trade, traffic, mutual good-will (religion of peace?)

Nor kill or destroy yourselves: (thus suicide bombers are not Islamic?)

Are you sure that 4:29 (YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Eat not up your property among yourselves in vanities: But let there be amongst you Traffic and trade by mutual good-will: Nor kill (or destroy) yourselves: for verily Allah hath been to you Most Merciful! ) supports taqiya? If so how?

Is this a joke? That was my first reaction to this piece. I’ve been Muslim for thirteen years, have been studying Islam since 1996, have learned Arabic, lived in Saudi Arabia, and currently reside in Jordan furthering my studies in Islamic theology and have never, not once, had to study a book, or commentary on this supposed “central”, “pivotal”, “doctrine” called Taqiyya. I recall reading some anti-Shiite material that made reference in a critical manner to a Shiite practice called Taqiya where Shiites conceal their sect when amongst Sunnis but that is about it.

This piece is sloppy and lacks references regarding it’s most critical claims. If “Taqiyya” is indeed a central doctrine that is universally accepted by Muslims then please provide me with a standard Sunni book of doctrine that exposits it. I doubt the learned author is even capable of directing me to any book of doctrine whatsoever it being the case that he can’t even decide what part of speech the word Shariah is! Also who is the author of the much touted Al-Taqiyya fi Al-Islam and where was it published?

I for one would never advocate deception except where it is allowed in Islam: as a stratagem on the battle field or in order to avoid harm and death. It is indeed unfortunate that people who claim to eschew legal rigidity can’t appreciate this simple wisdom in Islamic law. Surely one who appreciates the “thoroughly legalistic nature” of Islam can appreciate that it is categorically forbidden to deceive people except in those narrow circumstances I’ve mentioned. Yet you take references to a legal exception and present it to your readers as the rule. It is absolutely disgusting the way scholarship can be prostituted.

For those who are convinced that we, Muslims are bent on deceiving you: maybe we’ll tell you you have weapons of mass destruction when you don’t, maybe we’ll tell you we don’t torture when we do, let me clear the air on this point. We have no need to lie to people about our faith for it is nothing but truth and wisdom from God.

The holy prophet Muhammad like Moses, Jesus and others between them (God bless all and grant them peace) did not teach passivism for he was not so instructed by God. We Muslims do and will fight against those so blinded by misguidance that they can do nothing but cry lies to themselves and the rest of creation. Against such souls who may come from all creeds without exception reason fails and war is the only option. If anyone doubts the wisdom in that then I’ll simply point to this article and the majority of its comments and rest my case.

God bless you and guide you.

Pakistan’s equation is very simple: its survival depends on two conditions: jihadizing its population and on Afghanistan being a failed state. Its survival and the power and well being of its ruling class.

Pakistan is an artificial country made from components (Pashtuns, Sindhs, Punjabis, Balochs) who have little love for one another and whose a ruling class is mostly formed by Punjabis. How do you make such people stay together so you the punjabi elite can get a slice of everything not from just Punjab but from Pakistan plus the power and influence (this gets you American aid) from ruling a big state? You fanaticize your population. You cover the country with madrassas specially in the lands of the dangerous minorities.. You tighten links with Saudia Arabia and open the country to wahabist influence (the links between Deobandi people and the wahabis date from 19th century and the British Army had to quell several revolts instigated by the wahabis), you make “Jihad” the battle cry of your army and of course you incite hate against the infidels and have conflicts with India while airing imaginary plots from India, United States and Israel for destroying the country. This way people will think that is not a so big deal to not having their own country because “we are all Muslims”, or from being robbed by punjabis because “we must stay united in face of kafirs”.

And then there is Pakistan Afghan’s problem. For one side Pakistan has ever had the ambition to gobble or at least vassalize Aghanistan (Pakistan is an acroym of Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Iamu, Sindh) in order to get man power and strategic depth for a war against India On the other side Pakistan has tens of millions of Pashtun subjects who are ethnically linked with Afghans (Pashtun and Afghan were synonyms until 192x). Moreover the legal basis of Pakistan’s presence in Pashtun territory is tenuous at best since it is based on the Durand treaty between Afghanistan and the British Raj who expired in the 90s. Furthermore the bellicose nature of Pashtuns and the difficult terrain would make a revolt particularly dangerous and difficult to quash. Pakistn deals with the Pashtun problem by giving them a privileged status: they are exempted from taxes but still can establish themselves anywhere within Pakistan, they have self rule in the NWFP, have an easier access to the highest ranks of the Army than other minorities. But this is not enough: in order to ensure that its Pashtuns don’t look towards Khabul Pakistan needs Afghanistan being poor, backwards, in semi-anarchy or with a fanatically islamist government and within it to favor those like Mullah Omar who in their dreams of caliphate have forgotten they are Afghans and that pesky Durand treaty.

All of the above means that Pakistan is a structural enemy in the WOT, that its interest lies in the western countries failing to stabilize Afghanistan and that the situation of the international force whose lines of communication and eventually retreat cross Pakistan is very dangerous. It is in west’s interest, but also in the interest of its populations impoverished by the rapacious elites and the privileges of the army to cause the implosion of Pakistan. How to do it without losing Afghanistan and depriving it from its nuclear teeth is easier said than done.

I apologize for calling you a liar: the 242 resolution wording is ambiguous enough that many people in the west believe in good faith that it mandated evacuation of “the territories” instead of territories. But anyway is point is quite moot to me since I don’t recognize the legitimacy of an entity based on the formula “one state, one vote” no matter how unimportant or how unrepresentative and corrupt its government. Nietzche told that the state was “the coldest of the cold monsters” but UN is far colder because unlike states its immoral actions are not limited by elections or dangers of revolt.

Also I disagree mentioning the Saudi entity as an ally since the Saudi entity has never been the ally of anyone but itself: in 1992 they already looked with contempt at the people who had saved their worthless skins from Saddam just a few months before. (Not to mention that the legitimate rulers of Maccah and Madinah are the Hashemites)

For Saddam himself America gave him some information and sold him very limited quantities of weapons because he was facing an enemy (Iran) who looked far more dangerous. Not unlike to what Stalin got in WWII except for Stalin getting a far better treatment. But if you want to know which countries were Saddam’s allies look at numbers: China, Soviet Union and France sold twenty to forty times more to Saddam than America or the UK.

9

9

Darfur people aren’t Arabs but Black. And that is one of my problems. They are second (or third) class Muslims. BTW, long time ago I read part of the book about war of a such Al Hindi written around 1400AD. Unfortunately I cannot remember the title or the exact name of the author. I only know he was born in what we call Pakistan. But I remember the following haddith he quotes: “Treat the Arab as an Arab and the mixed blood like a mixed blood: the Arab is entitled to two shares (of booty) and the mixed blood to one”.

We could also speak about Spain. Like you know the Arab occupation lasted for eight centuries. That makes a lot of caliphs and amirs. Also after Al Mansur’s death, Cordoba’s caliphate split into several small kingdoms, called taifas because they had to pay taifas to the Christians in order to not be invaded (after Caliphate had done the same to Christians). That makes still more caliphs and amirs. But none of them was ever a Muladi, that is a Spanish muslim. All of them were Arabs except in the few places where the Royal Guard or the Army revolted and placed a Berber or a Slavic on the throne. Gives to think isnt’ it?

All of this to explain that being Muslims has never protected people as soon as they were dark skinned enough