In Parallel Worlds…
knicq posted in Knicqisms on July 26th, 2006
Best Case Scenario:
July 12, 2006. Israel attacks Lebanon. Within hours, the UN issues an immediate statement condemning the aggression, and the Western powers prevail over Israel to pull back their troops, and to compensate Lebanon and the Lebanese for all damages. The West’s quick action wins them important support in the Islamic world, and helps wash away much resentment caused due to the mess US and its allies (also called Blairiites) have created in other parts of the Islamic world. Relations improve, and war on terror becomes a redundant slogan.
Good case Scenario:
July 12, 2006. Israel attacks Lebanon. The West blames Hezbollah, and gives Israel an approving nod to carry out its “measured” operation where civilians targets are bombed indiscriminately. The UN stands by. The OIC convenes within 48 hours, takes strong note of the situation, and issues the following statement:
” Israel has committed an act of aggression and forced war on Lebanon. We are greatly disappointed by the implicit approval Israel seems to enjoy from our allies in the West in committing this dastardly act. It has been 48 hours, and no steps have been taken to stop Israel by the world community. We have no option but to step forward in support of our Lebanese brethren ourselves. Lebanon is an Islamic country and an attack on any Islamic country is deemed to be an attack on the Islamic World, therefore, as of this moment, we give Israel 6 hours to pull out of Lebanon, and to come out with their plan to evacuate the occupied territories; failing which Israel will face the full wrath of the military power of the OIC members. We request the UN and the rest of the World to continue to stay out of this matter just as they have refrained from interfering so far. Any interference, other than to persuade Israel to comply with this deadline, will be considered an act of aggravation, and will leave the interfering party open to such penalties as deemed necessary by the OIC.”
Israel waits for an hour for the Western world to provide its customary shield, but realizing its not coming, and being aware of the Islamic forces preparations to strike Israel, pulls out in two hours leaving much equipment behind in Lebanon.
Bad Case Scenario:
Israel does not pull out, and the Western powers assure it of explicit support. Six hours later, OIC moves in just as the Western powers come to Israel’s rescue. Armageddon follows.
Worst Case Scenario:
July 12, 2006. Israel attacks Lebanon. For the latest on this scenario, read the newspapers…
Sigh!
July 26th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Another Scenario:
Arabs and Israelis learn to coexist. Religious extremist realize that God (Allah in Arabic) and God’s land is for every one and not just for one race or religion. Muslims, Christians, and Jews start sharing religious sites in Middle East. People start seeing each other as human beings rather than as Muslims, Christians, Jews, Arab or Israelis. People start living in peace and harmony. People start to realize that having same religion should not be the basis of brother hood, rather it should be humanity.
How it’s possible:
Only people like us from all religions and races can make it possible by stopping the extremist haters in our neighborhood, at work places and in media. Teach young generation to be more tolerant and teach them how to love. I always believe if I want to change the world then the change should begin form me.
Wish all the luck and love to every one who is suffering from this conflict. I pray to God that we have peace every where.
July 26th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
In this universe, Murphy’s hold true. The worst will happen.
OIC… this is a new term. You sure it is not a hypothetical term you invented?
July 26th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
FaBW: Thank you for ur comments, and Ameen to your duas. I am not so sure about the sharing of religious places part being realistic, but I would think respecting each other and each other’s religious places is a start…
Jalali Baba: I am not so sure…But then we are talking of hypothetical situations/parallel worlds anyway…
July 30th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
ForABetterWorld: “People start to realize that having same religion should not be the basis of brother hood”
Really? And why not? Because the “Western” “secular” “enlightened” “freedom loving” nations are not actually either secular or enlightened enough to allow Muslims the freedom to practice their deen?! The basis of our humanity, of our mutual love and of all our compassion is indeed Islam – to suggest that this is not the basis for brotherhood seems arrogant and condescending.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:34 pm
It’s not directly related to the subject matter, but have you seen Syriana? You should definitely watch that. Also slightly intriguing is “Lord of War” which, ends with “The United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China are the largest arms traders in the world. Incidentally they are also the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.”
Lord of War mostly centers on the African State of Liberia, but it means to show how arms traders benefit from warfare in other states and how ultimately arms trade… illegal arms trade… is not just the single-handed work of one or two individuals. These individuals, such as the character played by Nicholas Cage, just fill in the gaps left by governments, or rather, in a way, serve these governments and states and hence earn their protection.
Syriana focuses mainly on US relations with Saudi or vice verca, and the oil business and attempts to provide insight into the cause of terrorism and anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. Although fictional, some of the events depicted bear striking resemblance to actual occurences in recent history.
You may have noticed how the US has consistently linked Hezbollah to Syria and Iran. Lebanon was an easy target. But they’re setting up their bases for more. They turned the heat down a little bit on Syria when Israel gave a statement that it did not intend to invade it. At leasr for now, they should have added. They needed Syria to evacuate American citizens, who although are mostly of lebanese descent, hence the reason it took so long for the US to act, are still citizens and their treatment would still mean a lot to plenty of 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation immigrant-turn-citizens who form a significant portion of the voting population.
But the US has issued a strong statement against Iran in recent days. They have been after Iran for a while now and they’re getting set to make their move. Worst case scenario, the “oh-I-see” will sit and do just that, while the US wages war in the region through it’s puppets, or unabashedly joins in itself.
There’s a bigger scheme at work right now (while this iran/syria/lebanon thing is playing out a train bombing in India gets India’s focused again on it’s Muslim neighbor, Japan has been in the forefront pedalling the UN resolution against N. Korea, and US tension with Venezuela, a major oil producer) that I’m to sleepy to delve into right now. In the coming months the world will part neatly to support one side or the other and the same statement made for the League of Nations will be used to describe the UN – ineffective. In fact, it has laready been used to describe the UN before and during the Iraq war.
I’m not jumping to any conclusions because I admit there is plenty of speculation here, but one thing is true, through all this warfare, somebody’s making a fast buck out of all of this.
And though it may be obvious who that somebody or those somebodies are, but (if you watch Syriana) you might be surprised that some of those somebodies are bigwigs of that Oh-I-see bunch.
I’m sleepy so please don’t mind if I rambled on. Right now it looks as if what I’m saying is important and makes sense. TOmorrow morning I may think differently….
August 1st, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Hi Moderate Enlightenment:
I have very valid answers to your questions but I do not want to use my friend knicq’s site as an argument board.
Love and peace for all.
August 1st, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Felicity: Thanks very much for those comments…about time you visited an old friend’s place, and made your presence known. The points you have raised are very valid, and playing on the concious of every aware Muslim today. You have stopped short of mentioning the third country on the list, and it is but a matter of time that pakistan starts figuring the in the rhetoric. The Afghani puppets have been setting it up for long with their statements, and our neighbour on the other side has been no less vocal about the need for ‘hot pursuit’; and Mushy has been bending backwards to appease his masters and neighbours alike – in the end, it will all prove to be of little use. If abduction of two soldiers can be a premise to level a country, anything can be a premise to level any country. The need of the hour broadly speaking is for the Muslim World to unite and put its foot down, but that is way too utopian an option right now – the need of the hour is for us to be prepared for the worst – mentally, physically, and financially as well.
I am sitting back at work to catch up on some deadlines, and hence must check my monologue, but I look forward to your insights here.
FaBW: Please feel free to put forth your valid answers. Discussion is something this blog feeds on, and I look forward to it. I did refrain from posting my reply to your previous comments because I did not want this place to start looking like an anti-India forum. Moderate enlightenment has raised what to me is the most logical of points, and I am keen to see your response to same.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:28 pm
If you wish to understand the Indo-Arab relationship, this will be useful:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/730/in1.htm
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Interesting article bongdongs, but obviously not the full story, or even an attempt at the complete picture. This presents recent Indo/Arab history from the very narrow and blinkered perspective of an Egyptian pan-Arabist. The views of many, if not most, other Arabs would be different, especially in this day and age.
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:45 pm
I have very valid answers to your questions but I do not want to use my friend knicq’s site as an argument board.
What an ingenious excuse to run away from debate
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Moderate,
It represents the pan-3rd-world/socialist view which has lost out to the pan-islamist view.
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:36 pm
First of let me make one thing clear, you can sell this idea that Muslims are one nation to a non Muslim, but not to Muslim who knows typical Muslim culture. First we have so many sub religions, like Shia, Sunni, Wahabi, etc. Also then there are other religions who claim to be Muslims and rest of the world think they are Muslims but rest of Muslims think they are not Muslim at all.
During the month of Muharram it’s always bloodshed between these sects. Basically Islam has taken the same path as Christianity, one main theme then different religions under that Umbrella. Right now Islam is one main theme with different sub religions under the main Umbrella of name Islam. But interestingly enough the basic main theme of Islam and Christianity are exactly same (only difference being the status of Christ).
So if we say that to have all the sub religion under the umbrella of Islam is the best base to form brother hood then Islam and Christianity at top level are same as I pointed out above. Then based on your logic Christians should also be brothers.
But I even do not agree to this entire idea of having brothers based on religion. Why? Because for me this is discrimination, which I can not accept in any shape or form. But any way we have dual standard culture, as long as we do it its my “deen” as soon as any one else does it we cry foul. e.g. it was OK to have Pakistan because we have majority of Muslims there, but right now in Israel Jewish people are in majority, why we do not accept them as a country as we do Pakistan. (I am taking about now and not how Muslims became majority or how Jewish people became majority that’s a different debate).
I do not agree to the notion that West does not let Muslims practice their religion in their own countries, I strongly disagree. We cannot blame others for our own weakness. I live in USA and have never seen any one being stopped from practicing or preaching Islam. But I can just Imagine if some foreign Jewish Rabbi or Christian priest try to preach their religion in Pakistan (as this the country I know better), would happen to that person.
For me life is short and while we are here for a short time, why can not we live together as human beings and spread love and peace every where. Why can not we get rid of border and armies and have one country called “Our World”. But again I am a notorious dreamer.
Knicq please delete this post if you find anything offending.
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:42 am
It represents the pan-3rd-world/socialist view which has lost out to the pan-islamist view.
And what a good thing that is too…
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:20 am
Hi ForABetterWorld
You raise some valid, and a few not so valid, points. My quick thoughts:
1. You have highlighted the fact that Islam has internal schisms, divisions and sects. I doubt this should be news to anyone here! I don’t see how this implies that the concept of Muslim Ummah or brotherhood is flawed at the fundamental level? The fact that something does not exist in reality is not sufficient to make it undesirable or detrimental to our interests in theory; it merely makes it improbable and difficult to achieve.
2. Some of your other comments are built on gross generalisations. For instance, violence in the month of Muharram, though sadly not uncommon in Pakistan of late (ie since the Iranian Revolution), is a relatively new and thankfully rare phenomenon, at least over the past 14 centuries. It is unheard of in most Muslim countries, and even in South Asia, it was uncommon till recently. I am sure many of us remember or have heard of the counter-processions and marches by Sunnis on that day in response to the Shiah processions, which were common in most South Asian cities for most of the 20th century – a relatively good humoured and violence-free way of making one’s point.
3. With due respect, to say that the “main basic theme of Islam and Christianity” are same is to exhibit rank ignorance of Islam and of Christianity – I can only assume you meant something else and I misunderstood, which is easy to do on the net. Islam and Christianity are fundamentally different and diametrically opposed; the basic foundation of Christian theology over the past 17 odd centuries is the concept of the “trinity”. In Islam, that concept of the trinity is considered not merely blasphemous but the gravest insult and abuse to Allah – there are numerous evidences from the Qur’an, Sunnah and elsewhere on this point. The concept of the trinity goes against the basic premise of Islam, which is Tawheed, or Islamic Monotheism – and if there is no Tawheed, the rest of the deen is irrelevant.
4. It is not “my logic” that Muslims should be brothers; it is a requirement under Islam. Yes, they may not act as if they are, but how is that relevant to the desirability or otherwise of this concept? And no, I don’t see how this implies that Christians are one brotherhood; if that is how they understand their religion, fine – I am no one to interfere. But just because something is enjoined by one religion does not mean all others have to follow suit!
5. Your comment about Israel is a complete red herring. There is nothing wrong with a Jewish or a Christian or a Hindu country per se, and no knowledgeable Muslim should disagree. What we condemn is the usurpation, occupation and subjugation of Muslim lands and peoples.
6. Is arguing for a Muslim Ummah discriminating? Yes, in a way it is. But this is the classification of the Qur’an; in the Islamic view, from a doctrinal stand-point, there are two types of people in this world: Muslims and non-Muslims. You obviously think differently, so we will have to agree to disagree here.
7. We have discussed the issue of Western oppression of its Muslim populations before on this very blog. No reason to repeat and rehash the debate, but the fact remains that Muslims have fairly limited and constrained rights to practice their deen in the West, unlike the rights that an Islamic state would offer its non-Muslim subjects. Of course, the fact remains that there is no Islamic state around, only tyrannical Muslim regimes which oppress both their Muslim and their non-Muslim populations.
8. A Christian priest would get shot down in Pakistan? LOL – which planet are you talking of?! Christian missionary priests are ten-a-penny in Pakistan, and have a fairly well-developed, well-funded and extensive networks within the country, which they use to spread their faith, in a relatively unhindered way. This is a relic of the Raj that has not gone away but has instead strengthened over time. Pakistan probably feels it has too many other problems to worry about this.
9. Jewish proselytising – what are you on about?! It doesn’t happen because Judaism is not a proselytising faith!!!
10. I am more than happy to get rid of all man-made borders and have one country. However the
concept of “One World” without a unifying ideology would be a non-starter.
We can all offer our own thoughts on what that unifying ideology could or should be be. Many would think it should be secular democracy / liberal humanism, etc. However, others would feel that this could also be Islam, since in their view, only true Islam can offer the justice and fairness that mankind craves; only true Islam can take humans out of the slavery and the subjugation of other humans, and into the service and love of their Creator; and only true Islam offers us salvation and success, not just in this life, but more importantly, in the next one.
Just a viewpoint, which you are free to ignore or disagree with. And just to clarify, saying this does not mean one supports the half-baked or demented ideas of a global Khilalafah espoused by some of these modern-day Muslim terrorists! We certainly do not condone or approve of the violence against innocents that is perpetrated by these people in the name of Islam, and nor do we believe that an Islamic state will come about through their oppressive methods.
August 4th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
i think pakistan should bomb israel ad palentine and hwatver …. sab mar jaein gay to phadda hi khatam ho jaey ga
and there wont beany stupid riots in pakistan to support the muslims when the holier than thou arab nations wont do anything themselves. then agaion, are we willing to turnthe countries we are living in into war zones? are we willing to lose our lives and those of our loved ones? when i see the news i thank Allah im here. i dont want to be there.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:12 am
Moderate Enlightenment,
I think you may have misunderstood what ForABetterWorld originally meant when he/she said earlier that having the same religion shouldn’t be the basis of brotherhood…
Reading the complete sentence I understand him to mean that brotherhood SHOULD BE based on humanity… being human… and not just common religious beliefs. As utopian as that sounds, I don’t necessarily believe that’s wrong, considering how devided our religion truly has become and while you may claim there isn’t as much sectarian violence, you must admit that there still exists enough animosity between sects that some will refuse to marry into the other and some will refuse to associate with those belonging to the other… not just in Pakistan but in the rest of the world. And how can you ever forget that the Iran- Iraq war was essentially a Shia-Sunni war. It was essentially that animosity between these two sects that the US used to depose Saddam… by inciting the Shia minority in Iraq against the Sunni rulers…
My perception is that ForABetterWorld was not arguing against bortherhood in Islam, but he was arguing against confining brotherhood to Islam and refusing to coexist with a nation bearing differing beliefs. Like I said before, it may be very utopian and unrealistic, and he does ignore the fact that as much as most muslims are intolerant of ISrael and those of jewish faith, so are plenty jewish people equally as intolerant of Muslims and equally as retarded in their perspectives, yet I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with that concept.
But I do disagree with your trivializing the amount of violence that has occured in the name of God against those of the same faith because they belong to a different sect. Just because we dislike violence, lets not cover our eyes and pretend it never happened.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Hi Knicq!
Just dropping by to say ‘hi!’ I’m not sure I could add anything to the debate, I’m just so sick of it all (war). My strategy these days is to achieve peace in my own heart (which isn’t easy and hasn’t really happened yet) and teach my children to do the same.
August 16th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Hi Laura,
Thanks for dropping by. Who is not sick of war? but it is imposed by the moronic few on the unsuspecting many…always…
I am convinced now that we must all prepare for war, learn to defend ourselves, and help others…
Finding peace in our hearts is not easy, but I know you will agree the only way to finding it is standing by the truth… and leaving the rest to God.