Yes ideologically whole Muslim Ummah is one single nation. But practically it is not so. Practical scenario is whole different from ideal state of affairs. If I say that Osama is struggling for his nationalistic ambitions, here I am NOT using the term ‘nationalism’ in its ideological sense. I am using it in practical sense. Practically Arab nations may prefer Indian stance about Kashmir issue, to that of Pakistan’s. Surely, in these types of matters, ‘nationalism’ in the ‘practical’ sense would be at work. USA companies offer more profits. So ‘practically’ it is beneficial for Saudi Arabia to invest its wealth in American businesses. I could not open your link so I am still unable to understand how our unity can make us strong whereas we already have a functional religion based International Organization of Islamic Countries. I think still Muslim countries feel more belongingness for other Muslim countries than any other let’s say Christian country would feel belongingness for any other Christian country. So what else we can hope of unity? If Europe is united today, IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR COMMON RELIGION. But they do have common practical interests.
Apparent silly attitude of Osama is explainable from both these angles i.e. firstly by just considering him a ‘practical’ nationalist and secondly by considering him ‘indirect ally’. I still prefer 1st assumption on such grounds that at first, Osama was the ‘direct ally’ of USA. Then he turned out to be ‘direct enemy’ AFTER WHEN US ARMY ENTERED HIS OWN TERRITORY OF SAUDI LAND with the view to punish Iraq. Remember that before 9/11, Osama was charged of being involved in bomb blasts in US embassies in African countries. Point to be remembered is that those bombs blasted exact on the day of eighth anniversary of US first attack on Iraq. So it is more likely that ambitions of territorial type nationalism were at work behind those bomb blasts

Affirmative, your points are pretty solid and digestible. Talking about the term ideology, I better say that once an ideology won’t get adopted practically, it’ll last just as an ideology and nothing more, and that what’s going nowadays. No doubt that anti Muslim forces are intensely activating on the stance of “DIVIDE AND RULE”, in tucker, we have also forgotten this reality that “UNITED WE WIN, DIVIDED WE FALL”. The entire Muslim Ummah is simply nothing without unity and proper strategy.
There are near about 58 countries in OIC, and among them mutual trade is hardly 17% while the left over 87% is carried out with that of occidentals. Only because they offer best investment ground with dirriffic environment. Do you know Sir; that who is the founder of the banking system that is current running in the entire world? No one else except Jews, they were Jews who introduce the stock exchange system, banking system fully encircled by usury, business institutes, insurance companies, investments corporations, multinational companies, business schools and franchises. It’s the major characteristic of Jews that they never do job, if you speculate then you will come to know that near about 98% of Jews are business holders. Nowadays, the entire world is cobwebbed with this attractive network as they offer profitable figures.
We are under damn influence of this system, that’s the reason why Islamic banking system has almost expunged. And thus it results worst economic misbalance in entire Muslim world,
We have to exercise for the establishment of Islamic ideology in each and every sector of ours; as if we won’t then I’m afraid, we cannot win this battle (God forbids).
The above text that I have so written is just to mention this, that, Jews had framed a long term strategy which carries financial and scientific sectors as well, and I think it is known to everybody that an attractive monetary system have great magnetic force. Thus rich Muslim countries are becoming richest and subjects of poor countries are living below poverty line. Plus, as you said that Christian countries are united not on the basis of religion but because of their economical interest. Well, I definitely agree with your point, but I better say that
I’ve simply used the term “united” in my previous post and hadn’t asserted that the subjective unity is religious one. Thus once again I would like to mention that it’s one of the parts of Jewish shrewd tactics, they need to bring unity and finance is the best way of placing closure, the outstanding nexus that has so enhanced their bond energy, and thus now they are governing us.
What else Usama had done, what he’s doing and what he is willing to do, yet all these aspects have brought nothing but ravage of Islamic society and the subjective ideology, his practical nationalism is ruining our position at regional as well as at international level. This thing isn’t strange that Jews want to use us; the tragedy is this that we Muslims have yet proved ourselves the tenderest combo by mutilating our religious laws and regulations. Bin ladens’ extremism has proved Usama as an “indirect ally” of US along with being a mere nationalist. Now it’s our choice which title do we choose.

One thing more that I would like to mention,,,,,,,,,, a year ago when it was asked by Mullah Mohammad Anas, who is a Taliban leader and was in Ghazni at that time that why Usama Bin Laden sent video tape against Bush a day before 2004 US elections? Then on reply he first delivered his smile and then said that because they wanted Bush to win those elections. On asking the subjective reason he said that Bush is that person who provided them a new ground “Iraq”, his policies has enhanced global hate for US, that’s the reason why they want bush to rule further long, as bush is that subject who can devastate US.
Thus regarding to this concept he proclaimed Bush as Al-Qaida’s benefactor. And the failure of Bush’s foreign policy that I’ve mentioned in my last post also depicts that sooner or later US would suffer in the same manner like that of USSR.
So in light of this fact the policies of US and Al-Qaida are proving them extremists and jossers.

Personally US by itself has no danger from Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern territories, it merely attacked on Saudi Arabia and Iraq only because its policy makers are Jews, and Jews want prosperity and firmness of Israel. Its further given in an article written by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt whose reference I have already given in my second last thread, there they said,

”Israel has become a sort of burden for US, and the reason why
it is suffering terrorism is nothing but its favoritism towards Israeli
policies.”
Well these are the words which are delivered by American nationalists.
Thus this thing clears that Jews are using both Muslim and US fronts to extract their so required concerns.



I here do not agree to your point that true Muslim will never kill innocent people who have nothing to do with the war by means of fidai bombing. It may be true that Osama may actually be a hidden ally of USA. But Osama himself is NOT any fidai bomber. He just USES some ardent, fanatic and ready to die ‘fidai bombers’. Can you say that those ACTUAL ready to die fidai bombers are also hidden or indirect allies of USA????? Can you say that those ACTUAL fidai bombers do not kill their own selves for the ‘cause’ of Islam, obviously in their own feelings?????????????
Those who are ready to kill their own selves for the cause of Islam, why cannot be considered to be true Muslims? What I think is that THEY ARE TRUE MUSLIMS BUT THEY ARE IGNORANT MUSLIMS. They are ignorant because they insist on such a strategy for the cause of Islam, which not only is not evident in the light of true spirit of Islamic teachings but also is giving poisonous effects to the real cause of Islam.



Now here you have admitted by yourself that fidai blasts are giving poisonous effects to the real cause of Islam. Those subjects who are responsible to subvert Islam image, how can you consider them true Muslims? Even a school child knows that suicide is not allowed in Islam, for instance if somebody ties detonating stuff on his belly, enters in public market and blasts himself that results deaths of non-combatants, then what do you think, shall we consider that deed righteous and upright? Or do you think that subject who committed that crime is a true Muslim, as he has killed non-Muslim civilians on the name of Jihad?

In 2004, an 18 years old Palestinian boy Hasan Hotiri blasted himself in a disco club of Tel-Aviv. Do you think it is a correct format of Jihad? People who are doing such actions have simply lost sense of segregation between right and wrong, as they are fully brain washed, Jihad doesn’t teach us to kill non-combatants even if they belong to our antagonist nation, because if this thing had allowed in Islam then NABI PAK (PBUH) would have killed kuffar after conquering Makka.

Yes one can blast himself and could lay his life in this style only in crucial situations when there isn’t any other way left, number of Pakistani soldiers had presented such examples in wars of 1965 and 1971 the most familiar e.g. is that of Rashid Minhas.
What I want to say that if full of spirit and ready to die Muslims want to lay their lives then it will be much better if they should blast themselves in enemies cantonments and garrisons instead that of public places as this thing strongly condemned by various Muslim religious scholars of the entire world.
The methods like suicide bombings are generally adopted by weak nations, we are backward in all respects regarding science and technology, industry, weapon sector and much else. Once we’ll try to work out on such aspects, then we don’t need to adopt such options, which are responsible to effect our religious position.
Definitely Usama is not fidai bomber, as if he was then Al-Qaida would celebrate his death anniversary every year. He is one, who promoted fidai bombing, and then later it circulated among other jihadi group like Hizbullah, Hamas, Mehdi Malaysia etc, so off course he is responsible to mutilate Islamic ideology, so how can u consider him true Muslim?
In such regards you can read my thread “Reasons behind peacelessness in Muslim society”, whenever you find respective time for it.




But I did not say that you keep on wearing those specs for all the time, like other major nations do. What I said was just that you just take a tour of this spectacular vision in order to UNDERSTAND why other major nations cannot see anything unethical in the policies and actions of USA.


The visionary angle of entire MAJOR NATIONS that you have made emphatic and wanted us to speculate in the same format momentarily; has already been cleared from my side at back that basically major nations are looking with the sight of Jews, and emphasizing us to view with their specs means that you want us to observe the current situation in Jewish format, which simply we don’t want to do.



Your final conclusion is, “bad should be called bad, and stupid should be called stupid.”
Now take this conclusion of yours in your hands and go to any other major nation. What you shall say? You shall say, “America is bad because it is bad”. Believe me, no one shall accept your point of view.


What I mentioned bad are unjust attitude and policies of US administration not the US nation. And no doubt its international policies is letting its graph down, even its citizens are now turning against its policies, for evidence you can read the latest observation that has published in one of the US magazine “Wall Street”, there it is given that near about one third Americans are against their government policies.
Mr. Mecna Mara, who was US foreign minister during the times of President Canedy and President Johnson and was also appointed as president of World Bank stated last year that the present US policies are highly cheap, totally against the law, militarily non-essential and pretty troublesome for the entire world.

Ex-foreign minister Ms. Mediline Albright stated last year that US has committed worst mistake by attacking in Iraq. Mr. Colin Powel also said that he was against such military action, it was Duck Chine who made Bush fool.
Few days ago six retired generals who were destined on responsible positions in Iraq along with including Mr. Anthony Zany who is an ex leader of US central command declared the US foreign policy totally bogus and flop and thus in this regards they insisted Bush to fire Donald Ramesfield.
Three days ago Peter Goss the US defense secretary has resigned too, only because he couldn’t resist the typical situation that has so generated due to rubbish US policies.

And it is known to all of us that it’s not the people who represent their country
in international politics; it’s the country’s leadership and its policies, which are the standard bearer of the respective representation. Once the leadership will be worst then it will ruin the image of entire nation, and that what’s happening with US.



In order to convince others that USA is bad, you would need to show some those aspects of USA, which could not be censored even by those specs of other major nations.



I have already discussed some of those aspects in my last post.



If you try to look deeply into the matters, which you have pointed out in this para, you shall find that it has happened due to some those policies of Bush Administration WHICH COULD NOT BE CENSORED BY THE SPECS WHICH USA’s OWN PEOPLE WEAR. And this is exactly what I wanted to explain. Now it is general perception that what USA did in Iraq was in clear contrast with USA’s own struggle of ‘war against terrorism’. So people are going against their government mainly due to this reason because this thing clearly went against their own value system. What I want to explain is exactly the same. The right effective policy, in my assessment, would be to repeatedly raise and highlight this or any other similar issue (i.e. which could not be censored by specs of other nations) on every international forum with the view to ethically isolate USA in various international matters. I already have discussed in detail, how we can ethically isolate a superpower country in this thread: <http://www.cssforum.com.pk/thread3330.html>


Baraber bolay aap, and I’ll definitely read the so given link of yours as soon as I’ll be able to grab some leisure hours INSHA ALLAH.



Well but I do not think that my assertions fall into the category of contrapositivity. As per my memory, what I listened about this thing was that in this method, if we want to prove the truth of an assertion, we first suppose that the statement actually is false. Then we see and evaluate the possible outcome of this supposition. If the so outcome is found out to be quite absurd, then we conclude that our original assumption was wrong in fact. If our original assumption was wrong, it means that original assertion was not false. If original assertion was not false then it means that it was true in fact. In this way we prove the truth of a given assertion.

I have not used this method in my assertions. My method was a simple logic, which can be successfully applied in the study of various social phenomena also.


A thing which is against the nature and fully repugnant to universal roots; but is considered not bad in the sight of bearers or holders of that thing. Then certainly they won’t accept this truth that their adoption is not righteous. Then its only contrapositivity that can convince them that the respective adoption is one of the worst values.
There isn’t any objection that what else Allah has declared bad for us is definitely harmful for entire humanity, that’s the reason why the natives are now accepting this truth.



Agree in that the old values in western societies are still in function but to just some extent and also in much modified form. We should promote our own values along with strong rational footings so that others may become able to see the beauty and goodness of our values.


100% positive.


This point of view that westerns have taken all the things from our religious teachings is rather traditional and most of the times, it is promoted just blindly. I can see no solid basis for this point of view. If westerns have taken all the things from our religious teachings then they should not possess those social evils, which they do possess. Secondly if they really have found the true spirit of our religion then we should not have any objection in living under their leadership.

For unknown reasons, our mainstream education system as well as madarassah education system, both intentionally keep us away from knowing this fact that westerns do possess their own sources of ethical outlook of the world, which resembles to that of ours in some respects but the resemblance is just superficial.

Apart from ethical type teachings of ancient religions, the first intellectuals who imparted profound influences on ethical outlook of west were Socrates and Plato. Socrates attempted to elaborate the meanings of virtue, truth, justice etc. Plato came up with his doctrine of objective existence of ethical and moral codes and values/ standards.

Aristotle happened to be more like a scientist rather than teacher of ethics. There was no concept of international brotherhood up till that time. Plato and Aristotle tried to legitimize slavery in their respective styles. But the emergence of Roman Empire in 1st century AD gave a whole new outlook to mankind. Philosophies like Stoicism and Epicureanism emerged in that period. These were ethical type philosophies in essence. It was Stoics who first reacted against slavery and propounded the idea of universal brotherhood of humanity. Epicureans asserted that end goal before individuals should be of getting ‘intellectual pleasure’ which they could get through their thirst for knowledge and wisdom.

That Roman Empire was consisted of various city-states. For the better management of affairs of cities, Roman administrators realized the importance of ‘honesty’ in the inter-relationships of city people. So they adopted this social value of ‘honesty’ because it happened to be PRACTICALLY more beneficial for them.

Apart from the teachings of Bible and Engeal, teachings of many other religious philosophers (better known as ‘scholastics’) also shaped the ethical outlook of west unto a considerable extent. St. Augustine and St. Aquinas developed their own ethical doctrines. Doctrines of St. Aquinas later on became the official doctrines of medieval Europe.

During the renaissance period, many rational philosophers also came up with their own ethical doctrines. Spinoza, for instance, made a theory of ethics based on the principles of geometry. Various types of philosophies such as materialism, idealism, rationalism, realism, nominalism etc. etc. all had their corresponding results about the ethical outlook of life.

Yes it is true that west got many things from the teachings of Islam also but it is just baseless to say that all positive aspects of west originated in the teachings of Islam.

So reasons for the backwardness of Muslim societies are that they have left up their thirst for search for truth, knowledge and wisdom. They have been trapped into the habit of worshiping the idea of their glorious past and they are not finding any suitable starting point for meeting the challenges of contemporary world.




Allah ray, just a small word “all” in hasty has made you to mention a detail philosophical history, really its quiet informative, thanks for sharing this with us.

What else you have written in starting paragraphs is undeniable. As we all know that rectitude is eternal since the time of its genesis. The terms honesty, sincerity, truthfulness, dutifulness, modesty etc had already mentioned in Zaboor, Bible, Exodus, Deuteronomy and Genesis of Torah and other revealed volumes. But now they don’t exist in their original form. What else Quran Kareem says is certain and unchangeable and that’s what non-Muslim scholars have too admitted. Our value system in every field and sector is hundred percent ideal and free from errors only because of the fact that it is so proposed by Quran and Sunnah, and that’s what the entire worldly experts accept it.
I also didn’t mean to say that west has adopted every positive aspect of Quran, what I need to say was that those aspect and figures that could bring prosperity, durability and firmness is various development sectors have so adopted by west at some what extent, and that’s not what only I say, this is thing that is asserted by Mr. George Playfield who is a research scholar of Human studies and teaches in university of Virginia, further this thing is mentioned by Mr. Saleem Yazdani a well known columnist and analyst. So I better say that this thing hasn’t spread blindly.



And it is equally important to mention that Western teachings also drew many impressions on the Muslim outlook of ethics. For example Muslim Sufis’ concepts of ‘Ishq-e-Haqiqi’, ‘fana-fi-Allah’ etc. has the roots in 1st Century AD’s philosophy known as ‘Neo-Platonism’.



Look sir, the concepts of Ishq-e-haqiqi, fana-fi-Allah, khudi etc are those concepts, which exist since the time of human origin, it’s an intense feeling whose history is equally old as that of human history, man kept on exploring its depth since the time of its creation and still the search is going on. Whatever work our Aulia-e-karam did regarding the subjective concepts wasn’t under the inspiration of Neo-Platonism.
In short, such ideologies were raised in every human period; we cannot restrict any era as its founder or explorer.
But I would truly like to know about Neo-Platonism concept, hope you could share it with me.


And your other post about the failures of US foreign policies is really good, informative and sufficiently elaborative. I thank you for sharing your this crucial analytical work with us.


Inayat for appreciating my absurd effort.


FEE AMAN ALLAH

__________________
Farangi teyra chehra do rangi,,,A'ankhein roshan dil zangi.