Pages

▼

Causes of conflict between Islam and the USA , West



Why Islam has not undergone culture reform?  His answer: Muslims have been on the defensive for hundreds of years, their enemies continually threaten them and Westerners have never given Muslims an opportunity to think. They have always bombarded the Muslim world with their industrial power, scientific and technological capabilities and with their capacity to rule and dominate the world. They have never let it develop and examine itself. Writes Robert Fisk of The Independent.
Fisk argued the US policy on Islam is based on enmity, asking: Why is the US in Iraq, the Middle East, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Germany, Turkey and Greece? Why are there US soldiers all around the world, beyond the US boundaries? What do they intend to do there? He made a comparison between the number of soldiers involved in the Crusades in the 12th century and the number of US soldiers currently deployed in the Middle East. The result is unbelievable: currently, the number of the US soldiers in the Middle East is twice the number of the soldiers involved in the Crusades. (Vatan newspaper, May 16, 2007).

Whether you like it or not, there are serious conflicts between Islam and the West. Without delving into the real causes of these conflicts, a fresh start does not seem likely:
(1) The West is exerting control over the Muslim territories where one-third of the world's energy resources are located, as well as exerting control over energy transfer routes. Muslims are denied ownership of their own natural resources.
(2) The primary obstacle to change in the Muslim world is the existence of oppressive regimes. The great majority of the population is young, desperate and unemployed and millions are seeking better education and health services, fair income distribution, freedom of expression and the right for a free opposition, in short, more humane conditions. However, these oppressive regimes are supported by the US and Europe. Yet, Western regimes and the media tend to portray the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), Hamas, Hezbullah and the Muslim Brotherhood, all of which advocate free elections, democratic participation and parliamentary regimes as "extremists" and the autocracies, dictatorships and kingdoms as "moderates." Thus, one can conclude that for Westerners, "moderates" are those who do not raise objections to the Western presence in the region while "extremists" are those who do.
(3) Israel, which was mounted in the heart of the region, has been occupying lands for nearly 70 years and raining hell on the lives of Palestinians, but despite all the atrocities it commits, it gets unconditional support from all Western countries. The Palestinian issue is the "mother of all issues." This issue will not be settled unless the Israeli occupation ends, Palestinian refugees return to their own lands, Israeli settlers are stopped and the destruction of the Masjid al-Aqsa is stopped.
(4) Islam and its practitioners are being "othered" in a planned and intentional manner, and they are demonized through exclusion from the global system. Every day we face a new definition and another campaign for defamation: fanaticism, fundamentalism, political Islam, integrism, radicalism, Islamophobia, Islamofascism, reactionaryism, conservatism, extremism, Islamic terror, etc.
(5) The West imposes its culture and its lifestyle; it urges governments in Muslim countries to implement policies to ensure this, and it does not enter into dialogue on a paradigmatic level. It manipulates the social and cultural textures of Muslims without allowing them to change in their natural courses.

These are real conflicts. These are at the heart of the conflicts. On one side of the cleavage caused by these issues is the West, and on the other side is the Muslim world. Russia and China intervene in the Muslim world only from a political and strategic perspective. On the other hand, the West meddles with the Muslim world in every aspect. If the West really wants to make peace and coexist with Islam, it must pull out its occupation forces, it must stop supporting oppressive regimes, it has to make sure that Israel withdraws to pre-1967 borders and it must respect Islam and the lifestyles of Muslims.

http://www.islamicity.org/3559/causes-of-conflict-between-islam-and-the-west/

 Related:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, Knowledge, Religion, Culture, Tolerance, Peace

Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines,  Videos, Social Media

سلام فورم نیٹ ورک  Peace Forum Network 
Join Millions of visitors: 
Salaamforum.blogspot.com 

Join 'Peace-Forum' at Social Media, WhatsApp/SMS Name,Cell#at +923004443470
     
  
Facebook: fb.me/AftabKhan.page

Muslim Anxieties and India’s Future



A couple of weeks ago, Narendra Modi was celebrating his biggest electoral triumph since becoming India’s prime minister in 2014. His Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had swept into power in Uttar Pradesh, India’s largest state and one of its poorest. The scale of the victory left the BJP’s opponents shell-shocked, and seemed to indicate that Modi will be a shoo-in to secure a second term in 2019. Anticipating deeper economic reforms from a strengthened Modi administration, India’s stock market surged.

 But there is one group with little reason to celebrate the BJP’s victory: India’s 172 million Muslims.

 For decades, most of India’s political parties have practiced forms of “strategic secularism” to secure a so-called Muslim vote bank – an approach that has stoked resentment among the country’s Hindu majority while doing little to improve Muslims’ wellbeing. The BJP has gone another route, focusing on drawing votes from aggrieved Hindus. In Uttar Pradesh, the BJP did not put up a single Muslim candidate, even though about 18% of the state’s population is Muslim.

 That did not have to mean that a BJP victory would be bad for Muslims. On the contrary, the party’s success put it in a strong position to reach out to the Muslim community on core development issues. But, judging by the BJP’s actions since the election, this appears unlikely.

 The BJP revealed its thinking within days of the election, when it appointed politician-priest Yogi Adityanath, first elected to parliament in 1998 at the age of 26, as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. While Adityanath has a strong local power base in the abjectly poor eastern part of the state, which has supported his reelection five times, he has no administrative experience.

 More troubling is that Adityanath represents some of the BJP’s most extreme elements. He is a poster child for sectarian strains of Hindu nationalism – a firebrand Muslim-baiter who, along with his followers, has been accused of fomenting communal riots.

 Adityanath’s behavior has triggered multiple criminal cases against him, which are languishing in India’s notoriously slow-moving courts. (Now that Adityanath is in control of the state’s police, those cases surely will not move forward.) That behavior has also won him a stamp of approval from the BJP’s ideological parent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which apparently strongly backed him for the chief minister’s position.

 The appointment of Adityanath thus seems to indicate that the BJP will employ anti-Muslim animus in its effort to consolidate Hindu votes in the 2019 national elections. But that strategy is clearly at odds with Modi’s rhetorical focus on economic development. In fact, one of the likely consequences of Adityanath’s promotion – and the negative signal it sends to India’s largest religious minority – is that economic development will suffer.

 India’s Muslims will be hit particularly hard, with further social and political marginalization undermining their economic prospects. Given the size of India’s Muslim population, this is bound to drag down overall economic development.

 The consequences will be felt across Uttar Pradesh. If polarization and strife increase, much-needed investment will not materialize, and the state’s already scarce human capital will flee, making it all but impossible to improve economic performance. Because Uttar Pradesh is home to one-sixth of India’s population, this will have far-reaching consequences for the country’s overall economic growth. Likewise, Uttar Pradesh’s dismal social indicators – it has India’s worst infant and under-five mortality rates – will have negative externalities for the country as a whole.

 To see what happens when politicians pander to religion, one need only look at neighboring Pakistan. A bigoted chief minister running India’s largest state might well help the ruling party’s short-term electoral prospects, but it could have serious consequences for the country over the longer term.

 The risks extend far beyond economics. While India is home to one of the world’s largest Muslim communities, its members have remained absent from anxious global conversations about militant Islam. This may reflect, at least partly, India’s pluralistic society and competitive democracy – a system in which almost all communities have felt included, even if their odds of winning have been low.
But if India’s Muslims feel deliberately shut out, as they might in the wake of Adityanath’s appointment, they may come to believe that they have little to lose. As it is, India’s burgeoning youth population is struggling to find employment opportunities, making them easy targets for troublemakers. With the Islamic State and Pakistan’s wayward security service, the Inter-Services Intelligence, looking to fish in Indian waters, overtly anti-Muslim policies amount to playing with fire.

 The Uttar Pradesh elections gave Modi a strong mandate. But instead of taking that as an opportunity to lift up a backward state, he is opting for rank opportunism. While he called for humility from the BJP after the election, the appointment of Adityanath looks much like hubris. Like Icarus, Modi is flying too close to the sun, seemingly unaware of the grave risks.

 by Devesh Kapur, project-syndicate.org
For the latest from Project Syndicate, follow us on Twitter @ProSyn.

"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, Knowledge, Religion, Culture, Tolerance, Peace
انسانیت ، علم ، اسلام ،معاشرہ ، برداشت ، سلامتی 
Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines,  Videos, Social Media
بلاگز، ویب سائٹس،سوشل میڈیا، میگزین، ویڈیوز,کتب
سلام فورم نیٹ ورک  Peace Forum Network 
Join Millions of visitors: لاکھوں وزٹرز میں شامل ہوں 
Salaamforum.blogspot.com 
سوشل میڈیا پر جوائین کریں یا اپنا نام ، موبائل نمر923004443470+ پر"وہٹس اپپ"یا SMS کریں   
Join 'Peace-Forum' at Social Media, WhatsApp/SMS Name,Cell#at +923004443470
     
  
Facebook: fb.me/AftabKhan.page

Martin McGuinness: The 'super-terrorist who became a super-statesman – like so many others


Martin McGuinness followed along the familiar trail of so many enemies of Britain’s weary colonial history. A “super-terrorist” becomes a super-statesman. Jomo Kenyatta comes to mind. And Archbishop Makarios. And of course, Menachem Begin. With blood on their hands, they pass through that mist of nobility bestowed by colonial power and former rulers – and re-emerge as statesmen of compromise, eloquence, even humour.

 I’ve never been sure they really changed that much. Begin blew up the King David Hotel, murdered two British army sergeants because the Brits were executing Irgun fighters, and became Prime Minister of Israel. He signed a peace agreement with Egypt, met Margaret Thatcher – then invaded Lebanon in 1982: 17,000 died.

 In fact, most of these folk recalled their past with a certain amount of caution. “Father of the Nation”, they liked to be called – although that hardly applied to McGuinness. Michael Collins went through a similar transmogrification. There he was, killing Churchill’s Cairo Gang intelligence men in Dublin and then sitting in Downing Street with Lloyd George and Churchill himself, who told of meeting Collins whose hands had “touched directly the springs of terrible deeds”. Doubtless, he would have said the same of McGuinness.

 In 1972 I saw him first, standing beside a table on the Creggan – already no-go Derry after Bloody Sunday – for a frantic press conference. They said he was the IRA commander in Derry (he was actually number two), but he was a rather frightening young man, 22 at the time, high cheekbones, fluffy, curly hair, red-faced, sharp, narrow eyes, unsmiling. A very dangerous man, I thought at the time – to his enemies, at least. There was a rifle in the room, though I don’t think he touched it. People later said it was a Kalashnikov, but there weren’t many AKs around at the time and I rather think it was an old American Garand. 

 The British were claiming at the time that McGuinness was the most wanted man in Derry or Northern Ireland or all of Ireland – but they did that on a regular basis to all their most tenacious enemies. That’s what they once called Begin. That’s what they said about Collins in the early 1920s, who passed through that infamous mist of nobility when he signed the grim Treaty which the Brits had prepared for him, Griffith and the others. It cost him his life, of course, so he never travelled to Buckingham Palace to meet the King. But Collins did meet James Craig, one of Northern Ireland’s most sectarian Protestant prime ministers, before he was killed by his own people. Avoiding assassination, McGuinness was to sit down with Ian Paisley and his cronies and become deputy minister of the state he tried so hard to destroy. That alone was worth a handshake from the British monarch. 

 But we should not be too romantic about violent men who pass through the archway of British political acceptance. Sadat was a German spy in Cairo in the Second World War. Then he became the beloved peace-maker. Nasser was at first greeted by Eden, who only later called him the Mussolini of the Nile, although Nasser did for the British Empire at Suez. Yasser Arafat was a “super-terrorist” when I first met him in Beirut in the 1980s, blathering on about the “Zionist military junta”; then he signed the Oslo agreement and became a “super-statesman” and shook hands with Bill Clinton and Yitzhak Rabin. Yet under the brutal Sharon, he reverted to “super-terrorist” status, up to and including his moment of death. What moral transformartions! His body must have been “spinning” even before it was put in the grave.

 It’s a heady, giddy business to undergo these constant conversions. Saddam was our man when he sent his Iraqi legions into revolutionary Iran in 1980 but then became the Hitler of the Tigris when he invaded the wrong country (Kuwait) 10 years later and got bombed for it, and was then invaded in 2003 for the one crime he didn’t commit (9/11). Off with his head, we cried, and the noose surely strangled him. Then take Muammar Gaddafi, whose Libyan coup was at first welcomed by the Foreign Office. But then he went a bit mad, issuing Trump-like statements of mind-numbing inanity, and then tried to fix up McGuinness and his mates with explosives and organised a bomb in a Berlin nightclub where it killed an American serviceman – and then got bombed by Ronald Reagan who dubbed him the “Mad Dog of the Middle East”.

 But the “Mad Dog” outlived Saddam and got slobbered over by the Brits for deconstructing nuclear weapons he never had, and Saint Tony bestowed a kiss upon him and all was well until the Libyans decided they’d had enough and the much-kissed Muammar was butchered by a mob. No wonder he had a strange, puzzled look in his eyes at the time. Then there was Bashar al-Assad, son of the ferocious Hafez, invited to Bastille Day but then – post-Arab Awakening – loathed by the French, whose foreign minister declared that he did not deserve to live “on this earth”. The Quai d’Orsay did not suggest which particular planet he should fly to. But reader alert: with the Europeans back-peddling on their demands for his overthrow and Putin welcoming him to the Kremlin, we may yet see Bashar back in the halls of western Europe.

 McGuinness, of course, maintained his statesmanship to the end, seeing off the grousing old Paisley, watching Peter Robinson slip in the Unionist mire and then observing the Democratic Unionists swamped in financial scandal. A good time to go, you might say, and join all the other “most wanted men” in the sky. But one of them, we would do well to remember, had a wanted poster all his own more than 100 years ago, way back in the Boer War: his name was Winston Churchill. And much to talk about they’ll have, I’m sure.

 By Robert Fisk, independent.co.uk

 http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/martin-mcguinness-dies-super-terrorist-becomes-super-statesman-like-so-many-others-a7640676.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, Knowledge, Religion, Culture, Tolerance, Peace
انسانیت ، علم ، اسلام ،معاشرہ ، برداشت ، سلامتی 
Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines,  Videos, Social Media
بلاگز، ویب سائٹس،سوشل میڈیا، میگزین، ویڈیوز,کتب
سلام فورم نیٹ ورک  Peace Forum Network 
Join Millions of visitors: لاکھوں وزٹرز میں شامل ہوں 
Salaamforum.blogspot.com 
سوشل میڈیا پر جوائین کریں یا اپنا نام ، موبائل نمر923004443470+ پر"وہٹس اپپ"یا SMS کریں   
Join 'Peace-Forum' at Social Media, WhatsApp/SMS Name,Cell#at +923004443470
     
  
Facebook: fb.me/AftabKhan.page

Countering Terrorist Narrative


The military action just one part of war against terrorists. The ideological front remains untapped, except occasional condemnation Fatwas (religious edicts) by gatherings of Islamic Scholars. The terrorists continue recruitment through their propaganda machine via internet through twisted interpretations of Islamic holy texts. The common terrorists,  their sympathizers and supporters within society are not aware of reality. There is very little to confront and expose their false ideology in the media. The rise of Islamophobia plays into the narrative of ISIS or Daesh that's exactly what they want, for some Muslims to feel that they are not part and parcel of their adopted homelands in the Western societies. People like Trump and Indian Prime Minister Modi in power with well known anti Muslim stand, provide more fuel to Islamophobia which suits the terrorists.

The terrorist organizations like ISIS, Al-Qaida, Taliban, Boko-Haram and many others claim the justification of their struggle for establishment of a worldwide Caliphate and cleanse the Muslim land from the infidels (Muslims not following the heretic ideology of terrorists). While these organization and groups use terrorism as means there are many others who are restricted to the political struggle but they do have sympathies for each other. This has caused great loss to the Muslim world in term of loss of men and material besides weakening them politically, economically and intellectually.
Effort has been made to expose the fallacy of the narrative of terrorists, which is not based on Islamic teachings, but twisted interpretations and lies:
  1. Countering Narrative of Terrorists-1: Caliphate of Terror تکفیری خوارج کی شیطانی خلافت
  2. Countering Narrative of Terrorists-2: Dogs of Hell خوارج جہنم کے کتے
  4. The real War against Terror is the war of Ideology & Counter Narrative
............................................................................................................
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, Knowledge, Religion, Culture, Tolerance, Peace

Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines,  Videos, Social Media

سلام فورم نیٹ ورک  Peace Forum Network 
Join Millions of visitors:
Salaamforum.blogspot.com 
Join 'Peace-Forum' at Social Media, WhatsApp/SMS Name,Cell#at +923004443470
     
  
Facebook: fb.me/AftabKhan.page