We, The Muslim Americans

Shammi

Your alif, bay etc. are components of one of the perspective. The main bone of contention b/w Ph and Is is the israels` forceful evacuation of palestinian people, forceful confiscation of their land and property, and building of colonies in the occupied/disputed territories, which is against Geneva convention and every resolution that UN has ever passed and duly vetoed by US. World is not dumb, world has spoken several times, unanimous resolutions have been passed against Israel several times and each time vetoed by US.

Whenever, there are serious peace talks between Israel and palestinians, Israel uses this period of lull to establish more colonies, confiscate more land, and extend its settlement. When Palestinian object to this, Israel claims that Palestinians are not serious about Peace. India has historically used the same strategy in Kashmir. Whenever, there were peace talks between Pak and India, India simultaneously quadruples its violence on people of Kashmir; during the bus diplomacy nonsense India started using bombers and fighter jets to bomb Kashmiri people thinking that, it has got free liscence to kill while peace talks are going on; hence there was a Kargil.

But anyway, I didnt understand the logic of your post. Are you trying to suggest that since victim is stupid and incompetent therefore violence against it is justified? And I am not surprised by this logic, I know of several rape prosecution cases where defendent try to argue that since the woman he raped was mentally retarted, therefore, his crime is less of a crime. It happens.

semipreciousme #325 ``...pakistan really does come first``. Agree. Suggest a small ammendment: ``...the people of pakistan come first``, or even ``people come first``, or even better ``the unborn generations come first``. A country is too vague a notion: bad things can be done in the ``national interest``. E.g., fights over land may be in the national interest (more square miles of land), but not in the peoples` interest, and certainly not in the interest of future generations who will probably live in a world where countries are as so-o-o-o 19th century.

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

Saminashah:

I am neither an Arab, nor a Jew -- I do not have any axes to grind on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and would like to think that i am unbiased.

Ofcourse, I agree with you that all life is precious (be it Israeli or Arab), but you would be deluding yourself if you think that the Arabs and Israelis agree to that notion. In fact, based upon the notion of suicide attacks, I will hasten to add that perhaps the Palestinians do not think of their lives as being particularly valuable. Sure, their lot is desperate, but desperate enough to engage in suicide attacks? Come on, give me break. There are far more poor, dispossed people in the world about whom the world doesn`t give a damn. Think Tibetans, Aborigines, etc.

Here are some of the historical facts:

aliph) Palestinians rejected the 1948 Partition Plan which the Israelis had agreed to. Do a Web search, and see for yourself how much land the Palestinians would have got -- it is a heck of a lot more than the W. Bank and Gaza.

bay) Palestinians have had terrible leadership that has consistently backed a bunch of losers (a) Ottoman Turks in WW1, Nazis in WW2, Soviets in Cold War, Saddam Hussein in Gulf War, not to mention any number of Arab states in losing wars with Israel. Now, if you tell me that any group/community/nation will not suffer after having made so many strategic blunders, and will not lose the goodwill of the world, then you and I are on completely different planes, and the twain shall never meet. Arafat is lucky that he can call himself a Nobel laureate after all the blunders he has made.

tay) I have yet to hear a good plan from Arafat for uplifting the Palestinian people (schools, education, etc.). And this from a man who rejected Clinton`s Camp David proposals in 2000. Has he given you any reason as to why he did that? He does not have to fight with Israel to get a Palestinian state -- Ehud Barak was ready to give him one in 2000. So, who do you think insisted on the Intifada?

The world is not dumb, and is getting wise about Arafat`s ploys -- brings Lincoln`s adage to mind -- you can fool some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, but not all people all the time.

Yeah, sure poor Israelis and Palestinians are killing each other (and probably will for the next 100 years), but remember it takes two make the peace, and only one to break it.

Regards

re saminashah

Point well taken. Indeed there are those in Israel who see their Arab co-citizens as second-class and ugly. But samina, how do you expect Israel to negotiate with someone who is going to go on and target cafes, hotels, malls everyday with a chilling disregard for innocent life?

And about Palestinian life, where was this outrage when Syrians had beseiged Arafat in 1983 in Tripoli under very similar circumstances? Or when Shia Amal militiamen carried out the butchery in Sabra, Ain-el-Hilweh, and Bruj el Brajneh against Palestinians in 1984-85? Where was the furour when Libya deported ten thousand Palestinian men, women, children to die in the deserts of the Egyptian-Libyan border?

This is what I am getting at: do these PLO `sympathizers` really care about Palestinian lives or just about scoring a point against Jews?

re nasah

``I find it rather amusing to read this comment from -- an ex Mukti Bahini APOLOGIST and -- an ex East Pakistani.``

I was never an ex-East Pakistani. That entity ceased to exist on March 26, 1971, some time before I came to this world.

The rest of your post is simply absurd in comparing apples and oranges. The Independence struggle for Bangladesh was led by an elected government, directed by professional military men who did not plant bombs in Karachi`s Hotel Metropole nor hijack PIA jets. I think you are still upset at the humiliation meted out when 93,000 fine soldiers strutted with their chestful of Nishan-e-this and Tamgha-e-that straight into the arms of Allied captivity, marking the biggest surrender till then of a Muslim army.

RE:Naqshbandi Sahib #337

``It is easy, then, to imagine that among the Jews of the Hijaz who were apparently involved in mystical speculations associated with the merkabah, Ezra, because of the traditions of his translation, because of his piety, and particularly because he was equated with Enoch as the Scribe of God, could be termed one of the Bene Elohim. And, of course, he would fit the description of religious leader (one of the ahbar of the Qur`an 9:31) whom the Jews had exalted.[3]

The Islamic exegetes have mentioned that there existed a community of Jews in Yemen who considered Ezra as son of God. Hirschberg says in Encylopedia Judaica:

``

Does this mean that Muhammad who was in the vicinity at the time of the ``revelation`` of Koran may have known this. Since, it was an offshoot of jews in hijaz (and not all Jews as unqualifiedly termed in Koran) at that time had beliefs as above.

Thanks.

re: nasah & sigalph

why are you two otherwise sane & intelligent gentlemen biting each other over israelis vs. palestinians?

re: saminashah

{{I`ll look at the link you posted and get back to you; have you seen T. Friedman`s column in the Op-Ed section of the NYT today? Why are we not seeing an article that counterbalances it?}}

because there is no way to argue against what he wrote....suicide bombing as an instrument of negotiation is wrong, and sets a dangerous precedent...how can you counter that?...why would you counter that?...

re: anNy # 330

It is the heart, not intelligence, that is missing.

It requires heart to put oneself in another`s place - to feel the pain of a child`s flesh being burnt, the agony of people`s rib-cages being crushed, or the absurdity of their body-parts being sliced off and scatterred in the wind.

Intelligence is trivially common. Far too often, it serves the Master of bigotry. The rare gem - the one we rarely find - is the heart.

A very well written article reflecting the aspirations and difficulties of a growing muslim community in the united states. However, the subtle distinction between the overall american system within the US and its influence abroad also needs to be understood.

The term Islamic Terrorism has become so un tangibly coupled with Islam and Muslims that even a mild and justified criticism on American Foreign policy may invite the wrath of american security agencies. From the American standpoint this hysteria might be justified as they have suffered extremely at the hands of so called Islamic Fundamentalists. But the essential problem of a biased and un justified foriegn policy that needs no re-iteration, still remains.

The american muslims must prove from their actions that they are a freedom loving and humane part of this great society. However as the time progresses, it is also vital for them to point out the fatal flaws in the american policy and the mindset of its makers. This can be done in any form or shape that is permitted by the constitution of this country. But the effective expression of this point would go a long way for the betterment of lives of our fellow countrymen back home and would give a more meaningful definition to our Islamic Identity.

IT IS OFFICIAL

``If you think you are not a Harami, and you think that your parents are also legitimate children of your grandparents then you chose Parvez Musharaf as president of Pakistan for next 5 years``. Yes/No

CHOWK STAFF

Please set up a poll. Lets see what real people think, not genies. (off course not with that question;)

Semipreciousme # 325

Don`t be fooled by this government annuncement that they are taking back 15% GST from the ``life saving drugs``. This is one of the oldest and dirtiest tricks Paki rulers play with the masses. The 15% GST has been taking off of prescription drugs-these are those drugs, for which people usually sell their houses, or are for the sicknesses that only rich can afford. The over the counter drugs, the drugs that common pakistani buys still has 15% GST.

shankar #331: ``OK OK I`m not an ``expert`` like you guys.``

This line discredits your entire reply. If you are, by your own admission, not an expert, then how can you back up your reply.

``Personally, I think he`s an extremely biased ``expert``.``

He is biased only in one area, which is what I myself pointed out in a previous reply; in the direction of, ``Islmaic warrior`` concept. Apart from that, he is infact very unbiased. He is however an internationally recognized expert on the area. Whether I agree with him or not, is immaterial. What is material is that he is an expert.

Why exactly would he be biased towards Pakistan? Perhaps he is a member of the ISI. Yeah, that`s it. His real name is Eric ``Gul Khan`` Margolis, and he is a Pathan ISI member in disguise.

``I think their mentality influenced him more than the other way around``

If someone speaks well of Pakistan, in any capacity, why does everyone from Dhaka to Bombay go berserk. Otherwise sane individuals, all of a sudden hit the highs of the jealousy meter. Yes, the Pakistanis brainwashed Margolis. The guy who has been in so many wars, was brainwashed by Pakistani Majors (now I have heard everything). Are their any psychiatric theories to back this up, i.e. a journalist presents facts in a manner that do not appeal to you, hence he was brainwashed.

``The one thing that you Pakistani military guys NEVER have a shortage of is PRIDE. Often times ``chest thumping pride``:)) That pride is very subconciously evident in your post. Like the kind ylh demonstrates when he talks about the unconquerable PAF--deep down you ``feel`` like he does, about the capability of the Pakistani military..esp the PAF.``

I have yet to figure out why you and others keep considering me a military guy. In term of life experiences, I am 1/3rd military and 2/3rd civilian. In terms of current profession, I a 3/3rd civlian.

As for the PAF, I try to present the facts as I see them. My emphasis was totally on the quality of the US-supplied aircraft vs. ancient Soviet technology. The Soviets did interdict into Pakistani airspace hundreds of times. Why did they do that?

``What do you think India`s military buildup against Pakistan is?!---``

Let`s suppose it isn`t a, ``hool.`` Then what exactly should Pakistan do. Are you suggesting that Pakistan should not defend itself against India?

Infact, this is not a hool; at least not in the sense that you are suggesting. India is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on this buildup. This is forcing Pakistan to spend an equal amount. This is the actual military strategy of India. It knows that with an eight times larger economy, the effects of the costs on Pakistan are much higher. This is exactly what India has done in Siachen. It is in India`s long term interests to get Pakistan into stalemates. Unfortunately, at the cost of poor South Asians.

The above is obvious to everyone. And most Pakistani commentators figured it out a long time ago. Unfortunately, one cannot just withdraw the whole military, when 1 million troops are standing at the border. What if India then marches five miles into Pakistan, and claims it as its own (oh wait, didn`t that happen in 1947 in Kashmir?).

``You really think Pakistan is THAT much a covetted piece of strategic real estate, that the Soviets would attack Afghanistan, primarily to attack Pakistan??``

No, I don`t. But I do think the warm waters of the Arabian Sea are very coveted for a country like the Soviet Union, which wanted to establish a solid blue water navy.

As I stated earlier, the Soviets wanted to control Pakistan politically, and if that wasn`t possible than militarily. You have yourself stated this:

``They absolutely believed that Communism (esp Soviet style communism) was the best form of society---esp for poor countries.``

Why would the Soviets stop at Afghanistan? Why not give this idea a try in Pakistan, or Iran, also?

correction #326: ``Romair #294:``

should read,

temporal #294:

re: Asif Naqshbandi # 337

Whenever I see the tagline ``Allah (or equivalent) knows best`` I feel a shudder. In all such cases the author/interlocutor suggests that he/she does not have the intelligence/courage to defend the logic of his/her (regurgitated) words, or even, is too embarrassed to stand behind those words all on his/her own.

So what does one gain by reading such things or conversing with such people?