We, The Muslim Americans

#493 shammi

Sorry, i don`t see how this relates to withdrawal of the IDF from the occupied territories. Regardless of whatever transpired, the IDF would have remained to protect the settlements that israel claims are in ``disputed territory.`` Had israel agreed to the dismantling of the settlements, then, yes, Arafat should have grabbed the chance with both hands. Nothing i have read suggests that israel would agree to turn over all of west bank and gaza to the PA.

BTW, i`ve been israel and driven by Ramallah. Separating the palestinian and israeli areas would be like separating new delhi and old delhi. They are all right next to each other.

Re: soysauce

Kindly read:

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/campdavid2000.htm

Please pay special attention to the phrase, `The final status issues that were being negotiated - Jerusalem, security, borders and refugees...`

#490 Shammi

We don`t know exactly what was offered in camp david because nothing was written down. It was all speculation. What is beyond doubt is that even as Barak was talking peace, construction of settlements was picking up pace. If you also look at the map on the BBC site, the palestinian state would be cut up by israel (occupied territories to be precise) such that the state would not be contiguous.

#476 anNy

Thanks for the read. Christian Science Monitor & Haa`retz also write about people on either side who are sick of all the violence and desire an honorable settlement. Carrying on historic and tribal grudges, as the israeli and palestinian establishments do, does neither people any good. I have israeli friends, who probably have been called to ``serve``, who are very liberal and are grateful to Rabin for trying to break the cycle of violence but feel powerless nonetheless. It`s like the americans who think Bush is drunk on power and feel frustrated that he has NO positive agenda. Democracy is wicked that way - it lulls you into thinking that you count for something but then you lose out in the numbers game.

Compared to the last intifada when the ordinary palestinians were relatively docile, this time around the palestinians are more militant and are battle-hardened. (Similar thing has happened in kashmir also) It would be in israel`s best interest to adopt a pragamtic policy. Sharon is giddy with military might, has no long-term strategy for peace and is driven by tribal emotions. Likewise with Arafat although Arafat has no military power to speak of.

The palestinians should be content with a contiguous state for now. When peace and prosperity are achieved, the refugees can return wherever they`d be welcome. Seems like even the idiot in the white house realizes that it cannot go on like this forever; that raw military power will not guarantee long-term stability when a whole generation starts to despise you.

AnNy:

Thanks for the interview transcript. The interview with the conscientious objector in the IDF clearly indicated that he is against the presence of the IDF in the W. Bank/Gaza. This is precisely what Barak offerred in 2000 that Arafat refused. Instead, Arafat launched the Intifada. So, what is the point -- that Israeli occupation of W. Bank is wrong? We know that -- the formula has been `land for peace`. Barak was willing to give it up. But, if Israel gives it up under current circumstances, it will be only a matter of time before there is a reason to re-occupy it (just as in `67).

Shammi

Keynesian or any other solution is dependent on the nature of the problem and the time frame and resources available to solve it. I`m not calling for a command economy but rather for a National Service, in the form a literacy corps seems to me, is a need of our time, in Pakistan.

The allocation of resources towards solving problems as a methodology is obvious. I think you are making an error in thinking that the areas identified for State action will remain static or will dominate or even reduce the sphere of the private economy; I have something of the sort in mind, National Service would develop and direct manpower towards those national imperatives most amenable to the remedy of National service. You are employing a particular and inferring a general that does not apply.

Whether volunteer or compulsory, for a given, specific period.

Should citizenship we earned? Should all citizens be vested in this way? Does Liberty not require that we act vigorously to sustain and promote it? I think, to the degree that Pakistanis can help other Pakistanis to realize such ``rights`` as education, it is a good thing. A literacy corps as part of National Service can reach into every crevice and corner of Pakistan, to the remotest part, National Service can provide the manpower to upgrade communications (roads, bridges, rail tracks, ports, harbors, etc.,) Reforestation projects, building of and manpower for environmental conservation projects, such as National Parks Service -

Such an enterprise can be the most integrative force in society, it also enables the implantation and growth of the notion of social mobility.

Were Pakistan to be a society in which there was a shortage of manpower or that the two years of service would take needed workers out of the economy, causing havoc, certainly we could refine or revisit the efficacy of the entire idea of National Service - but the reality in Pakistan is that we have a surplus of manpower - it is also true that we have a shortage of skilled manpower, especially those with industrial skills. Every year the ranks of the unemployed and the underemployed swells; social and political consequences attendant. National Service, which provides basic training and vocational training, followed by field service is a win-win for Pakistan and Pakistani citizens.

Re: Stuka`s post addressed to me

Hey! Why the gratuitous insult? The line you quoted was from Shammi`s post anyway, not mine. I would say that all the smart people (i.e., Muslims) left and the ones left behind are rising to their level of competence. I assume, from some of your posts, that your family/father was in the Army. Is your family also by any chance from Jhajjar?

My father`s family joined either the police or the army (manly the army) so its interesting to hear that now they mainly join the Air Force. A cousin of mine in the army is the fifth generation of his family to loyally serve the Raj (white or brown). A few years back we--father, me, cousins/uncles who were visiting--sat down and counted the number of relatives (up to nth cousins) who were faujis and stopped counting at something like 40+ when it was time to go for dinner. The VCOAS of the Pakistan Army, no relation to us, also hails not that far from Jhajjar--Gen. Yusuf is a Ranghar.

shankar #447: Your remarks are quite accurate. I have seen all of this from the inside. This is true all over the world. But true, more so, in Pakistan. Primarily due to the Martial Laws, as well as due to the failiure of the elected govts., as well.

It turns into a question of placing the blame. Civilians blame the military govts., and proclaim that if civilian govts. were allowed to go through election after election, things would have been alright.

Military leaders state that things were so bad towards the end of all civilian govts. that had they allowed to continue, Pakistan would have been bankrupt.

On the whole, it is a question of letting out individual frustrations, and not blaming one`s own kind.

Where do I stand, after having been bombarded from both sides. You must have seen the quick reaction on Chowk for people, including yourself, to consider me a representative of the military, even though I haven`t touched a G-3 rifle for ten years now; I get the same reaction, in the other direction from my military colleagues. This is an indication of the biases and prejudices in these two groups:

I think Pakistani leadership has been pathetic; both military and civilian. So both need to be blamed, rather than blaming the other and protecting one`s own.

However, I would divide the Pakistani society as a whole into various vertical groups: 1) the leadership (feudal families, generals, big business, politicians etc.): this is the group I wrote the detailed reply on covering the families. 2) the upper middle class/middle class critics (this is most of the people on chowk, expatriate Pakistanis, those in the military who come from well to do families down to those professionals who do not come from well to do families, the shopkeepers etc.). I would put myself into this group. This group doesn`t have power to run the country, but is independent enough economically to criticize) 3) common citizen of Pakistan (mostly uneducated, does not speak English, cannot read of write, peasants etc.; this group is only concerned about making a day to day living)

The problem of Pakistan is group no. 1. As I explained in my, ``powerful families`` post, it doesn`t really matter whether the PPP, ANP, PML, Army, beaurecracy is running the country, it is nearly always in the control of the, ``families.`` So blaming any party or the Army as a separate entity is immaterial. If the PML is so concerned about the Army, why the hell did it appoint Zia-ul-Haq and Ayub Khan`s son`s as SVPs in its party. If the PPP is so concerned, then why does it accept relatives of members from the PML in horse-trading, etc.

It is just a family business, everyone on top is connected, or quickly marries into connections. So the Army vs. civilian ruler debate is useless. What is more important is the family vs. non family debate.

Musharraf belongs to the non-family group, and has not made any move to enter into the family group. Does it really matter whether he is from the Army or from the clergy or from Delhi, for that matter? What is more important is that he is not from the, ``powerful families,`` and hopefully is willing to break their hold on power. Unfortunately, all previous CMLA Generals who had this power (and were from the non-family group also) have not broken this grip and have actually joined the families group vigorously, as if there was no tomorrow.

Group no. 2 is really frustrated, somewhat naive, and is unsure of what they want. Various factions of this group keep arguing over whose representatives in the no. 1 (family group) are more pious. Quite a useless debate, if you ask me. The actual attempt should be to wipe out the whole no. 1 group, as an entity. Which is what I presented in my solutions to breaking powerful families reply.

Group no. 3 couldn`t give a damn if Pakistan was under Martial Law or a democracy or under Hindu rule. For some reason, members of Group 2 keep suggesting that group 3 (50% of Pakistan) actually is dying for a right to vote. I don`t know why they think that, but it is not true. Group 3 just has one concern, and that is to put some food on their plate. That is why they happily migrate to UAE, and give up their rights to voting, anytime the opportunity comes up. Whomever can bring the most economic progress to them is the person they want running the country. The could care less if he were elected, non-elected, a king, a referendumly elected, a General, or a janitor.

So when someone criticizes the military, one cannot do so as one entity. I am the biggest critic of the military men belonging to group 1, since I know their faults and virtues personally. However, I am a huge defender of military men in the second group (colonels and below) and those in the third group (jawans, etc.). Putting the whole military, or the whole civilian world, in one bucket is a very prejudiced way of looking at things, in my opinion.

All:

this is a digression. It is a pow-wow between me and Ustruly. Others, skip to the next post.

Urstruly,

Having observed the vicarious pleasure that you derive from obtaining an understanding of Hindu mythology, I have material here that should continue to give you oodles of pleasure for some time to come. Apparently, the tradition of human sacrifices for Mother Goddess Shakti are being revived in Assam! It was a practice thought to have died out completely, but in the wonder that is India, a revival of the `Nara Bali` practice has been uncovered. `Unfortunately` they use effigies, not real humans. The link is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1908000/1908706.stm

Hopefully, you will find enough material and links to more juicy material.

RE: Reply #: 456 Romair

Your treatise on Indian defense spending was enlightening. However, let me as you a couple of simple questions:

1) How come Pakistan has been under military rule for well over half it`s existence? Do Pakistani military rulers think that the danger from India is so grave that they have to imprison their own citizens?

2) How come Pakistani ministers are running around world capitals with either a begging bowl or requests to have their debt forgiven but can still find $3 billion plus to arm themselves against one ``hostile`` neighbor?

3) How come even the head of the local flower arrangement society in Pakistan is a sitting General?

4) How come Pakistani leaders talk so much about righteousness but expediently wriggle out of solemn agreements like the Shimla accord?

Enquiring minds want to know.

I could go on, but ...

Re: Hobbyty

``...These two years, after basic training and technical vocational training be spent in a field of endeavor identified by THE STATE? ...``

Are you a Keynesian economist? The Soviet Union, East Germany, North Korea, Cuba have all tried allocation of resources based upon a bureaucrat`s decision. Guess what, it was a total failure.

Re: Stuka

``...At least as far as Pakistanis are concerned, they should be grateful to the Army coz that`s the only reason your country has survived...``

Now that is a debate in itself.

Anyone who looks at the utterly dysfunctional British royal family as a role model is beyond help.

later

-sac

Reply #: 409 Asif Naqshbandi

[the jews at the time of Musa alayhisalam who followed him were BELIEVERS and the Muslims of that time and we TOTALLY SUPPORT THEM. At that time the Bani Israil WERE the chosen of Allah BUT as the Qur`an informs us they became cursed later on]

Interesting observation. The betrayal of Moosa by his followers is clearly spelt out in Al-Baqra #49-101.

While it is true the hebrew followers of Moosa were the chosen people of the time therefore the miracles of Exodus to lead them from persecution, however Qura`an clearly denounces them for their betrayal of Moosa by taking to worshipping a stone calf [when he went off to pray for forty nights], instead of the mono-diety of Moosa which he had preached. Therefore, the first part of your observation regarding support of Muslims for the original Hebrews seems questionable. I quote below the directly relevant extracts from Al-Baqra (Yousuf Ali).

``49. And remember, We delivered you from the people of Pharaoh: They set you hard tasks and punishments, slaughtered your sons and let your women-folk live; therein was a tremendous trial from your Lord.

50. And remember We divided the sea for you and saved you and drowned Pharaoh`s people within your very sight.

51. And remember We appointed forty nights for Moses, and in his absence ye took the calf (for worship), and ye did grievous wrong.

52. Even then We did forgive you; there was a chance for you to be grateful.

53. And remember We gave Moses the Scripture and the Criterion (Between right and wrong): There was a chance for you to be guided aright.

54. And remember Moses said to his people: ``O my people! Ye have indeed wronged yourselves by your worship of the calf: So turn (in repentance) to your Maker, and slay yourselves (the wrong-doers); that will be better for you in the sight of your Maker.`` Then He turned towards you (in forgiveness): For He is Oft- Returning, Most Merciful.

55. And remember ye said: ``O Moses! We shall never believe in thee until we see Allah manifestly,`` but ye were dazed with thunder and lighting even as ye looked on.

56. Then We raised you up after your death: Ye had the chance to be grateful.

57. And We gave you the shade of clouds and sent down to you Manna and quails, saying: ``Eat of the good things We have provided for you:`` (But they rebelled); to us they did no harm, but they harmed their own souls.

58. And remember We said: ``Enter this town, and eat of the plenty therein as ye wish; but enter the gate with humility, in posture and in words, and We shall forgive you your faults and increase (the portion of) those who do good.``

59. But the transgressors changed the word from that which had been given them; so We sent on the transgressors a plague from heaven, for that they infringed (Our command) repeatedly.

60. And remember Moses prayed for water for his people; We said: ``Strike the rock with thy staff.`` Then gushed forth therefrom twelve springs. Each group knew its own place for water. So eat and drink of the sustenance provided by Allah, and do no evil nor mischief on the (face of the) earth.

61. And remember ye said: ``O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions.`` He said: ``Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!`` They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.``

Rgds

Reply #: 409 Asif Naqshbandi

[the jews at the time of Musa alayhisalam who followed him were BELIEVERS and the Muslims of that time and we TOTALLY SUPPORT THEM. At that time the Bani Israil WERE the chosen of Allah BUT as the Qur`an informs us they became cursed later on]

Interesting observation. The betrayal of Moosa by his followers is clearly spelt out in Al-Baqra #49-101.

While it is true the hebrew followers of Moosa were the chosen people of the time therefore the miracles of Exodus to lead them from persecution, however Qura`an clearly denounces them for their betrayal of Moosa by taking to worshipping a stone calf [when he went off to pray for forty nights], instead of the mono-diety of Moosa which he had preached. Therefore, the first part of your observation regarding support of present day Muslims for the original Hebrews seems questionable. I quote below the directly relevant extracts from Al-Baqra (Yousuf Ali).

``49. And remember, We delivered you from the people of Pharaoh: They set you hard tasks and punishments, slaughtered your sons and let your women-folk live; therein was a tremendous trial from your Lord.

50. And remember We divided the sea for you and saved you and drowned Pharaoh`s people within your very sight.

51. And remember We appointed forty nights for Moses, and in his absence ye took the calf (for worship), and ye did grievous wrong.

52. Even then We did forgive you; there was a chance for you to be grateful.

53. And remember We gave Moses the Scripture and the Criterion (Between right and wrong): There was a chance for you to be guided aright.

54. And remember Moses said to his people: ``O my people! Ye have indeed wronged yourselves by your worship of the calf: So turn (in repentance) to your Maker, and slay yourselves (the wrong-doers); that will be better for you in the sight of your Maker.`` Then He turned towards you (in forgiveness): For He is Oft- Returning, Most Merciful.

55. And remember ye said: ``O Moses! We shall never believe in thee until we see Allah manifestly,`` but ye were dazed with thunder and lighting even as ye looked on.

56. Then We raised you up after your death: Ye had the chance to be grateful.

57. And We gave you the shade of clouds and sent down to you Manna and quails, saying: ``Eat of the good things We have provided for you:`` (But they rebelled); to us they did no harm, but they harmed their own souls.

58. And remember We said: ``Enter this town, and eat of the plenty therein as ye wish; but enter the gate with humility, in posture and in words, and We shall forgive you your faults and increase (the portion of) those who do good.``

59. But the transgressors changed the word from that which had been given them; so We sent on the transgressors a plague from heaven, for that they infringed (Our command) repeatedly.

60. And remember Moses prayed for water for his people; We said: ``Strike the rock with thy staff.`` Then gushed forth therefrom twelve springs. Each group knew its own place for water. So eat and drink of the sustenance provided by Allah, and do no evil nor mischief on the (face of the) earth.

61. And remember ye said: ``O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions.`` He said: ``Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!`` They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.``

Rgds

Re: Romair

``...They all display their military credentials loudly and proudly to their voters...``

I assume that you are talking about ex-soldiers in societies where civil authority is supreme, and where voters come to respect the uniformed personnel because they are seen to be doing their duties voluntarily and not overstepping their bounds of behavior. How does that change for countries whose military dictators travel overseas? How many of the latter are `proud` to be addressed as General rather than as President? and how many shed their military uniform in front of a foreign audience in favor of civilian clothes? and how many go through hoops to adopt a veneer of civil authority by anointing themselves with a civil (rather than just a military) title? How many make speeches on the floor of the UN in civvies rather than in military uniform? The answer to that, my friend, is the true measure of the `pride` that one feels of having donned the military uniform or having been in the military. That pride evaporates in the face of illegitmacy.

Upon reading Urstruly`s post titled `Stupidity and Arrogance` #463, I thought that if the Indian Army ever carried out a coup, the disrespect that it will earn will be EXACTLY similar to what Urstruly is exhibiting. I will be outraged, and feel like a powerless pawn. If I detested Indira Gandhi for her manipulative, dictatorial style, I would be outrightly pissed at some General (whose record I know nothing about) declaring himself the new badshah of India. It would be an insult to my intelligence to have someone lording over me with little ability for me to do anything to affect his agenda.