We, The Muslim Americans

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

romair can i please ask u a couple of question is

kakul modeled on west point or sandhurst? why is pakistan`s navy so poorly funded and its air force so poorly funded? If ISI is military intelligence then what the hell is it doing spying on Pakistan`s citizens is there a difference between ISI and MI in pakistan? how many intelleigence agensies are there in pak i know of ISI IB Fia thats it can u name some more?

i would appreciate if u can answer some questiomn

Fuzair, Sigalph, Shammi,

What do you mean the ``dishonesty of the left``?

...Well, maybe another time; got to go to my

news sources-hope you get the info I do while

y`all are watching CNN

Re: Urstruly

``...most people who migrated in 1947 in subcontinent were compensated for their properties. Settlement commissions were established. Migration was purely volutary...``

That migration was about as `voluntary` as the ethnic cleansing that comes after any riot is (and is about as voluntary as the movement of riot victims from their homes to camps in Gujarat is this month). The commissions were a lame duck effort -- and they were entirely useless in compensating for human lives lost (1 million?). Migration was NOT voluntary. Ask Nasah here. His family was forced out of Delhi. I know that in my family it was not voluntary (at least for the part that made it to India). A good number did not survive. This nonsense is propagated to create a national mythology and to sweep the ugly truth under a dirty carpet. More people were KILLED in Partition than the entire population of Palestine at the time (actually three times the number). Nearly 30 times the number migrated in what later became the largest human migration in history. Such mass movements DO NOT occur on a voluntary basis.

The agreements that you talk about would have held a lot credibility had they occurred BEFORE the migration and had they been put to a popular vote (or atleast had the formula been agreed to BEFORE the fact by the relevant parties) not AFTER the fact. After the fact, they were akin to claiming life insurance after the death of the claim holder.

My dear Donkey

``...Personally, I think you two characters (sac & Shankar) are sick people. Ever heard the maxxim ``Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and little minds discuss people``...``

what dyou think of people who discuss unknown females` lips; are they sick or little or average minds? i await your answer with much anxiety, annoying little baboon.

Romair;

your analysis of Bush`s cabinet and its military credentials omits to mention that most of the baby boomers in the cabinet suffered from the Vietnam draft. Many had no option. You are making a virtue out of a compulsion.

Shammi

I wrote a one pager reply to your post addressed to me, unfortunately at the chowk`s writing field. I accidently hit some key and it all disappeared. I can`t write it again. But let me say that even when there were forceful evacuations in 1947, the situation is incomparable in any respect with that of Palestines. Unlike Israel-Palestine, most people who migrated in 1947 in subcontinent were compensated for their properties. Settlement commissions were established. Migration was purely volutary. The plan of division was purely agreed mutually. Everybody who was displaced got citizenship rights. There are no ghettoes. There are no refugee camps. There are no 3.5 millions on either side sitting in neighboring countries. There are no groups fighting for freedom. There are no suicide bombers. There are no occupied territories (except Indian Oppressed Kashmir).The communal violence that ensued, in 1947, was unfortunate, and not planned by any responsible party like either government or political parties like ML or congress. It just happened. Ethnic cleansing is not a national mendate of either country. Neither Pak nor India are officially aparthied, as Israel is.

Remembering old country, the place where you grew up is natural. Even we who migrated to west absolutely voluntarily feel so passionately about our countries and express it every day at chowk. In year 3000 when Kashmir will be free and India and Pakistan will be establishing a common wealth on the pattern of Europeon Union there is chance that your 50th generation will go back to their ancestral place, as you wish. However if you want to bring that time quicker you should start sending suicide bombers in Pakistan. Ihave heard that Advani is recruiting.

Sac & Shunkar

This is nonesense. I think Romair`s or anyone elses comments and arguments should be taken on merit. What does an argument has to do with one`s personality, his history, and claims, sepecially in cyberspace. At this place, we are all zeroes and ones. The media is the message. And that is what I told Romair when he asked me what have I done for my country lately.

Personally, I think you two characters (sac & Shankar) are sick people. Ever heard the maxxim ``Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and little minds discuss people``. This pontification of little minds with blanket phrases like psycoanalysis and shitt is not only disgusting, it is downright insulting. I do not agree with what Romair writes especially about military dictators (and partly about feudals), but it doesn`t mean that I should ask him to post his social security number and medical history to validate his point. I think you two characters need immediate medical attention. You are used to playing too much cricket with little green monsters-and now can`t help not playing it. Quit it.

sac: To continue the discussion furthur:

Here is the list of American leaders in the current administration who were in the military:

President (George Bush: Fighter pilot in Texas Air National Guard)

Sec. of State (Colin Powel: General; CJCS)

Sec of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld: U.S. Navy as an aviator and flight instructor)

Sec of Transportation (Norman Mineta: Army Intelligence officer)

Sec. of Health & Human Services (Tommy Thompson: National Guard and Army Reserve)

Sec of Veteran Affairs (Anthony Principi: US Navy River Patrol Unit commander)

Director Office of Homeland Security (Tom Ridge; US Army Sargeant)

7 out of the 17 male members of George Bush`s team received military training, and were in the military at some point of their careers.

Bush`s opponent in the Republican primary, Sen McCain is a graduate of the US Naval Academy, and a Navy fighter pilot, and a war hero. Interestingly, John McCain graduated 9th from the bottom of his Naval Academy graduating class. George Bush`s democrat opponent, Al Gore, was a sargeant in Vietnam.

Every single US president and leader proudly annouces their military training and service on all their biographical sketches on the web. Do you think they would do that, if they considered it a negative, in getting elected/appointed to office?

Would you agree that your comments, ``This makes good soldiers but terrible negotiators and politicians,`` are biased and prejudiced, not to mention 180 degrees incorrect, based on the long lists I have provided. Considering the fact that 11 out of the last 12 US Presidents were in the military at some stage of their career (Clinton being the exception), would be an indication that military training actually helps in negotiating and in politics. I was unable to find any other aspect which was so common (legal training comes second) in the careers of the last twelve US Presidents.

It is infact an established fact that the two most common features in the career of US political leaders are: 1) so many of them served in the military 2) so many of them studied law.

Hardly any, if any, of them were doctors, comp. scientists, etc. One would have to assume that qualifications in law and serving in the military add to the political skills of leaders, not detract from them.

Your argument however is exactly the opposite, i.e. ``Military training can be the most debilitating illness known to man.`` Did you do any research before writing this, or did you just allow your gut feeling to overtake facts.

Would be interested in your comments.....

re ROmair #390:

You profess to have read Shankar`s incisive analysis but sadly drew no constructive pointers. I`d be more than happy to remove the Hon. from your title if you point out where I expressed a desire not to interact with you. Infact you`ve tried unsuccessfully over the years to duck my questions and I`ve time and again made sure that I keep pointing out the terrible flaws your mammoth responses have.

You have cited a number of American presidents who had a military background. As usual you haven`t bothered to analyze the issue. All the Presidents you`ve mentioned came of age at a time when military service was a rite of passage in a young man`s life. To make it easier for you the comparison would be like expecting a Pakistani Lt. Col to be promoted to Brigadier without passing the staff college. The American public in the heartland still admires a man in uniform. Look at the appeal John McCain still has. Going forward I highly doubt if American presidents would come from a military background. Also military training is used by potential candidates to impress upon the public their service to the nation and their bravery, not their intellectual acumen. The American public for all its patriotism is fully capable of sending its military heroes (McCarthur,Dole) to the pasture pretty quickly if they do not possess some of the other qualities the populace looks for.

One always starts with assumptions about the other person(brutally put they are called stereotypes). The truly educated ones are able to modify their opinions based on evidence to the contrary. You sir, have given me no reason to do so. Your so called business experience and your having spent time everywhere from Landi Kotal to Beverly Hills is immaterial. There are ex-Captains running taxi cabs in New York city and there are ex Majors running multinational corporations in the gulf. For some of them their military training made them better people, for most it has consigned them to a rigid one dimensional world view that has made life unbearable for those around them. Religion has the same effect on people.

If you think your military background gives you an edge over other people, maybe it does. It does not mean that you should discount the point of view of other people who may have a dissimilar background. I don`t expect anyone`s attempt to make you see the other side more objectively because you seem to have advanced into a territory where your personal view of yourself is more inflated than the facts warrant but rest assured that your posts bordering on hyperbole and lack of logic will continue to be challenged.

later

-sac

secular or islamic pakiland?? 02 April 2002

Tuesday

18 Muharram 1423

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)

Twisting statements of Jinnah

US role in Middle East

America`s flawed approach

Balwant Dass

Twisting statements of Jinnah

By Prof Khurshid Ahmad

Every transaction, either between two individuals or between two states, always has two aspects: one

purely legal and political and the other ideological. The spheres of law and politics are well-known. If

an individual or a nation wants to avoid the path of confrontation, collision and bloodshed, it is

imperative for them to settle their disputes by remaining within these spheres.

As for the ideological dimension of issues, there are infinite possibilities for settlement with persuasion,

preaching and canvassing, dialogue and mutual understanding - provided no party suffers from the

notion of its own being powerful and dominant and refrains from trying to impose its terms or views on

the other. Confrontation in ideological context takes place only when the doors are shut for freedom

of opinion and mutual understanding, or when logic and persuasion are replaced by the force of

sword.

In this context, for the last few months in particular the US president, the secretary of state, the British

prime minister and even the secretary-general of the United Nations, among others, are all deliberating

on the objectives of the creation of Pakistan. Along with the ministers and diplomats, intellectuals,

writers and journalists have joined the effort. Having annihilated Afghanistan, President Bush is looking

for something new, like the ``axis of evil``.

Margaret Thatcher has also come up with her own `vision`. In her special essay that has been

published in the British press on Feb. 12, 2002, she compared `Islamic extremism` with `Communist

threat` at the start of the cold war. Leader after leader, everyone considers it his/her duty to lecture on

the rationale of Pakistan, especially on the vision of Iqbal and Jinnah. Then, all the lecturing and

instructions end up in suggesting that there is only one way to progress for Pakistan - the way of

viable, progressive, modern, secular and irreligious Pakistan.

In the forefront of this effort is American leadership of all levels. Quite brazenly, it is bent upon

imposing its own concepts and views on other nations and peoples in the name of global campaign for

democracy and human rights. This is how America is trying to bring other nations under its

world-wide political and economic domination. Muslim countries are a particular target and,

according to the practice of striking at the weak point, Pakistan is at the receiving end of `special

attention`.

There is nothing new in it, however, as the attitude of these powers has always been hostile to others.

At the time of the creation of Pakistan, Britain showed its `dishonesty` in the formula of the division of

the subcontinent and created problems like Kashmir issue and unjust distribution of water. The United

Nations played a grossly unjust role in the case of Kashmir. America, on the one hand, patronized

dictatorships while repeating the mantra of democracy, on the other, it sucked Pakistan economy with

its parasitic and `visibly invisible` agenda and ensnared it in debts to the extent that it needs more debts

only to continue its life.

Then, the Muslim world, Islamic movements and Pakistan in particular became a special focus of

attention in the wake of the events of Sept. 11. On the one hand, the noose is being tightened

politically, economically and militarily; on the other, such ideological debates have been kindled that

pertain to Muslims` concept of religion (Deen), state and Muslim nationhood, ie the concepts that are

concerned with our ideological existence.

The background to the hair-splitting and recurring analysis of General Musharraf`s interview to the

weekly Newsweek and the Quaid`s speech of Aug. 11, 1947 in the English press and television is that

lesson that the US intellectuals an diplomats have been repeating for the last few months.

It would amount to doing great injustice to the Quaid-i-Azam if some sentences of his Aug. 11, 1947

speech are twisted to serve as a basis for the establishment of a secular state and for ending the role

of religion in the sphere of our collective life. Quaid-i-Azam, entire leadership of the Muslim League

and, above all, the whole Muslim community of the subcontinent had vividly expressed their

destination and goal. These were the objectives for which the struggle was waged and invaluable

sacrifices were offered. How can those who talk about secular values refute that Allama Iqbal has

based the argument of his famous address of 1930 on the unity of religion and state, of the spiritual

and the mundane. Iqbal says that Islam is a religion that has its own collective system of life without

which it is incomplete and the Muslims remain deprived of its blessings.

In his letter to the Quaid-i-Azam on May 28, 1937, Allama Iqbal maintained that the enforcement of

Shariah and the development of the country were impossible without the establishment of one or more

independent Islamic states. He said that he believed that this presented the only way for solving the

Muslims` economic problems and enabling them to serve the country (India before partition). In other

words, he held that the establishment of an independent Muslim state and enforcement of Shariah

were imperative for economic development and peaceful existence.

The Quaid-i-Azam, too, expressly said that Pakistan means, along with independence, protection of

Islamic ideology that has been bequeathed to us as a valuable gift and treasure. He hoped for

cooperation of all for this end.

It is noteworthy that the Quaid highlighted not only the importance of Islamic ideology, he also

underscored the need of its protection and progress. This is what the Quaid-i-Azam stood for. But

those who are pressing for secular values and structure see it as ``Anti-Jinnah vision``!

The leaders of the Pakistan movement passed the Objectives Resolution on March 12, 1949

whole-heartedly and with complete unity of heart and mind. This Resolution provides the basis for

Pakistan`s Constitution, governance, and collective policy making. The whole nation is behind it.

In his address at the Karachi Bar Association on Jan. 25, 1948, the Quaid-i-Azam had said that Islam

was not merely an amalgam of rites and rituals and spiritual doctrines, it was rather a code of life for

the Muslims according to which they discipline their daily life in all spheres of thought and action

including politics and economy. He had clearly said that according to the Islamic concept of

government, Allah is at the source of guidance and obedience is for Him alone. Qur`anic

commandments and principles provide the means to achieving this obedience. In Islam, there is no

concept of obedience to any king, parliament, or some other institution. Qur`anic teachings determine

the extent of our independence in political and social spheres. In other words, Islamic government is

the government of Qur`anic teachings and values.

Contradictions in the argument of those who present the Quaid`s or Iqbal`s views in such a way as to

suit their own secular ends are exposed because of their self-contradictory nature. On the one hand,

they talk about democracy, but on the other call for dictatorial action for negating the will and

aspirations of the entire nation on the basis of some extract from the Quaid`s speeches.

What Jinnah and Iqbal stood and strove for was the establishment of an Islamic society and state in

the light of Quran and Sunnat of the Prophet (pbuh), which could meet the demands of social justice

and where Islamic law is enforced in its entirety. As for theocracy, there is no such concept of Islam

where some people have exclusive hold over some affairs and serve as the sole means to knowing

Allah`s will and attaining his pleasure. Those who try to advance their argument by creating confusion

over theocracy and quote disparate statements of Iqbal or Jinnah should know what Iqbal has said in

his `Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam` and in its sixth address in particular. He holds that

there is no concept of theocracy in Islam.

The Quaid-i-Azam, too, had said that he was against theocracy because Islam has no such concept

where some people are `custodians` of religion. In the words of Maulana Maududi, ``we are against

theocracy because it has nothing to do with Islam``.

The degenerated thinking of the so-called liberal people can be gauged from the fact that on the one

hand they distance themselves from theocracy but, on the other, they say that whoever has come to

power, no matter how, has in a way been honoured by God and therefore has a right to rule!

Pakistan was created in the name of Islam. Its progress, in all fields, is possible only when it is kept on

its right track - just and true to its genesis and rationale. Those who are pressing for the introduction of

secularism and renunciation of the role of Islam and religion are prescribing an illusive course, which is

destructive for the country and does not solve any of the problems facing the nation.

Those who are twisting Iqbal`s and Jinnah`s statements for their own ends are doing a great disservice

both to those whom they falsely attribute their assertions and to the country they created. They need

to know more about Islam as a code of life, Islamic concept of government and the unity of the

spiritual and the mundane. In our recourse to Islam lie our progress, development and salvation.

The writer is chairman of the Institute of Policy Studies, Islamabad and a former Senator.

US

Does anyone have a subscription for strafor.com?

Here is an excerpt of a current article

`Pakistan: Dissension in Military May Be Emerging

Unconfirmed but credible reports in the Pakistani media could indicate the beginnings of dissatisfaction within the military, President Pervez Musharraf`s chief source of political support.`

Re: Fuzair

I assume that the last individuals who grew up to be adults in your family in Jhajjar must have been in your grandmother`s generation. Interesting that they did not speak the language that is spoken in the environs there today. Thanks for the details.

As regards the Palestinians` situation, I think that they are victims. But, they have also compounded their victimhood through numerous actions (already mentioned previously). The `48 Partition Plan would have given the Palestinians the best land available, and they chose to reject it. What do you want me to say now? If that Partition was `bad`, was the Partition of India `good`?

nasah ji,

is kohtaahi keliye maazrat-khaa hooN. aaindah itne lambi cut n pastes nahin post karoonga lekin mas`ala yeh darpesh hai ke aksar log main ne delha hai ke agar sirf URL link dooN tau paRhtay nahin hain..

:-)

sac:

“Theory being that the ones with extremely high IQs may not give their best shot in seemingly irretrievable situations or when they believe the gameplan is setup wrong. The same principle applies to military recruitment at the non-officer level. The `intelligence` test at least in Pakistani military is interpreted so that the highest scorers are actually not recruited. The ISSB recruitment for military officers uses the same principle but in more subtle ways. The questionnaires as well as psychological profiles look for other qualities beyond a certain level of `minimum` intelligence to come up with recruitment decisions. The ideal officer may not be the one you want running the local sewerage plant.”

…are you saying only ‘dumb’ people are capable of heeding and executing orders?….and aren’t the issb, or whoever it is, just shooting themselves in the foot by only taking in recruits with ‘minimum’ intelligence?…aren’t these recruits the brigadiers, generals etc of the future, where a certain amount of intelligence is essential?…

Re: Sigalph

``re shammi 358. Actually the 2000 Camp David proposals that Arafat rejected would have given him part of the eastern portion of Jerusalem too...``

I didn`t mention this because I felt that this was a detail and the detractors of Camp David 2000 would shift the argument to historical `injustices` anyway. Thanks for mentioning it for the record.