Gajendra Singh November 21, 2003
#7 Posted by HaroonEllahi on November 22, 2003 4:17:13 pm
Why does every one fearr Islam so much? perhaps it MIGHT do some good. democracy and all forms of goverments have not worked so well with us Muslims. perhaps we should try the Caliphate system? :P
#6 Posted by jay on November 21, 2003 10:58:23 pm
Turkish expert,
At last we have a turkish expert on chowk. Two bombs and the man has declared that it is agaisnt the recognition of israel. Now two more bomb blasts, I am waiting for the expert to come back, it is against the british, against the part britan played in the collapse of ottoman empire. In producing pathetic experts, chowk is second to none.
At last we have a turkish expert on chowk. Two bombs and the man has declared that it is agaisnt the recognition of israel. Now two more bomb blasts, I am waiting for the expert to come back, it is against the british, against the part britan played in the collapse of ottoman empire. In producing pathetic experts, chowk is second to none.
#5 Posted by jay on November 21, 2003 10:58:22 pm
Minister`s remarks spark British Muslim fury
Indo-Asian News Service
London, November 22
British Muslim leaders have protested against a minister for his statement that Muslims do not speak out strongly enough against terrorism.
Europe Minister Denis MacShane found himself at the centre of a political maelstrom Friday when he urged British Muslims to follow the ``British way`` of political dialogue and reject Islamist terrorism.
Speaking in his Rotherham constituency a day after the Istanbul bombings, MacShane likened terrorists to Nazis and urged imams and other Muslim leaders to use ``clearer, stronger language`` to speak out against them.
///May be what is needed is contained in the above news item, one of my usual posts on chowk, that the muslims ahve to conemn jihadic killings and say that jihad is not killing of kafirs. It is amazing that after each jihadic killings, the pakistanis and other muslims come up with ideas of fundamental cause of terror, as though there is something other than jihad behind it.
Indo-Asian News Service
London, November 22
British Muslim leaders have protested against a minister for his statement that Muslims do not speak out strongly enough against terrorism.
Europe Minister Denis MacShane found himself at the centre of a political maelstrom Friday when he urged British Muslims to follow the ``British way`` of political dialogue and reject Islamist terrorism.
Speaking in his Rotherham constituency a day after the Istanbul bombings, MacShane likened terrorists to Nazis and urged imams and other Muslim leaders to use ``clearer, stronger language`` to speak out against them.
///May be what is needed is contained in the above news item, one of my usual posts on chowk, that the muslims ahve to conemn jihadic killings and say that jihad is not killing of kafirs. It is amazing that after each jihadic killings, the pakistanis and other muslims come up with ideas of fundamental cause of terror, as though there is something other than jihad behind it.
#4 Posted by tahmed32 on November 21, 2003 5:06:03 pm
so you write that the six turkish jews who were murdered (includinga six year old girl and her grandmother) while in prayer were being punished!! and ignore the ``collateral`` damage of 21 or so turkish muslim who were killed.
and the fact that the turkish governmnet is an elected one, and these thugs whom you admire are trying to override the will of the turkish people by scaring them with bombs.
evil indeed exists in this world. not just in the form of these murderers of innocent people, but of haraamis like you.
and the fact that the turkish governmnet is an elected one, and these thugs whom you admire are trying to override the will of the turkish people by scaring them with bombs.
evil indeed exists in this world. not just in the form of these murderers of innocent people, but of haraamis like you.
#3 Posted by Romair on November 21, 2003 12:47:16 pm
Your knowledge of the area seems quite impressive.
Turkey, to take Samuel Hunington’s words, is a, “torn” country. I think certain people are unnecessarily and overly impressed with it, since it, at one time, “shoved the mullahs into the sea.” However, secularism (or any other ism) in the form of semi-fascism, with weak economic foundations, is usually not a long-term constructive strategy.
Ataturk gets more credit than he deserves, in my opinion. Some of the writings about him, on his treatment and policies towards Kurds and Armenians make sad reading. If they are true, then I would consider him more of a human rights violator than a visionary reformist. Personally, I rate Jinnah much higher than Ataturk.
Turks are involved in too much of a hodge-podge to figure out what is wrong and what it right, and which direction to take their country. They have just become victims of terrorism. Yet their own human rights records against the Kurds is terrible. The military is very secular, but it is also very undemocratic. They are sometimes a fascistly secular country, having banned religious parties, again and again, even after the religious parties won elections. To the extent of even kicking young girls out of universities for wearing scarves. Yet now they are ruled by an outright majority of a religious party. And it is this religious party that has finally neutralized the military’s indulgence in politics. The parent of this religious party, “Rafah,” was initially banned, by the same military, after it had won the highest seats in a previous election.
Turkey doesn’t get along with its Christian neighbors in Greece. And its Muslims neighbors in Iraq. And not only will it not allow its own Kurds their rights, it has vowed to invade Iraq, if Iraqi Kurds get those rights.
It will be interesting to see, which direction Turkey goes in. An un-elected politically active and overly secular military pulling it in one direction, with a democratically elected, overwhelmingly popular, Islamic party, pulling it in the other direction.
Ataturk’s vision may have worked in the short term. But, perhaps the contradictions in his own stances, are only now starting to show up, 80 years later.
Turkey, to take Samuel Hunington’s words, is a, “torn” country. I think certain people are unnecessarily and overly impressed with it, since it, at one time, “shoved the mullahs into the sea.” However, secularism (or any other ism) in the form of semi-fascism, with weak economic foundations, is usually not a long-term constructive strategy.
Ataturk gets more credit than he deserves, in my opinion. Some of the writings about him, on his treatment and policies towards Kurds and Armenians make sad reading. If they are true, then I would consider him more of a human rights violator than a visionary reformist. Personally, I rate Jinnah much higher than Ataturk.
Turks are involved in too much of a hodge-podge to figure out what is wrong and what it right, and which direction to take their country. They have just become victims of terrorism. Yet their own human rights records against the Kurds is terrible. The military is very secular, but it is also very undemocratic. They are sometimes a fascistly secular country, having banned religious parties, again and again, even after the religious parties won elections. To the extent of even kicking young girls out of universities for wearing scarves. Yet now they are ruled by an outright majority of a religious party. And it is this religious party that has finally neutralized the military’s indulgence in politics. The parent of this religious party, “Rafah,” was initially banned, by the same military, after it had won the highest seats in a previous election.
Turkey doesn’t get along with its Christian neighbors in Greece. And its Muslims neighbors in Iraq. And not only will it not allow its own Kurds their rights, it has vowed to invade Iraq, if Iraqi Kurds get those rights.
It will be interesting to see, which direction Turkey goes in. An un-elected politically active and overly secular military pulling it in one direction, with a democratically elected, overwhelmingly popular, Islamic party, pulling it in the other direction.
Ataturk’s vision may have worked in the short term. But, perhaps the contradictions in his own stances, are only now starting to show up, 80 years later.
#2 Posted by ali_1 on November 21, 2003 11:34:14 am
Gajendra,
You knowledge of ME and specially Turkey is impressive. However, you write like an Upper Division Clerk of the ministry of foreign affairs. I suggest that you have someone write for you.
PS. Our Foreign Ministry Babu, Karamatullah can write much better than you.
You knowledge of ME and specially Turkey is impressive. However, you write like an Upper Division Clerk of the ministry of foreign affairs. I suggest that you have someone write for you.
PS. Our Foreign Ministry Babu, Karamatullah can write much better than you.
#1 Posted by sigalph235 on November 21, 2003 10:40:32 am
The attacks were indeed a gauntlet thrown down to the most secular, modernist, anti-clerical Muslim country. The response ought to be Atatturk-like: give no quarter, show no mercy, take no chances. The only good Islamist radical is a cold, dead one.
listing 16-32
1
2
Interact Index
Also by Gajendra Singh
Similar Articles
- Momin Khwaja Case: Canada's Anti-Terrorism Law Tested Dost Mittar
- The Man in the Mirror Faysal Malik
- Terrorism Accused: Is Legal Aid Justified? Shridhar Naik
- Losing the Battle, Losing the Faith Ehtisham Iqbal
- Better Times Muhammad Farhan
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Latest Interacts
- _arjun38: HP is commenting on... The Correct Turn
- laddu: Hamidm, You would deserve the... The Correct Turn
- jang: we have an obama... The Indian Obama!
- MatloobZaman: http://www.chowk.com/unplugged/t/60360... The Indian Obama!
- laddu: Re: # 111 Vaibhav, You did... The Muslim Protagonist and
- PKSZ_shadbad: Of course Saudis want... Hop Aboard the Interfaith
- laddu: I would have struck... The Indian Obama!
- HP: India’s program is all... The Correct Turn








reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content