Organized Irrelevance

Romair:``After all, Prophet Muhammad and his wife did run an import-export business that traded with all kinds of people with different religions. ``

Actually, Prophet Mohammad`s wife, Khadija ran the business, he was employed by her. She took a liking to him, was the one who proposed, she was 25 years his senior, a widow, who had been married before, it was his first marriage. Mohammad learnt alot from her and did not marry again while she lived. He got to travel and learn about other cultures and customs because of that job.

Once he received wahi and became focused with Islam, the business stopped. Not exactly sure what happened with it.

Mr Haroon Moghul,

Your article is in itself is an oxymoron. The title is : ``Why The OIC Is Not the Answer`` yet in it you suggest in the end that `` It is high time that we, the peoples of the Muslim Ummah, push for a true Organization of Islamic Cooperation ...``! Sounds like Musharaff`s ``real (true) democracy``.

Ever heard of the term humanity!

QuantumQuark

I am supporeter of belonging to as many international organizations, as possible, even if they are useless (like the OIC).
However, I have never quite been able to figure out this concept of Muslim Ummah. What exactly is an Ummah? And has it ever existed, other than in the initial stages of Islam? The answer would have to be a, ``No.``
During the life of Hazrat Ali, there was actually a battle between the forces of Hazrat Aisha and Hazrat Ali, in which some very prominent Sahaba died. After Hazrat Ali, the Muslim, ``Ummah`` ended up being a kingdom, with a Caliph, or smaller kingdoms with a bunch of Caliphs. That is what exists today. Hence, historically there is very little history of a united Muslim Ummah`s existence. If even the Sahaba (whether one looks at them from a religious point of view or a secular point of view, one has to agree they were the most successful people in the world, during their days) were fighting it out with each other, then one would have to say a united Ummah is not an easy concept to pull off.
In essence, there is no Islamic Ummah, other than in the idealistic minds of people who want there to be one. This maybe tragic, it may be uneconomical, but it is true. So what is the point of tying ones camel to something which doesn`t exist, in the hope that it may come into existence, someday.
Pakistani Muslims are treated like third class citizens by Arab Muslims (at least by the rich ones). Iraqi Muslims and Irani Muslims rencently finished a ruthless war. Iraq Muslims invaded Kuwait. Turkish Muslims kill Kurd Muslims. As do Iraqi Muslims. Pakistani Muslims and Bangladeshi Muslims went to war. Indian Muslims fight on the opposite side of Pakistani Muslims. Taliban Muslims fight Northern Alliance Muslims. The list goes on and on......
In such an atmosphere, with so many political anamolies (e.g. Kurds, Kashmiris, Turks and Pakistanis are predominantly all Muslim. But Turkey will not support Pakistan`s stance on Kashmir, because that would bind Turkey`s hands from killing its own Kurds. ), how can an Ummah exist.
I don`t think it is a practical idea to hope for an international organization with massive amount of co-operation just on the basis of religion (there is nothing wrong with basing it on a common religion. It`s just that it won`t work) . That will only work in an ideal society, in which each Muslim is willing to look after his other Muslim brother. In the current world, co-operation is based on common economic interests. Hence, Pakistanis need to try to become part of large economic unions, Muslim or otherwise. After all, Prophet Muhammad and his wife did run an import-export business that traded with all kinds of people with different religions.
The other even more important form of a union, would be one based on human rights. Unfortunately, such unions only exist in private organizational forms like AI, but do not exist at national organizations, involving countries (although the International Criminal Court etc. are trying to initiate this). If such a union does come into existence, then it should take action against human rights abusers all over the world, regardless of their religion and the amount of money they put into the world economies. Once that happens, the whole world will be a better place, for people of all religions.

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

Why The OIC Is Not the Answer for “WE” the Muslims -- because in 2002 – there is no OBC to answer for “WE” the Buddhists –- no OHC for “WE” the Hindus – no OCC for “WE” the Christians.

The Delusional disease of Unionitis of Umma or Ummitis -- that the subcontinental Muslims uniquely suffer from – is a creation of their pathological attachment to a religion and the rootless ness brought by their twisted Psyche continually fed since childhood -- upon fairy tales of the glorious religious PAST – that never existed.

That mirage of Unity for the Muslims – was, is, and will be -- nothing but an illusion/delusion -- since the very beginning -- when they assassinated Omar while he was praying in the masjid – beheaded Osman while he was reading Koran – or cut into pieces prophet’s grandson Hussein when he was dying of thirst.

Let’s face it – today -- the only ‘Good Muslim’ is a BACKWARD Muslim -- ONLY hundred years behind the Christians – who were no better than us – BUT – that was hundred years ago -- when they also had their own OCC’s -- only to kill each other in the 100 year fratricidal Cristian wars of Europe.

But there is still hope for the Muslim if not in 2002 – in 2100 -- if we can get rid of IRRELEVANT organizations like OICs -- NOW.

hasan

So a free press that see it duty to : do exactly what? Tell the truth? financed by whom? Al-Jazeerah is heavily subsidized by Qatari authorities, but that`s not what we want, right?
``It is high time that we, the peoples of the Muslim Ummah, push for a true Organization of Islamic Cooperation, focusing on tangible goals: raising literacy, building schools, wells and roads, improving the status of women, increasing opportunities for higher education, promoting inter-Islamic tourism, trade and cultural cooperation, strengthening the Islamic family, supporting Muslim values, ethics and economic practices and so forth. Unity will only be established amongst those that understand the necessity of such unity, and the great sacrifices it entails.``
I`m confused, does such an agreement exist, to do the things you suggest? And is this a widespread, general agreement? Or will will it take some top down (OK, we`ll call it ``grass roots`` or some such) effort to create such an agreement? Don`t get me wrong I agree with the goals you mention. I`m all for secularization, just not secularism.

OIC may be useful for some other people or countries but it is useless for Pakistan. Actually it is harmful for Pakistan to be attached to this piece of sh1t. Pakistan, a poor third world country, should run for cover at the first sight of organized religions, religious organization, political organizations based on religions and international associations based on ``stincking heap of garbage`` heritage. Pakistan must be out only for Pakistan, Pakistanis, progress, trade, peace, good neighbors etcetra.

OIC may be useful for some other people or countries but it is useless for Pakistan. Actually it is harmful for Pakistan to be attached to this piece of sh1t. Pakistan, a poor third world country, should run for cover at the first sight of organized religions, religious organization, political organizations based on religions and international associations based on ``stinking heap of garbage`` heritage. Pakistan must be out only for Pakistan, Pakistanis, progress, trade, peace, good neighbors etcetra.