and I will. Instead of worrying about what I have done, why don`t you follow my example and do something nice for a stranger too.

``Atleast he made an effort and came up with something after researching...``

Yes, time permitted, anyone can do a tremendous research project on something as stupid and inconsequential as dandruff. Doing it doesn`t make one any better than someone who hasn`t done it.

``and what did you do ma`am if I may ask... except for sitting on that lovely behind of yours? Ajab bayhodgee hai yaar:P``

Don`t ask me what I`ve done, ask yourself what you`ve done sitting on your ugly behind (no wait, that`s ur face, sorry) and posting a stupid reply to me (in which I might add, i wasn`t speaking to urstruly, not you)?

Had hai bayghairati ki. Go hide your face now.

Sarwari # 3

It is always good to know your perspective. Your mentioning of Auldous Huxley`s alpha, beta, and gamma did hit a chord in sync with my thinking. I was actually thinking on the lines of pre-revolution France where people were divided into 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Estates. Now when this world has become unipolar the analogy appears to be sharper than ever.

In pre-revolution France the power structure was divided in three parts. The First Estate constituted the monarchy and the clergy of first order-in present day terms an equivalence may be drawn it to represent US and West who not only want to (but actually do) control the rest of the world using colonial tactics with new name of Globalization but consider themselves the moral torch brearers as well (the clergy part). The Second Estates used to be the mercantile class plus clergy of lower order- a parallel in this case can be drawn as the sattelite states such as France, Germany, Italy and Japan etc. whose morality is directly proportional to the adventures and misadventures of First Estate and the way it will benefit their mercantilist aspirations. The Third Estate of course was the peasant and workers class with no rights and whose only function was to work for 1st and 2nd Estate-use your imagination and draw parallel to the countries (even civilizations) in the present world .

Sarwari, I would really like to know your views on the ``three Estates``.

Scout

All analyses are done with the sole purpose of reaching to a conclusion after examining different perspectives. It is the nature of the beast that the conclusion can never be the sum total of all perspectives-it is the one perspective that ``wins``. So you`re wrong in a sense that there is a difference between analysis and opinion. However, opinion in the restricted sense is a conclusion without analysis. We must appreciate the difference.

THis article was an attempt to learn and not to sermonize-since it is presented on an interactive forrum. And in the beginning in the synopsis I did elaborate that the main objective of this article is to prove (or disprove)Huntington`s thesis. And you know it very well that I am never an absentee writer who just slaps his ideas into readers face and disppears. I respond, I put my ideas for examination, I admit my shortcommings, and I explain and I never retract.

I am sorry that this article did not meet your expectations. Being on an interactive forrum I would really like to know what specifically disappointed you; it will help me improve on my next project.

Karakoram # 5

Your question about the ``alterntive`` is extremely important and it is a debate in itself (I dont remember being asked about this question before). Anyway, if you check the part two of this article you will see a comparison of the ``collateral damage``. The best solution to any conflict is not avoiding the conflict but to resolve it. Will appreciate your opinion as to what could be the possible solutions.

Arjun_m # 6 has a solution, is it the only solution?

Mr. Goldsteen

According to Huntington there are in fact 8 civilizations in the world at present. I was wondering where jews fit in according to his thesis. (This is a serious question).

The Un-serious question:

Why Goldstein is spelled as Goldsteen, and you also meissed an ``h`` in the Salom. It should be ``Shalom``. You dont need to answer un-serious questions;)

Raw-Dust # 13

Excellent observation. Yep it is me who phrased those issues and I think I did elaborate that in my subsequent paragraph where I wrote:

``These objectives have been reiterated by OBL several times in his interviews with the media.``

(but the wording is mine)

But it was his first speech that he sent by a video cassette to Al-Jazeera after 9/11 where he actually enumerated these issues. Unfortunately I couldnt find the full text of that interview (sermon :)) anywhere. In order to verify please check the following:

http://history1900s.about.com/cs/osamabinladen/

You can get more info in this regard by typing you-know-what in your search engine.
I hope that helps.