Recent Terror in Egypt

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

Manto:

I think that Nasser had found in Pan-Arabism an antidote to Muslim Brotherhood; the elite and the youth of the Arab world were fired by his vision and, for a short period of time, three of these countries - Egypt, Syria and Libya - even united into one country, the United Arab Republic. However, the politics of the cold war and the inter-arab rivalries proved too much for his vision.

Here is a thought: Egypt (and Morocco) has probably produced more hard core terrorists and Al Qaeda leaders than Pakistan. Yet, no one in the West doubts Mobarak`s intentions in curbing Islamic fundamentalism while the opposite is the case of Pakistan and Musharraf. Why?

Re: # 40

The exclusivism you ascribe to Jinnah is more imaginary than real. In any event there is hardly anyone who would argue that Jinnah for most of his life did not ascribe to any exclusivism... his tactics towards the end of his life were countermoves to his opponents... but when asked to define a state, he defined it on the principles of inclusivism and pluralism.
I am surprised that after the whole world is now screaming this fact you remain so blind to a simple fact. Your logical extrapolation falls flat on its face when one considers the role of the Islamic religious parties particularly rabidly fundamentalist ones like the Deobandis, Majlis-e-Ahrar and Khaksar who were the forerunners of these extremist fringe groups- they stood violently against Jinnah and his party.

In any event as I explained in my ilog you cannot stop people from imagining identities and/or nationalisms... from varying angles territorial nationalism is as much exclusive as any communal nationalism what is important is to divorce state structure from it.

rozaiba # 33 ``Europe started it`s union through coal or steel tarriff reductions or whatever. It wasn`t ``Let us Christian folks unite!`` or ``Let`s just be friends from now on``.

If econommy is all that matters to enter EU, then why is Romania a member of EU and not Turkey? As several public figures and polls have pointed out, its the fear of bringing into EU a country of 80 million muslims. But regardless, it would be foolish to suggest that a common religion played NO role at all in the initial union of western european countries - although it was not overt for the reasons that religion has historically been a dividing factor in Europe.

Contrary to that, Islam has had a uniting effect for the most part. Not to say that there are no Saddams, Meer Jaffers, and Sauds in our midst. Regardless, only a regressive mind suggests that there is only one way to be better off. Free people write their own story. China and Singapore are achieving economic success DESPITE not having democracy.

Regarding your point about Qadyanis, you obviously misunderstood the usage of my word ``perceived``. Contrary to your claims, I have always been a proponent of respecting the civil rights and equal citizenship for ALL pakistanis, muslim or not. And I condemn any violation in that regard in the strongest possible terms. So please save your lecture on civil rights for Manto who has been on record for stating his desire to persecute women who take hijab. But perhaps THAT is a civil right you are least interested in.

Re: # 40 BJ
//exclusivism ....which Jinnah practiced!...//

Who let the dogs out? .... who let Jinnah out?.....

Beejay - you have done it my man - you let Jinnha out on this board ..... Now we are all screw!ed.... YLH will overflow this board with his verbal diarhhea.

#40 by BeeJay on July 29, 2005 4:51am PT


In fairness, I must say that the author may be better-intentioned than some of his co-religionists.


co-religionist who? ahmedis or sunnis?

There maybe something to this issue about Cairo being a totalitarian regime. Now would the author do some follow-on introspection and enlighten us why it is that only totalitarian regimes seem to have the staying power in Muslim countries – be it Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, wherever.

And of course, now that Mr. Hamdani has spoken, I see vast hordes of the Muslim masses chucking their religious blinds wholesale and jumping on his bandwagon which will take them all on a triumphant ride toward a bright new future! And how those religious bigots are shaking with fear – or is that laughter?

In fairness, I must say that the author may be better-intentioned than some of his co-religionists. However, the unfortunate reality is that his approach is contradictory at its root. He does not disagree (or does not have the courage to disagree) with the concept of Muslim exclusivism – to make a distinction among people based on whether they are Muslim or not and to prejudge such people wholesale on that basis. That’s why he is very comfortable being an ardent supporter of Jinnah. He fails to see the connection that the ideology being propagated by the current “fringe” group is simply a logical extrapolation of that exclusivism (as well as the concept that all means – fair and foul – are okay to achieve one’s objectives) which Jinnah practiced. That makes him either an utter ignorant or – and much worse in my book – an absolute hypocrite!

[…we as Pakistanis had allowed the American sponsored Jehad against Godless Soviet Russia to flourish from our heartland.]
Author, don’t be so modest about your roles by fuzzing words. You as Pakistanis had CONDUCTED American sponsored Jehad from your heartland.

#13 by haroonellahi
[Those `Muslim` regimes, … do not truly represent the mutual-affection and desire to be together, which exists between the masses of the Muslim world.]

Ah yes, like I said on another board…

…Pyaar kyuoon na hoga?
…Ye UMM-MAH… uff, uie, maah!!

Rozaiba,

Thanks for pointing out such obvious truths to Malik99.

Urstruly #4

`` This is imperialist-Quadiani propaganda to divide Muslims and hold them back. Any impartial Social scientist would attest the fact that the next step in the evolution of political entities from monarchys to nation states is the economic unions on the pattern of EU. Now when the countries are getting into NAFTAs, CAFTAs, ASEANs, the regressive forces in Pakistan and muslim world are trying to hold us back. If EU can be a successful political model despite their two recent horrible world wars, then why can`t the UC (Ummah Confederation) be a successful model. If NATO and WASAW PACT can be successfull multinational military alliances, then why can`t a military alliance of Mujahideen-Alam be a successful military alliance. We must have a dream first and we must always aim higher. It is not long that we will be free from puppet regimes, and regressive ruling class which was imposed upon us by colonial West in recent past - insha-allah and we will realize our dreams. ``

WARSAW PACT is dead. The ASEAN is hardily a cohesive force. It is better than other regional groupings.

The problem with your Ummah pipe dreams is that it is about oil money than any real concern for Muslim brotherhood.

For a still divided society that split into two countries in 1971 you are too optimistic.
Look no further than Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Sudan, Afghanistan at the state of divisions in the Muslim world.

I agree with the general tone of the article and the opinions expressed, but am completely befuddled by the opening lines:

``The British Muslim connection to 7/7 was expected. After all proliferation of the radicalized Salafi Islam within expatriate communities is no secret. It has been going on for the last 20 years. The rise of organisations like Hizbut Tahrir and Al Muhajiroun in the United Kingdom and elsewhere was viewed with alarm but no solid intellectual movement was organized within the Islamic sphere to counter them. Their connection to seminaries in Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad and Peshawar was also to be expected. Most British Muslims happen to be of South Asian origin and we as Pakistanis had allowed the American sponsored Jehad against Godless Soviet Russia to flourish from our heartland. So London bombing and the connection to Pakistan was logical.``

LOGICAL? For decades now, Pakistanis of all shades and hues have denied that Pakstan is pro-terrorism. In fact, isn`t ole Mushy an ``ally`` of Bushy`s in his Hollywood-style ``war on terror``? (the phrase itself makes me cringe). Did he not go on TV after 7/7 and whine that Pakistan and Pakistanis get dragged into every incident of this sort? Aren`t there enough and more interactors here and on unplugged who obstinately deny that Pakistan supports any form of terrorism at all and any presence of Paki jehadis in Kashmir and elswhere is strictly coincidental?

I am confused. What on earth is ``Salafi Islam``? What do organisations like ``Hizbut Tahrir`` and ``Al Muhajiroun`` do? Why was ``their connection to seminaries in Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad and Peshawar`` to be ``expected``?

Yasser, who does the implied ``we`` in this article (the first para especially) include? Do Urstruly and haroonelahi, for example, agree with your views on this ``logical connection``? Or is this for the elite and their tea parties? While the rest of Pakistan sits secure in the belief that they are blameless and pure and all the trouble in the world is thanks to the imperialist-Zionist-hindoo conspiracy?

Let me know quickly, lest I put my faith in people like you and Godot and begin hoping for some real chance of a solution to all our ills, real & imagined, sometime soon!

Re: # 27

Mantolives...we`re kinda happy as we are, we injuns, i mean.We know the clout that being together brings.Size matters.We adjust and make do.Leave us alone.You guys *ucked up ,so be a mensch( as a nation) , admit it and try to change course before it`s too late.You live by the sword you die by the sword.You paks espoused terrorism on others.Others will then terrorize you.

Besides, despite repeated invocations of Christianity, European cultural unity is NOT premised on a Christian cultural unity. Modern Europe has essentially rejected Christianity in favor of its pre-Christian, Greco-Roman common heritage.

Response # 33 was for Malik99

I don`t think elimination of Islam is on anyone`s agenda. What is necessary is to divorce emotionalism - which is often based on religious affiliations from practicality.

Europe managed that with the help of various external forces. Europe started it`s union through coal or steel tarriff reductions or whatever. It wasn`t ``Let us Christian folks unite!`` or ``Let`s just be friends from now on``.

As for the ``perceived treatment`` of Ahmedis - I think you are either ignorant or just being regressinve. Under the Islamic laws of the 80`s, they are banned from saying azan, saying salaam, or reciting the kalma.

In the country you are currently in - as I know you are not in Pakistan - what do you call such a law? Jim Crow didn`t have such biggoted law! By the way, Jim Crow was the source for the racist laws in the United States.

Europeans, when embarking in forming a union through economics, realized that they needed to be honest about some things. Being secular and fair to all it`s members was the foremost of realizations. You desire an EU like unity for the Muslims countries. Yet you seem to faithfully adhere to bigotry Jim Crow would shudder at!! This is certainly not an indication of enlightenment cropping up.

Re: # 30

Strong words coming from a man who eats off the toilets of Americans and then helps funds the ``imperialist`` war in Iraq through his tax dollars.

Who is the endangered species... time will tell.

Very didactic.

Manto uncle, Stop treating us like some 5th std. kids.

But those lessons are important with or without Egyptian bombings. Such incidents only bring about extreme reactions. Like 9/11. You were like brothers in arms till then, nahin?

Your 3rd point: Pan-islamism is an farce. In recent times, what Iran, Libya and Egypt did to you pales in comparison to what you guys did (and still doing) to taliban. Dont be under any illusions on that account. And Iranian interior ministry will have great stories to tell about the subversive activities of ISI inside their borders.