It is worth reading analysis of Afghanistan after US withdrawal. It is in two Parts and link to each part is at the bottom of excerpts of each part. ( F. Sheikh )
“Seen from Kabul, there are good reasons to fear that the US will negotiate some sort of deal with the Taliban and quit Afghanistan entirely. According to unofficial statements from the White House reported in The New York Times, the option of complete withdrawal is one that President Obama is now actively considering. This would be in stark contrast to what had been hitherto planned—keeping bases, aircraft, drones, special forces, and advisers in place until at least 2024 to support the Afghan National Army and continue strikes against Al Qaeda targets in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
Until now, the total withdrawal option has been ruled out largely out of the fear that it would repeat the experience of South Vietnam following the complete US pull out in 1973—where the local state left behind lasted barely two years before North Vietnamese victory. And of course, the latest suggestions from the White House are by no means an indication that the existing strategy will definitely be changed. Indeed, US officials have made it clear that floating the idea of total withdrawal is in significant part an attempt to put pressure on the Karzai administration to engage in the American-led peace effort. It also appears to be a strong warning to Karzai not to attempt to rewrite the Afghan constitution and somehow stay in power after his second term expires.”
“But the prospect of Afghanistan becoming an Indian client state is also the greatest nightmare for Pakistan, the other regional power whose strategies and interests are critical to any Afghan peace process. If the US pulls out completely and India pours in arms, money, and advisers to prop up the Afghan National Army (ANA), then it seems certain that Pakistan would ramp up its support for the Taliban accordingly.”
“The desire in parts of the Indian security establishment to play a much bigger part in Afghanistan is owed in part to a belief that Pakistan’s Afghan strategy remains that of the 1990s: to back the Afghan Taliban to complete victory, in order to create a Pakistani client state. The real picture however has become much more complicated, precisely as a result of the catastrophic failure of Pakistan’s earlier strategy, and the Islamist revolt now unfolding within Pakistan itself”
Part II
What Pakistan Wants?
To understand Pakistan’s position in the conundrum of Afghanistan’s future, it is necessary to understand that in certain respects, Pakistan and Afghanistan have long blended into each other, via the population of around 35 million Pashtuns that straddles both sides of the border between them (a border drawn by the British which Afghanistan has never recognized). Pashtuns have always regarded themselves as the core of Afghanistan, where they form a plurality of the population (Afghan is indeed simply the old Farsi word for Pashtun); yet around two thirds of Pashtuns actually live in Pakistan, where they form the backbone of the present Islamist revolt against the state.
In the 1980s, the US encouraged this merger of Afghan and Pakistani Pashtun sentiment in order to strengthen support of Pakistani Pashtuns for the Afghan Mujahedin. In the 2000s, this came back to haunt America, since most Pakistani Pashtuns with whom I have spoken over the years regard the Taliban fight against the US and its Afghan allies in very much the same light that they regarded the Mujahedin fight against the USSR and its Afghan allies.
Pakistan’s Afghan policy today is essentially an attempt to reconcile the following perceptions and imperatives:
- The need to appease Pakistani Pashtun opinion and prevent more Pashtuns joining the Islamist revolt within Pakistan;
- The fear that if the Afghan Taliban come to full power, they will support the Pakistani Taliban and try to recreate the old Afghan dream of recovering the Pashtun irredenta—the Pashtun areas of Pakistan—but this time led by the Taliban and under the banner of jihad;
- The belief that the Taliban are by far the most powerful force among Afghan Pashtuns;
- The belief that Pakistan needs powerful allies within Afghanistan to combat Indian influence and that the Afghan Taliban and their allies in the Haqqani network and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hizb-e-Islami are the only ones available;
- The assumption that sooner or later the present US-backed state and army in Afghanistan will break down, most probably along ethnic lines;
- Pakistan’s economic dependence on the USA and on the World Bank and IMF;
- Pakistan’s strategic dependence on China, which regards Pakistan as an important ally, but which has also acquired potentially very large economic assets of its own in Afghanistan, and which certainly does not favor Islamist extremism.
If as a result of all this Pakistani strategy has often looked confused, contradictory, ambiguous, and two-faced—well, it would be, wouldn’t it?
Link to Part I
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/jul/14/afghanistan-war-after-war/
Link to Part II
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/jul/15/Afghanistan-what-pakistan-wants/
Anatol Lieven, a British journalist, has written a well researched book, “Pakistan a Hard Country” dedicating it to his grandparents George and Helen Monahan of Indian Civil Service and their son Captain Hugh Monahan of 5th Gorkha Rifles (Frontier Force). His maternal legacy has helped him in his magisterial investigation of Pakistan and its North East regions extending up to highly complex Afghanistan. In spite of his great knowledge and deep understanding of the history of subcontinent, his articles here reflect a confused portrayal of the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has reflected upon Pakistan’s fears and what India is afraid of. He has not touched the core issue that the bread and butter of Afghanistan depends upon Pakistan; and does Pakistan or even India has anything to give to their runaway child who wants to stay independent but to be fed by its parents.
Unfortunately, many intellectuals, thinkers, sociologists, and politicians of the subcontinent and beyond, have a poor understanding of this region; that is, its ethnicities, contending religious beliefs, primitive traditions, rough landscapes, and above all historical and sociological patterns of violent characteristics of the people living there for the last many centuries. Historically this region lost its connectedness with India during the last period of Mughal Empire. India–most importantly Greater Punjab–was Afghanistan’s motherland, as it was fed by the riches of this region right from the time of Mahmud of Ghaznawi. The final blow came when the British failed to reconnect it to the subcontinent. Today, this region is the most complex region on this planet and nobody can predict how it is going to behave tomorrow. Once this region was out of the Mughal rulers’ hands it became like an orphan or abandoned and today is a “shutr-e-bay-muhaar.” It went wild, baffled the British, stumped the Soviets, and now has totally stunned the Americans and their allies. USA, a tired looser, is ready to leave this region, repenting that it was better they should not have entered into this region. Today, everyone in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India is perplexed and no one can predict what is going to happen next.
I believe, when the Taliban had taken full control of Afghanistan, the best strategy (the way of the Mughals who best understood them) was to buy them rather than to crush them by force. It is well known that a mullah is always available for sale. It was less expensive to throw carrots before a group of ruling mullahs than to spend trillions on crushing them. Today, all we can do is to keep our fingers crossed and see what happens next. Let us see whether Sharif Brothers–whose profession is to beat the iron sometimes hot and sometimes cold–can also crack this hard nut.
Mirza Ashraf
There are many angles of looking at this region (Afghanistan/Pakistan). Anatol Lieven has talked about it from his expertise on Pakistan (ref. Pakistan – A Hard Country) and has correctly defined Pakistan’s concerns. The bigger picture is not mentioned by Lieven
here; why America stayed here for so long? Why America has decided to leave now or has she? Pakistan’s and India’s interests are nothing compared to the real competition between the giants (America, Russia and China). Yes, you guys probably guessed it, it certainly is “Great Game II”. Ref. “The Great Game” by Peter Hopkirk, where he explained that the real fight in Afghanistan was for India (under British Raj) and since British navy was too strong, French (Napoleon) and Russians (Tsar) wanted to join hands and attack from north through Afghanistan to get their hands on Indian wealth and British always preferred to fight in the buffer zone. Afghanistan was just in the way, no other importance. Afghanis were a bunch of thugs in a godforsaken terrain. Nothing has changed with regards to Afghanistan and Afghani thugs. Only thing that is now different is that Afghanistan is again in the way of America and China and destination this time is in the north i.e. newly independent states of ex-USSR where resources of energy sit. An energy corridor from Gawadar through Balochistan and Afghanistan linking Arabian sea to energy resources (unrest in Balochistan explained) is the objective. Looking for Osama or obliterating Taliban training camps was the lame excuse that America used, at least I can not buy this that America would spend trillions to avenge rag tag thugs whom they crushed in two weeks. Osama too is long dead. The problem I am grappling with is what has now changed that America will leave the field for China and India (both energy hungry)? Has America acquired a capability to blockade access to this resource of energy by rapid intervention or found an energy alternate or a different route…I don’t know. I am looking for the end game of the Great Game II. Any ideas?
Babar
P.S. As an American now, I don’t want to see America blackmailed for energy. I definitely don’t want China controlling access to energy that America needs. What a dilemma for me/us.
USA is following the policy of “Control the oil, and you control nations. Control the food, and you control the people.”(Henry Kissinger). Today, both the oil and food of the oil producing regions is controlled by US. It is “Lust for Power” and not just a simple policy to keep our vehicles running. Europe, Japan, and China are acquiring energy but are not encroaching on other nations’ resources or controlling their food.
Babar’s post script is an excellent exposition of the “survival of the fittest” mind. Kill thousands and thousands of people for barrels of oil for one’s own use. The core of evolution is man’s selfish gene which is still on the march. If a man of religion puts a ram under a knife, it is immoral, but bombing and killing millions of humans and even having killed one’s own soldiers is justified and moral. Are we still in our earliest stage of evolution? In this modern age, do we still need to snatch our needs, behave as looters and thugs, deprive other people of their resources for our own selfish needs. And above all, if the fear is China’s blackmailing, then encircle or block China. Does it make sense to let China’s economy flourish and kill millions of Muslims from Libya to Afghanistan? Is this a way to block China? I believe it is rather opening more doors for China. Today, almost a bankrupt Pakistan is more seriously heading towards China. USA having badly lost in that region is now being replaced by the British who have been in that region for centuries. Instead of US Foreign Secretary going to Pakistan, it was British Foreign Secretary who was first to see Nawaz Sharif.
As I have said, we could have thrown carrots before a group of mullahs and had made the case simple and easy which thinkers like Henry Kissinger already know this better than any one of us. The game is different. Soon after the demise of communism, a lot of literature and many books flooded the market on the subject of “Political Islam.” Once the intelligentsia in the world was educated and ground was prepared, action was taken in Iraq, Afghanistan and you know how many more countries. Today that job is well done and the ground for next step is being prepared. Let half a dozen of atheists speak out loud and clearly, “Religions are dangerous.” Dawkins/Mehdi dialogue makes it clear that the religion of Islam is the most dangerous. On this point I fully agree with Dawkins and all other thinkers that “Islam is the most dangerous Ideology.” It is the Islamic Civilizational threat which is bothering the West not China or Russia. Both Russia and China are being “made scared” from the Muslims living in their regions.
I am afraid, we are heading towards a very horrible and devastating civilizational war. In India Hinduism is gaining momentum. Shea Iran cornered is just like a silent volcano that can erupt as the famous Persian Sage Saadi said, “Don’t you see when a cat is cornered it plucks out the eyes of a leopard with its paw.” The next danger, as predicted by Samuel Huntington, is clash between Hinduism and Islam or between India, Pakistan, Iran and China. Watch closely, China steps into Ladakh every other week, a warning sign to India. God forbid if Modi is the next Prime Minister of India in coming election, we won’t have to wait longer for this horrible catastrophe.
Mirza Ashraf
Why USA is leaving Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan region to China? I am not so sure USA will totally abandon it to China, but I think it has made a strategic decision to put more resources on pacific region countries around China than this region. It is very costly for USA to control this region. Most of the countries, except India, in this region are very hostile to USA- and China and Russia are nearby to exploit it. USA will get more for its buck in pacific region. it will use India and nearby middle eastern countries to protect its interests as much as possible.It will be more of defensive measures in this region and offensive measures in pacific region.
We traveled recently to Tokyo, Singapore, Vietnam, Cambodia and Malaysia. There is underlying resentment towards China. This area has lot of Chinese population who control most of businesses and locals resent it. There are South China Sea territorial disputes with some pacific region countries. It was a strategic mistake for China to take a fight with Japan, bully Japan on an Island and block sale of rare elements. Since then this whole region has gotten scared, is tilting towards USA and gave USA opportunity to build new naval bases in some of these countries inducing Australia.
Recently there has been some articles published, including some on this website, that USA will be net exporter of energy in next decade. USA will still have some interests in Central Asia, and able to create strategic trouble in the area if necessary. It will have hold on oil rich Middle Eastern countries. I think all of this gives enough confidence to make strategic move to shift more resources towards pacific region. Given the cost, both in money and life in Ind-Pak and Central Asia region, USA may not have much of a choice either. I personally think, under the circumstances, it is a wise move by USA. Let the Chinese built the infrastructure and at some point this region may become hostile to Chinese also-just like pacific region. At that time USA may have an other shot to make a move-in less hostile and less costly environment!
How terrorist threat will be dealt in the region? I do not think any body has the satisfactory full answer. I believe USA will hold Pakistan more accountable, spend more money on Homeland Security and Surveillance. Beyond it, there is no executable strategy.
Fayyaz
The war after the war, in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, is not ending any time soon as it has just begun. It is not even clear if USA is completely withdrawing or leaving a base here too. Fayyaz Sahib’s take on America leaving this region and shifting focus to far East (pacific region) does make sense. While America was engaged in this region China had started encroaching in the South China sea, North Korea and Iran rushed to develop nuclear capabilities. USA had to borrow money from China to continue their adventure and obviously course correction was needed. Strategic decisions (as Fayyaz Sahib pointed out) had to be made. I think there was one more reason among many (other than energy needs) for this misadventure – the danger of nukes in the hands of newly broken off Russian states which could reach Muslim extremists if left unchecked. Pakistan’s nukes must have been worrying too. During last ten years, these concerns must have been taken care of, whereabouts of missing nukes identified, Pakistan probably satisfied and assured that its nukes are safe. Muslims (another threat, and per Mirza Sahib the main threat) also successfully entangled in Shia/Sunni rivalry and doing the job of blood letting just like it happened in Iraq. How the cookie crumbles in this region is yet to be seen.
As a rebuttal (friendly banter) to Mirza Sahib comparing millions of casualties in the struggle for resources and dominance to Abraham’s knife on a ram’s throat; perhaps Mirza Sahib forgets that no one, I repeat no one, condones the atrocities and killing of millions and on the other hand the ritual started by Abraham is followed with pride – that is the difference between the two.
And the matter of “survival of the fittest”; yes, it is the ugly truth. Any power that is not ruthless is not a power for long. I don’t justify it, I don’t like it, but I know how it is. If America was Mr. Nice it would be at the mercy of oil producing nations (where, by the way
camels would still be means of transportation if it wasn’t for the American companies that discovered the oil, drilled and distilled it).
There were times of expansion of Islam, I ask Mirza Sahib if America did the same (Daawa, naked threat to convert, or pay extortion money or die) would that be the way acceptable today? You take pride in your past (dasht to dasht hain sahrah bhi na chorae hum nae…) so why whine now about Dessert Storm?
Had allies lost in WWII, we would have been writing in German today and there is no doubt that Muslims and Jews would have been equal victims of holocaust. Had Commies won the cold war, Poland would have been the model state. I am much happier with USA as the superpower instead, not for the hegemony but for the things Americans have done for the humanity on R&D in medicine, space exploration, Internet and technology etc. Chinese are among the last of my choices and one must not forget how close genetically they are to Mongols. I am totally not happy with Gawadar going in the hands of China and Nawaz dreaming of “game changer” energy corridor. Pakistan must be vigilant and strong to remain in the game without becoming a foot mat.
Nasik Sahib is right about “Geopolitics is fraught with self serving hypocrisy”. What can you do! (Nasik Sahib stopped short in the end and did not elaborate on, “Perhaps modern technology is the tool that can help in the discovery and lead us all into a better tomorrow”).
Babar
I believe, if Muslims had reached America before Columbus, the sons of the soil of this vast continent so called Red Indians would have been peacefully converted to Islam instead of being wiped out through diseases, mass murdering, and genocide. There are four fathers of Political Philosophy in the world–Confucius (551-494 BCE) in China, Chankya in India (c 450/400 BCE), ibn-Khaldun (1332-1406) in Islam and Machiavelli (1469-1527). Out of these four the Europeans are followers of Machiavelli, the political theorist of the Italian Renaissance, whose notorious and shocking work of political theory, “The Prince” is the Bible of Western politics. Machiavelli says repeatedly, “That given that men are “ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers, fearful of danger and greedy for gain,” a ruler is “often obliged not to be good.” So it is vital for statesmen not only “to learn how not to be good” but also “to know when it is and when it is not necessary to use this knowledge.” In The Prince is his redefinition of ‘virtue’, which he equates with the qualities necessary for political success – including ruthlessness, guile, deceit, and a willingness to occasionally commit acts that would be deemed evil by conventional standards.”
The most moral and noble political theory is that of Confucius. One may believe in religion or may not, but it is a fact that whereas science is a blessing, it is the worst enemy of mankind having provided man the killing weapons of stone, wood, steel, nuclear bomb and now the drone. When man became homo-erectus, the first thing he invented was a weapon–first to hunt and then to kill his fellow beings. Inventions that provided man with the comforts of life appeared much later. I am not against science, but I have professed throughout that the MAN of RELIGION is much less dangerous than the MAN of SCIENCE. Please listen to the following speech by a Hindu–which might have been fabricated by some one or a Chankiyan/Machiavellian politics. But the facts he relates are very true.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=604443356238007
Worth a listen …
Mirza Ashraf
Before we imagine what if Muslims had reached America before Columbus, we should ponder on why they didn’t, and why only Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, after defeating Moors, sponsored Columbus to find a by-pass to India. The answer seems that Muslims at that time, as usual, were busy building mosques and palaces instead of exploring the world. I have no idea why Mirza Sahib wrote that, in that case, Muslims would have “peacefully” converted the Red Indians to Islam instead of using guns, germs and steel (ref. Jared Diamond) as Europeans did. I am still waiting for some one to explain me what was “Daawa” if that wasn’t naked aggression, hardly an offer of peace, rather a declaration of war in disguise.
I can expect a moron Hindu praise Aurangzeb (ref. the video) – even any Muslim will not call Aurangzeb a tolerant ruler for the destruction of thousands of temples in India under his rule, destroying works of arts in case they were worshiped as idols and executing the Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur for refusing to become a Muslim, not forgetting how he
(Aurangzeb) treated his father Shah Jahan and murdered his brother Dara Shikoh along with two other brothers. Had Aurangzeb not been the last Mughal king (practically, not technically) and had there been no secular Akbar, there would not have been so many non-Muslims left in India. This speaker (in the video) has no knowledge at all. What I don’t expect from a scholar like Mirza Sahib who knows history and philosophy more than any one I know, is to carry on the rhetoric of Muslims glorifying monsters of history, calling “Daawa” a peaceful example, not ever mentioning the atrocities committed by Muslims and their blood letting at the time of succession not any different from Europeans and barbarians.
I must thank Mirza Sahib for expanding the debate to four fathers of political philosophy and made me refresh their work. There are two things that come to my mind; first, people/nations do not always act according to scholars among them – if a scholar is a criteria then probably there wouldn’t have been Nazis and Hitler in Germany given the number of philosophers who made a name for themselves from Germany. Second, I could be wrong but it strikes me that Ibn Khaldun and Chanakya also had similar view as that of Machiavelli – accepting ruthless tactics necessary for ruling successfully and acknowledging barbarians repeatedly prevailed. I will read up on them again in some detail but that was my first impression about their views.
Babar
Babar Sahib, it is very hard to convince someone else to change his/her views. People believe in things which they want to believe, no matter how much factual data is presented to them against their believe system.
The mission of Thinkers’ Forum is not to change some one’s views. Here we argue, discuss, agree and disagree to learn more and more. This is a forum where any view can be discussed freely, without any fear or pressure.
As far as Babar Sahib’s comment that I am “carrying on the rhetoric of Muslims glorifying monsters of history, calling “Daawa” a peaceful example,” I would suggest the readers to open the chapters of Islamic History. While Europe was in Dark Ages, the Arabs between 8th to 13th centuries were in control of the sea routes from North Africa to Far East. “Daawa” peacefully converted masses in part of Sri Lanka, South India and the whole region of Malaysia, Indonesia. In India the message of Islam spread through the peaceful “Daawa” so far so that a hundred-thousand Bahatti Rajput Hindus of Bhaatti-Gate Lahore embraced Islam in one day after a three day long debate of Hindu Pandits with Hz Ali Hajwari. The power of “Daawa” surprised the whole world when the fierce and powerful Mongols who were the fierce rulers of the Muslim World converted to Islam. Muslims have used sword and power where their message of “Daawa” is blocked by power, such as Raja Dahir blocked their way and Muslims conquered Sind with full power. The whole of Sinkiang region converted to Islam without the use of power because of “Daawa.” I STRONGLY believe if Muslims were to reach America, the aborigines would have easily accepted Islam since they did not resist the Europeans. They viewed the Europeans as gods and welcomed them. For me it is a big shock that the early settlers in America who sailed out of Europe escaping persecution, themselves proved to be the greatest persecutors of millions of Red Indians and today they are out to teach humanity lessons of human values. As far as why the Arabs did not reach America, it is well known that even Columbus was not aware of this vast continent; he was in search of India, a region which was already under the rule of the Muslims. My point is not a rhetoric, but it is a fact from the pages of history.
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950 ) famously said, “I have studied him [Muhammad]–the wonderful man in my opinion far from being anti-Christ he must be called the savior of humanity. I believe that if a man like him [Muhammad] were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I HAVE PROPHESIED ABOUT THE FAITH OF MUHAMMAD THAT IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE EUROPE OF TOMORROW AS IT IS BEGINNING TO BE ACCEPTABLE TODAY.” It is a well known fact that Islam is rapidly spreading peacefully in Europe, Americas and in Australia, not by guns but only by the CHRISMATIC MESSAGE OF “DAAWA.”
There are thousands and thousands of Western thinkers and philosophers who have sincerely praised Islam and hold high regards of the Islamic Civilization. When I speak of Islam, I take it as a “Deen” as a way of life and above all as a civilization. I don’t see anywhere in the Qur’an that Islam is a religion. Great thinkers in the West understand this.
It is truly a civilization as expressed first by Bertrand Russell and later on by Bernard Lewis and by Samuel Huntington. Unfortunately today we are being misled by a half a dozen of under-graduate atheists who are paid agents to disgrace and demonize Islam. In my view these are not atheists. Atheism is an old philosophy and if any one is interested to know what is atheism, there is a long list of thinkers advocating atheism in the Islamic World as well as in the Western, for example, al-Raazi, Omar Khayyam, Thomas Hobbes, Charles Darwin, Nietzsche, Marx, Bertrand Russell and many more. They do not throw mud on any specific religion like the present junta of half a dozen under-graduate, rather pseudo-atheists, who do not present any philosophy of atheism but are busy in defaming religions–with a very soft corner for Judaism, some hard hand on Christianity and full attack on Islam.
About Aurangzeb, I fully agree with Babar Mustafa, that he was a cruel fundamentalist who ruthlessly killed his brothers, imprisoned his father and tried to spread a rigid form of Islam and that also with the help of sword. It is because of Aurangzeb that the seeds of hatred between the Muslims and Hindus were sown for which both Hindus and Muslims are still paying the price in the sub-continent.
Mirza Ashraf
It is powerful argument; convincingly authentic and rationally just.
What a smash “undergraduate” instrumentalized atheist.
Mirza Sb! “three cheers” on courageous rebuttal, bringing historical facts on surface.
As Mirza Sahib has mentioned that the idea of having free discussion on this forum is to learn by debate and not to necessarily change some one’s views. In that same spirit, I am continuing although so far I don’t find much participation in any debate here, and most of the affiliates only share articles written by some one else without much input of their own.
I would like to explain my remark about Mirza Sahib continuing glorifying Islam (rhetoric); After having a lot of exchanges on emails and having read Mirza Sahib’s book, “Islamic Philosophy of War and Peace”, I get an impression that all the negative characters and controversial incidents have been swept under the carpet and only all the positive things are always discussed. When we ordinary folks find the negative side from other sources then the credibility of “all praise” becomes doubtful. Aurangzeb, for instance, if recognized by Muslims as a tyrant, does not and should not, reflect on Islam but instead this admission enhances the credibility of the historians/scholars.
Lets take the remark, “that the power of Da’wah converted Mongols to Islam”; I have read that Tamerlane only embraced Islam because he found Azaan melodious and liked it. When a Mongol chief/Khan embraces a religion what should we expect his people to do?
Lets further see how Islam made him civilized – he used to climb uphill and offer Namaz prayer before embarking on his campaigns. May I mention that his campaigns were against Muslims. He poured molten gold in the throat of one ruler, sacked Baghdad leaving towers of skulls behind. An architect had designed a building with an announcement written on it that Tamerlane was the shadow of God on earth, what did he do, he threw the architect to his death from the roof of that building…he couldn’t stand being number two to even his God! Do I see Mirza Sahib mention Mongols as Muslims, never, no one wants to write that Tamerlane was Muslim, yes, we are told how great the appeal of Da’wah was to have converted Mongols but that’s where the story ends.
We are told about the Da’wah, the peaceful invitation only but what follows was is never mentioned (the Jizya payment if invitation declined, war if resisted, those who could not pay Jizya, their son was taken to raise as Muslim Janissary!). I am open to correction if Da’wah is misunderstood by me. I ask Mirza Sahib, since he knew what a tyrant Aurangzeb was, what was so impressive in that video of a Hindu (of all the people) who was all praise for Aurangzeb’s rule?, Was it the bogus claim that Aurangzeb sewed caps for his living–is that even believable that his palace was run from that income, if so then what kind of king would spend his time sewing caps instead of running his empire, is there any sense in it? Why is the fact not recognized that it was Akbar’s secular rule that continued till Aurangzeb, and resulted in Hindus and Sikhs practicing their religion freely, and incidentally, then the Mughal empire fell when Islam was enforced by Aurangzeb, making that the beginning of the end.
I will not speculate on power or wisdom of Da’wah making any difference on American history….history would still have unfolded the way it did. Red Indians started hostilities when they realized the Europeans were there to stay, they burned the crops and ambushed settlers. Germs weren’t deliberately used as a weapon, settlers were immune and Red Indians or other South Americans weren’t. Same thing happened to Europeans when they died of yellow fever in Africa and Africans were immune. Red Indians were only restricted in reservations and slowly eliminated from North America much later when independent America adopted a doctrine of “manifest destiny”…yes, “divine” right was invoked to justify genocide.
Once again, why must atheism have a “philosophy of atheism”? Why can’t one just understand that there is no God? All the big names mentioned whose ideas led to demolishing the God hypothesis weren’t engaged in an argument, they just stated what they though about life and universe and if that didn’t sit well with God worship then be it.
I don’t think any under-graduate or Ph. D are standards of being wise – frankly to me this Reza Aslan who is so forcefully stressing his credentials is waste of one life…(if he studied religion as history its fine but to study religion as a subject is useless), there is no seed so why fret about the tree from that imaginary seed. I personally had not known any of the atheist champions (half dozen or full dirty dozen) until after I was already convinced that creation story was bogus and the way life is it couldn’t have been “designed” so. Any argument over prophets is just going off track if one is searching for answers (of genesis, life and universe).
Babar Mustafa Sahib,
You, Mirza I Ashraf and Wequar Azeem are doing a great service for TF USA affiliates by participating in the discussions here at TF USA website.
You mentioned that other affiliates do not participate in these discussions.
First please note that it is not that easy to participate in these discussions.
You should have knowledge about a topic. Then one must have the self confidence to say some thing coherently about a complex topic like “Religion”.
Secondly, some affiliates may have some knowledge as well writing skills but not have enough time to participate in the discussion.
I assure you that lot people would read, what ever is being said here like a passive observer.
With time the participants number will increase
Here are the potential participants.
Noor Salik, Dr. Fayyaz Sheikh, Dr. Nasik Elahi, Dr. Shoeb Amin,
Syed Ajaz, Syed Rizvi (EDB – Editorial Board Members)
…
Mian Veqar Ahmed, Nisar Kidwai, Salahuddin M. Sarwar Ali,
Mehfooz ur Rehman, Dr. Rashid Ahmed, Saiyid Ali Naqvi,
Dr. Omar Ahmad, Saqlain Malik and quit a few other.
These are the people I know personally that they have the knowledge as well as writing skills to participate in these discussions.
The situation will change with time.
…..
Coming back to current topic of Daawa.
I will write briefly soon.
Noor Salik
AOA,
Agree with the comments by Salik Sahib.
I am passive observer and I do read
and enjoy these discussions.
Riaz
We are regaled by two diametrically opposed points of view of the impact of religion through a reprise of history. As often happens in such discussions both sides have their cogent aspects mixed with self serving generalities. Both the topics are highly subjective. One sides villain is another sides hero.
The Mongols were a tsunami wave that destroyed the Islamic empire. Halagu may have seen the light but the damage that was done cannot be swept away because of his conversion.
The mogul period was an era in the history of South Asia. The Muslims were a minority that could not have ruled indefinitely over a vast majority with a very different religious outlook. Attempts by Akbar to be inclusive or Aurangzeb to be exclusive would not have changed the ultimate course, just the timeline. It was a history that was repeated by the British in India.
Mirza sahibs theory about the possible impact of Islam on the American Indians is at a level that can only be described as missionary zeal prevalent in both monotheistic religions. Whether india Indians or American Indians their religions and cultures need the upgrades provided by the proselytizes. In the end it was a numbers game. The American Indians were overrun by the immigrant flood and the minority rulers of India by the masses within.
Perhaps it is one of the reason for the success of both Islam and Christianity. The true believers have little regard for the others. The Christians have reached an accommodative state of mind over two millennium of struggle and bloodshed. The Islamic world is in a state of turmoil that will take a generation to sort itself out. The struggle points out the depths religion can make humans both sink and swim. It is a particularly harrowing period for the silent majorities of the people whose lives are being shattered by these conflicted visions. One can only hope that this period of irrationality is shortlived.
Nasik
“Why can’t one just understand that there is no God?”
What an oversimplified opinion, a sheer prejudiced attitude, and an uncritical judgment. It is stereotype guesswork, bring evidence to support the argument.
2-111
“These are their own desires. Say, “Produce your proof if you are truthful.”
The attractiveness of the worldly life attracts and absorbs people into its affairs which leads them to become less interested in matters dealing with faith, consequently they become deeply engrossed in their worldly endeavors then they become lazy and casual about religious matters and about question related to faith.
87:16
Nay, you prefer the life of this world;
87:17
Although the Hereafter is better and more lasting.
87:18
Verily! This is in the former Scriptures,
87:19
The Scriptures of Ibrahim (Abraham) and Musa (Moses).
2-113
“The Jews said that the Christians follow nothing (i.e. are not on the right religion); and the Christians said that the Jews follow nothing (i.e. are not on the right religion); though they both recite the Scripture. Like unto their word, said (the pagans) who know not. Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection about that wherein they have been differing”. . (Line 3 end part in this para is for “undergraduate atheists”)
I prefer to read from the authentic sources, in acquiring knowledge, methodology is known worldwide that we do verify and validate, then why don’t we adopt similar approach in religion especially when a book is protected and preserved for last 1400 years and available on shelves. What sort of bias dwells in the core of hearts why eyes are covered with lint blocking vision.
Helen Keller used to say “seeing people do not see” Let me quote from the Book.
[22:46]
“So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts (wisdom) by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts (non believing selves) which are within the breasts”.
If one has NO inclination to see the Truth today, he or she shall never see.
[17:72]
“And whoever is blind in this [life] will be blind in the Hereafter and more astray in way”.
As usual Mr. Moderator please do not sacrifice my comments on the secular altar.
Saeed
Very well summed up by Nasik Sahib. Minority rule over majority eventually ended every where, of Mughals and then British over India, whites over blacks in South Africa. The numbers finally decided the fate of Red Indians.
It pays to look at the bigger picture. I recently watched the documentary based on the Jarred Diamond’s book Guns, Germs and Steel (book was too long for my concentration)
and now I have added Jarred Diamond in the list of great men I admire (he is third after Darwin and Carl Sagan on my list). He explained the bigger picture of why the difference between haves and have-nots – Geography, he concludes and I fully agree; the development of regions/people was directly related to the geography, to the crops that could be cultivated, to the physical nourishment that not only provided brawn but brain also, spared time for thinkers for contemplating when struggle for survival was eased.
There is another picture also of expansion of Islam; Europe was weakened (their dark ages), then divide of East and west of Roman empire, wars of Byzantine (Eastern Roman Empire) with Sassanian Persians had weakened Europe giving chance to Muslim conquests….(not Da’wah). Even plaques changed the world socially and politically, ending feudalism in Europe (that we still suffer from in our part of the world) when land owners died and serfs fled and found new jobs, weakening religion when high priests themselves were dying after blaming sinners for the plaque. Small pox devastated native Americans when Europeans arrived who were immune to it, Europeans were decimated when they encroached from South Africa northwards closer to equator where yellow fever met them and Africans were immune to it.
Religion made the vision very narrow, all calamities were blamed on sins. As science discovered the phenomenons of nature, the territory of God proportionally depleted.
If we continue to blame melting glaciers on gays we will miss the corrective measures needed by mankind to slow global warming. Cutting throats of “infidels” is not going to bring back the so called glory days, science and technology might.
I thank Salik Sahib for encouraging participation, I hope more people will speak their mind.
Babar
Thanks Brother Saeed for your input. I am intentionally not referring to the holy scriptures so that any unruly remark may not violate the sanctity of the Qur’an.
History is generally viewed as a chronicle of wars, rulers, dynasties, rise and fall of states, and nations. But little attention is paid towards Social History and the History of Philosophy. When we discuss the concept of Da’wah in Islam we view it through the lens of General or Political History. Ira M. Lapidus, Professor Emeritus of History, University of California at Berkley, in his 970 pages book, A History of Islamic Societies, has, region wise, written extensively on the subject of Da’wah in Islam as a way of peaceful conversion. On page 198, he writes: “The question of why people convert to Islam [even today] has always generated intense feeling. Earlier generations of European scholars believed that conversions to Islam were made at the point of the sword, and that conquered peoples were given the choice of conversion or death. IT IS NOW APPARENT THAT CONVERSION BY SWORD, WAS, IN FACT, RARE and wherever or whenever it was practiced it failed badly. Muslim conquerors ordinarily wished to dominate rather than convert, and most CONVERSIONS TO ISLAM WERE VOLUNTARY. . . . Surely there are innumerable cases of conversion to Islam by the illumination of faith or by virtue of the perceived sanctity of Muslim scholars and holy men, as well as by calculation of political and economic advantage, as in Indonesia, Malaysia, China, Sinkiang and many other regions. In most cases worldly and spiritual motives of conversion blended together, in case of India and the Mongols. . . . The Mongol Illkhans allied themselves with Muslim bureaucrats, merchants, and Ulema who continued or resumed their position as local elites, which proved one of many causes of the Mongol people’s conversion to Islam.”
I am surprised why well informed atheists don’t see by themselves that Islam is spreading in every corner of the world today from S. Korea, China, Japan, Russia, Europe, USA, Canada, Mexico, South America and to every country of the modern era. The way local people–Jews, Christians, Blacks and Whites, are converting to Islam, is this a conversion by sword? This conversion is the result of DA’WAH theory. May be one confuses the peaceful preaching through Da’wah with the early writings of letters by the Prophet to Persian and Roman emperors as Da’wah followed by war. It was in fact a contemporary tradition of “Just War Theory,” of no attack without a just cause, or a pre-warned notice.
Regarding saying “No God” is not a new slogan. Today, what is going on is a propaganda against Islam. These half dozen under-graduate atheists [a term coined by Prof. Mark Johnston] are being sponsored to degrade religions with greater stress on Islam. I have read their books in which 10/15% material is against Judaism, 15/30% against Christianity and the rest of the book is filled with harsh propaganda against Islam.
Atheism is a philosophy for which I would suggest to read Hobbes, Darwin, Carl Marx, Nietzsche, Russell, and even some Muslim philosophers like Umar Khayyam. When these great thinkers say ‘No God,’ they understand that they are creating a great social vacuum. They know that unless they give an alternative to humanity, there will be no social system, no way of life, and no meaning of life. Marx, saying no to God and religion presented a very detailed political and social philosophy to fill the vacuum. Nietzsche presented the concept of Uberman, a superman as great as god in his work “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.” However, Russell was bold enough to proclaim in his work “Why I am not a Christian” that he believes religions are man-made but religions are to stay as a social system. Coming back to modern atheists who just say ‘No God’ but do not know or suggest what next other than ‘just science,’ a big question arises, does science present a social and moral order or a way of life? Science is created by man and is being developed further every day by man. Man is every moment exploiting science for his constructive needs and destructive ills. It does not display a moral, ethical or social discipline to cater man’s need. It is definitely the legitimate task of philosophy to investigate the limits of even the best development and most successful forms of contemporary scientific knowledge. Today the neuroscientists are busy mapping human brain and when it is complete maybe then we will know–and that also through philosophy– what we are and how we should act.
Dr. Fayyaz has graciously allowed me to deliver a lecture on September 30 on the subject of “Why one is a Theist or an Atheist.” God Willing–or for some science willing, or man willing, or………….willing, I will do my best to be there. Until then let us stick to what Shakespeare has said in Hamlet, Act II, scene ii: “There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”
Mirza Ashraf