Non-Reformist but Non-Cleric

#7, {``You mean we invite Turks to fight for Kashmir as we helped them against Greece? ``}

Imran Bhai,
``Ain`t no Turks dyin nowhere except `n Turkey`` - Ataturk, 1930s :)
Salim

#6 by shishapa
You mean we invite Turks to fight for Kashmir as we helped them against Greece?

Law-breaking criminal Musharraf should follow Turkey`s Cypress example in J&K.

#3, muqaddam {``As for Turkey, till such time the Army keeps tabs, things will look good. Whenever that ends, Kemal Mustafa Ataturk will be given the short shrift by the Mullahs who are waiting in the wings.``}

and

{``The situation in poor cousins of the Islamic world like Pakistan and Bangladesh is often wretched because trying to play catch-up with the core countries in being more Islamic and gain acceptability, the state often encourages obscurantist forces and then things spin out of control, or they end up facing self created Frankensteins.``}


Muqqy MiaN,
I agree with your second comment. These poor guys are trying to out-Wahab the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia. :)

As for your first point, believe me, there is a very slim chance for Mullah rule or, theocracy. At 99.8% Muslim, Turkey is not obsessed with trying to prove its Muslim religion. After three generations of secularism, not many people want to be ruled by Islamic Law - not even the religious ones.

Thanks,
Salim

Manto,
Very timely and interesting article. Thank you for writing an informative and mentally refreshing essay. What a relief after reading the ``Hi Jack/Jamil`` nonsense!

{``The problem with think tanks in the west is their tunnel vision and inability to look beyond the short term``}

I couldn`t agree with you more about this statement. Very well articulated. Good job.

Salim

A few questions to the Author: If we are talking of democracy, why did Rafsanjani who was known to be a reformer lose out to the hardliner Ahmednejam? Is he going to introduce real democracy in a country where Mullahcracy has been ruling since the Revolution? We do not know if that is even his intention. Even if it was, are the Mullahs going to allow that? When the people of Iran elected Ahmednejad did they hope that there would be democracy if he came to power? Or, like at the time of the Islamic revolution, they want the rule of the hardliners to be strengthened? The situation in Iran is really an enigma to outsiders.

The tragedy is that all inner core countries of the Islamic world viz. the Arab countries and Iran are now under the vicious grip of dictators, despots, mullahs and megalomaniacs. The situation in poor cousins of the Islamic world like Pakistan and Bangladesh is often wretched because trying to play catch-up with the core countries in being more Islamic and gain acceptability, the state often encourages obscurantist forces and then things spin out of control, or they end up facing self created Frankensteins.

As for Turkey, till such time the Army keeps tabs, things will look good. Whenever that ends, Kemal Mustafa Ataturk will be given the short shrift by the Mullahs who are waiting in the wings.

All in all a not so bright an outlook for the Muslim world in particular and the whole world in general.

Ahmadinejad or Khameini; they do not matter or are relevant. The real problem is that Iran is supporting militant forms of Islam. Those versions have formalized - and attempt to legitimize - hatred against non_Islamic people. Hence they are threat to all, i.e., other than Shiiites.

MR. Manto very good article as always. That professor sound like an idiot to me.