Muslim India

Posting on Pipes article: The enemy has a name

Dr. Pipe could be trying to pinpoint the enemy, Islamism, but would be missing the wood for the trees.

Radicals are acting like an army committed to protect the civilians, the moderates.

Both have their roles cut out. And still both are part of one society.

When the chips are down, Muslim world unites at different levels with remarkable speed and unity of mind and purpose. The more Muslim world is subjected to stress and trauma, the more it reacts out of a sense of self-preservation.

Bush's war on terror was more of an imperialist campaign to conquer the world that remained to be conquered. So there was no reason to restrict its focus to one face. For Bush, the enemy has many faces. Under the circumstance, Dr. Pipes' analysis is reduced to a narrow self-serving proposition.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5629

The Enemy Has a Name
by Daniel Pipes
Jerusalem Post
June 19, 2008

If you cannot name your enemy, how can you defeat it? Just as a physician must identify a disease before curing a patient, so a strategist must identify the foe before winning a war. Yet Westerners have proven reluctant to identify the opponent in the conflict the U.S. government variously (and euphemistically) calls the "global war on terror," the "long war," the "global struggle against violent extremism," or even the "global struggle for security and progress."

This timidity translates into an inability to define war goals. Two high-level U.S. statements from late 2001 typify the vague and ineffective declarations issued by Western governments. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld defined victory as establishing "an environment where we can in fact fulfill and live [our] freedoms." In contrast, George W. Bush announced a narrower goal, "the defeat of the global terror network" – whatever that undefined network might be.

"Defeating terrorism" has, indeed, remained the basic war goal. By implication, terrorists are the enemy and counterterrorism is the main response.

But observers have increasingly concluded that terrorism is just a tactic, not an enemy. Bush effectively admitted this much in mid-2004, acknowledging that "We actually misnamed the war on terror." Instead, he called the war a "struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world."

A year later, in the aftermath of the 7/7 London transport bombings, British prime minister Tony Blair advanced the discussion by speaking of the enemy as "a religious ideology, a strain within the world-wide religion of Islam." Soon after, Bush himself used the terms "Islamic radicalism," "militant Jihadism," and "Islamo-fascism." But these words prompted much criticism and he backtracked.

By mid-2007, Bush had reverted to speaking about "the great struggle against extremism that is now playing out across the broader Middle East." That is where things now stand, with U.S. government agencies being advised to refer to the enemy with such nebulous terms as "death cult," "cult-like," "sectarian cult," and "violent cultists."

In fact, that enemy has a precise and concise name: Islamism, a radical utopian version of Islam. Islamists, adherents of this well funded, widespread, totalitarian ideology, are attempting to create a global Islamic order that fully applies the Islamic law (Shari'a).

Thus defined, the needed response becomes clear. It is two-fold: vanquish Islamism and help Muslims develop an alternative form of Islam. Not coincidentally, this approach roughly parallels what the allied powers accomplished vis-à-vis the two prior radical utopian movements, fascism and communism.

First comes the burden of defeating an ideological enemy. As in 1945 and 1991, the goal must be to marginalize and weaken a coherent and aggressive ideological movement, so that it no longer attracts followers nor poses a world-shaking threat. World War II, won through blood, steel, and atomic bombs, offers one model for victory, the Cold War, with its deterrence, complexity, and nearly-peaceful collapse, offers quite another.

Victory against Islamism, presumably, will draw on both these legacies and mix them into a novel brew of conventional war, counterterrorism, counterpropaganda, and many other strategies. At one end, the war effort led to the overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan; at the other, it requires repelling the lawful Islamists who work legitimately within the educational, religious, media, legal, and political arenas.

The second goal involves helping Muslims who oppose Islamist goals and wish to offer an alternative to Islamism's depravities by reconciling Islam with the best of modern ways. But such Muslims are weak, being but fractured individuals who have only just begun the hard work of researching, communicating, organizing, funding, and mobilizing.

To do all this more quickly and effectively, these moderates need non-Muslim encouragement and sponsorship. However unimpressive they may be at present, moderates, with Western support, alone hold the potential to modernize Islam, and thereby to terminate the threat of Islamism.

In the final analysis, Islamism presents two main challenges to Westerners: To speak frankly and to aim for victory. Neither comes naturally to the modern person, who tends to prefer political correctness and conflict resolution, or even appeasement. But once these hurdles are overcome, the Islamist enemy's objective weakness in terms of arsenal, economy, and resources means it can readily be defeated.

Labels: Bush, imperialism, Islamism, Neo-con hijacking of the Bush adminstration, war on terror

Thursday, June 19, 2008


TIMES OF INDIA DOES IT AGAIN – IV


On the day, when India's foremost fascist politician, the 80+ aging Shiv Sena Supremo, Bal Thackeray, called on 'Hindus' to produce suicide bombers to confront the Muslim suicide bombers, Times of India has chosen to publish a four column size colour photo of the rabble-rouser, that shows him without his current growth of unkempt craggy beard and looking much younger than his years. It is anybody's guess, what is Time of India trying to project by publishing such a publicity oriented file photo with the story about how people have adversely reacted to Thackeray's new fascist salvo. The gesture takes out all the sincerity of the supposed condemnation of Thackeray's virulent communal outpouring that any law abiding entity from any walk of life, should have for Thackeray's brand of open terrorism call. This reflects Thackeray's own deep frustration over the democratic process that has failed to back his brand of fascist ideological underpinning of his political ambitions.






Times of India, as a primer opinion maker of India, should have forcefully come out for the law of the land and roundly condemned any such threat to India's internal and external security, its communal harmony and the national integrity. Times of India, seems to be running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. This brinkmanship is harmful not only for the credibility of a widely circulated mainstream national newspaper, but would spread the contagion of doublespeak to further polarize the nation on communal lines.



In fact, it should better be noted that all the communal clap-trap and propaganda against Muslims is fake and contrived to counter the fissiparous tendencies due to caste divisions in Hindu society. The fraudulent and fake nature of communal propaganda that is essentially criminal in nature, should be exposed by the media, if India has to enjoy peace within its borders and beyond. There is every possibility that the communal propaganda against Muslims may entangle our country to some international interventions of unsavoury kind. It is therefore incumbent on media to size up its responsibility not only towards its owners and investors, but its readers as well as the community at large.



Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com
www.ghulammuhammed.wordpress.com

A Lesson from History

By Irshad Haqqani

In 1973 the war between Arabs and Israel was about to start. Meanwhile an American Senator visited Israel on a special mission. He was chief of the Senate Arms Committee. A meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was arranged immediately. Golda Meir welcomed him into her home, like any common housewife welcoming a family guest. She took him to the kitchen. While seating him at the kitchen dining table, she went over to prepare tea for the guest. As the water was kept for boiling, she came over and sat on a chair near the dining table. She opened the discussion regarding planes, missiles, and guns. In the course of negotiations, she got the aroma of the brew. She prepared two cups of tea, and offered one cup to the Senator, and another to an American guard who was standing at the gate. On returning, she came back, continued talking with the Senator. After a discussion they settled the arms deal. In the meantime, she stood up, collected all the cups, and turned to senator and said "I agree to this deal. You can send your secretary to my secretary for written deal".

It may be remembered that Israel at that time was facing a serious economic crisis, but the huge arms deal was settled by Meir with the greatest of ease in the history of Israel. It was quite astonishing that earlier, the Israeli cabinet had rejected the same deal, because they thought it would be so costly, that the whole nation would have to make do with a single meal a day, for years to come.

Meir knew about their stand, and said, "Your doubt are well founded, but if we win this war, and defeat the Arabs, history will remember us as the victors, and in history, once a community is know as the victor, it forgets how many eggs they ate and how many times they had food. Whether there was jam, honey, butter on the table, and how many holes they had in their shoes. Or whether the sheaths of their swords were new or old! A conqueror is a conqueror."

Based on Meir’s solid logic, the Israeli cabinet approved the deal. Later it was proved that the decision taken by Meir was right, and the whole world witnessed the Jews knocking on the doors of the Arabs with this artillery. A war took place, and the Arabs faced a shameful defeat at the hands of an old lady.

After a gap of one decade after the war, a reporter of the Washington Post interviewed Meir, asking "Was the logic you had in your mind for the arms was spur of the moment decision or you had had an advance strategy?"

Meir's reply was very surprising.

She answered, "I got this logic from the prophet (of the Muslims) Mohammed (peace be upon him). When I was a student, my favorite topic was comparative study of religions. Those days I studied the life of Mohammed (PBUH). One author stated that when Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) died, there was not enough money to buy oil for a lamp, his wife (Ayesha Siddiqua) mortgaged his battle shield to buy oil, yet there were nine swords hung on the wall of his house. When I read this account, it occurred to me- how many people in the world would have known about the worst economic condition of Islamic state? But everyone recognizes them as conquerors of half the world. So I decided that I would buy arms at any cost; even if we would have to starve or to live in camps instead of buildings, but we would prove ourselves as the victor".

Meir revealed this secret, but requested the interviewer to keep it "off the record", and refrain from publishing it, because if she referred to Prophet Mohammed, the Jews would have revolted against her and the Muslim position would have strengthened.

Over the time, world situation changed. Golda Meir died. By this time the interviewer had given up the profession of journalism. Meanwhile another correspondent was busy interviewing 20 famous American journalists. In connection with this, he met the journalist who had interviewed Meir as a representative of the Washington Post.

In this interview, he recounted the story of Meir that drew on the life of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH).

He said he was not ashamed to tell the story. Further, he said, “After this incident I studied the history of Islam, and was astonished to know about the savoir-faire of Arabs. Because I learnt that Tariq bin Ziyad conquered Spain through Gibraltar, while more than half his army did not have complete suit of clothes. They subsisted for 72 hours at time on water and dried bread.

It was then that the interviewer agreed with Meir’s view that history counts victory; it does not count the eggs, jams and butter on the table."

When the interview with Meir was published, the whole world learned of this entire story.

This astonishing incident is history’s wake-up call to the Muslims of the world. It teaches them a lesson; it reveals how 14 centuries ago, a shepherd, clad in a cloak and worn-out shoes became the leader of the world, and conquered four continents.

Could enormous castles, grand palaces, magnificent gardens, splendid clothes, adorned rest places of silk and sleepless, gold silver, boxes, gems and jewels, spread of savory dishes and the jingle of coins save them? The locust-swarm of Tartar forces did not reach the palace of Musta’sim Billah by trampling over Baghdad. What a terrible and astonishing scene it was in the history of Islam, when Musta’sim Billah was bound in chains, standing like a prisoner before Halaku Khan (grandson of Changiz Khan). And at mealtime, Halaku Khan ate in simple plates, but offered plates of gems and precious metals to Caliph Musta’sim Billah, mocking "Eat from these diamonds, gems, gold and precious metals you have collected!" There stood the Sovereign of Baghdad, helplessness, powerless, lonely, destitute, saying, “How can I eat gold?" Halaku Khan replied, "Then why you have collected all this silver and gold?"

The Muslim, whose religion calls on him to make arms and rear horses, had no reply. Halaku Khan glanced at the palace doors and windows, asking, "Why did you not make iron arrows by melting these iron nets? Why did you collect these diamonds instead of paying money to your soldiers, so they could fight bravely against my forces?"

“It was the will of Allah”, replied the grieved Caliph.

The arrogant Halaku shot back, "Whatever is now going to happen with you is also God's wish".

Then Halaku covered Musta’sim Billah in a cloak and crushed him under the hooves of horses, and proceeded to make a graveyard of Baghdad.