Redrawn map for Muslim world

[Klare]

My observation is that there is unbroken area of Muslim countries stretching from Mauritania on the Atlantic Ocean on the west to Uzbekistan in the East and Pakistan in the south. In addition we have four Muslim majority countries in the South East; Bangla Desh, Malaysia. Indonesia & Brunei and three; Niger, Nigeria & Somalia in Africa

To make it simple, let us divide the area into Arab lands (Mauritania until Iraq) and non Arab lands which comprise Muslim countries situated north of Euphrates and West of Tigris in Asia and South of Sahara in Africa.

All Arab countries speak the same language and have a common culture quite distinct from non Arabs. All other countries, despite having common religion are different from one another in more ways than one.

We have Arab League to look after the interest of the Arabs. Despite being overwhelmingly Muslim, Arab League has a secular constitution.

Let us ignore past history, when Arab Muslims sided with kaffir English and threw out fellow Muslim ottoman Turks. In the very recent past we have seen Arab Sunni Muslim Saddam Hussein of Iraq, trying to gobble up oil rich fellow Sunni Muslim Kuwait. Also Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia calling the help of the infidel US's to liberate Kuwait and actively participated in the eliminaton of Saddam. When even Arabs cant seem to unite despite deliberate effort, what can be expected of the others?

Long and short of this is that whatever Muslim think tanks dream up on paper, ground reality is quite different. Muslim world is rife with ethnic and sectarian rivalries. What Taliban did to Hazara Shias in Afghanistan and sectarian conflict in Pakistan is ample proof that Muslim unity is nothing but a pipe dream.

In UAE (historic friend of Pakistan) there are lot more Indians than Pakistanis. There are twenty four countries whose pass port holders are allowed to come to UAE without visa, the same is granted on arrival. The list does not include Pakistan, Indonesia, Malayasa or Iran but includes USA, Canada, most West European countries, South Africa, Australia and Japan. So much for the Muslim Ummah!.

Muslims prefer to kill each other rather than fighting the non Muslims. Will there ever be a united Muslim Ummah? I don’t believe so. Dream on Think Tanks.

I am agree that ground realities are very hopeless. But we have to try hard for unity of our Ummah. We can't change our faith because of Arabs or Taliban. God glorify the nation which deserve it. If I prove myself and ask help from Allah then I can expect some change.

 

[L'Indien]

Fundamentalism is not a bad phenomenon. Let's say some doctor is following fundamentals of medical profession so he would be a good docter because he is supposed to follow fundamentals of his profession. And if he does not follow fundamentals of medical profession then he would not be a good doctor or some will say that he is even not a doctor.
So the point I am trying to make is that Islamic fundamentalism is not bad.

oooh lalalalaaaa.....mate, unless you were joking, you changed the definition of "fundmentalism"....please consult a dictionary.....lol

 

[qsaark]

oooh lalalalaaaa.....mate, unless you were joking, you changed the definition of "fundmentalism"....please consult a dictionary.....lol

Klares is right. There is a big difference between a fundamentalist and an extremist. Anybody who follows the basics or the fundamentals of his religion is a fundamentalist but a person who goes to the extremes is a different species.

The word 'fundamentalism' was derived from the movements of the protestants in the USA of the early 20th century. But because a word is used to describe their religious philsophy does not mean that the word ONLY means that. Fundamentalist is the one who follow the fundamentals. The use of this term itself is controversial just like the use of the word of terrorist because of the lack of a unanimously agreed definition.

As per Mariam Webster dictionary:

1 a. often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs
2: a. movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

And I'll suggest you to avoid using sentences like "....please consult a dictionary.....lol", people could be more educated and wise than you think they are. Try to maintain civility in your posts; otherwise you may be weeded out like many before you.

 

[L'Indien]

Klares is right. There is a big difference between a fundamentalist and an extremist. Anybody who follows the basics or the fundamentals of his religion is a fundamentalist but a person who goes to the extremes is a different species.

... but did I even mention the word extremist? Did I mention that fundamentalist and extremist are same?...NO...
So please dont cook up stuff....

Fundamentalist is the one who follow the fundamentals.

A highly simplistic way to define things. According to the the definition that you quoted from Mariam Webster dictionary the definition of fundamentalism is:

2: a. movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

"strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles" pretty much defines fundamentalism. If anyone compares religious fundamentalism to a doctor following the scientific procedures and guidelines , then I cant help but laugh, even if that offends you!!

a fundamentalist in any religion, when confronted with a conflict between love, compassion and caring, and conformity to doctrine, will almost invariably choose the latter regardless of the effect it has on its followers or on the society of which it is a part.

It is this overwhelming seriousness about religion that is one of the hallmarks of the fundamentalist. He is concerned not only with his own conformity to doctrine, but the conformity of the rest of society to it, too. Many fundamentalists will not hesitate to intervene in the political process to ensure that society is forced to conform to the behaviors their world view requires, if not accept that world view. The belief that they are right, without any question, justifies, in their own minds, taking upon themselves the right to impose their point of view, by force if necessary. An example is the attempt, by some Christian fundamentalist groups in Europe and the US, to shut down, by force, abortion clinics that are operating in accordance with the law. Some have gone so far as to threaten and intimidate employees, and even murder doctors working there.

Fundamentalism often justifies hatred in the minds of its adherents. This is undoubtedly the most dangerous aspect of fundamentalism. The idea that God hates the same people you do is particularly gratifying in that it makes the indulgence in hatred not only acceptable, but somehow approved and even encouraged by God. This is seen most clearly in many fundamentalist sects, which routinely justify terrorism and murder as being "God's will."

I will give you an example. Here in India we have Hindu fundamentalists like the Shiv Sena, VHP etc. These fundamentalists believe that their literal interpretation of Hinduism is correct and should be followed by all Hindus; They try to impose their thinking on the rest of us. So they beat up young couples celebrating Valentines day, beat up girls who go to pubs and bars...etc. A fundamentalist pretends to be deeply religious, but I can show you millions of devout Hindus, who adhere to their religion, but at the same time are open enough to let others co exist peacefully. Therefore please do not confuse a religious person with a fundamentalist

A fundamentalist is NOT a terrorist, but is more likely than a non-fundamentalist to commit a terrorist activity.....just like a Shiv Sainik is more likely to use violence than a beef-eating Hindu like me.

Fundamentalism isn't just restricted to Christianity or Islam, but it is found in every major religion, ranging from Judaism, to Hinduism, to Buddhism, to even Zoroastrianism.

I suggest you read this.....its from the newspaper Dawn...
Extremism, terrorism and fundamentalism

and this

Why The "Fundamentalist" Approach To Religion Must Be Wrong

Klare said that "Islamic fundamentalism is not bad", since you jumped so enthusiastically in his defence, I expect you to justify his statement.

And I'll suggest you to avoid using sentences like "....please consult a dictionary.....lol", people could be more educated and wise than you think they are.

Agreed, but even "educated and wise" people need to revisit and reconsider their definition of things. Its called being open minded.

Try to maintain civility in your posts; otherwise you may be weeded out like many before you.

I suggest you introduce some civility in your own language before "threatening" me.

 

[asq]

Indian Muslims are very poor in india because during partition the rich and the middle class(muslims) left for pakistan.they were educated and were wealthy.Only few rich muslims stayed back in india rest could not afford to go and some didnt want to.....you cannot blame the indian state for this!!!

That is not an excuse for the poverty of Indian Muslims, It has to do with the way they were singled out for oppression, read your own GOI reports.

 

[S-2]

Thread necrophilia. Stop this heinous behavior.

 

[asq]

Necrophilia and heinous very strong words used for a thread. i thought we were discussing Maps of Muslim world. and the reason for non Muslims to redistribute Muslim world that fits their agendas.

Agenda of divide and rule.

Litle our enemies know that they can benefit by showing some concerns and present some solutions acceptable to the people of pakistan.

In other words and i quote.`they should try to win hearts and minds of Muslims, and by circulating these derogatory maps, they infact are working against their own rules of non-interferance in other countries affiars and are being concieved as enemies by common man on the ground in these countries.

that is how it will play in the countries this map is showing and if i understand correctly this will allienate Mulims populations further.

I hope and pray that this not the intent and that policy of live and let live will prevail over the policy of insults and counter insults.

 

[SMIQBAL]

WASHINGTON: Muslim circles have expressed alarm and disgust at the publication of a redrawn Muslim world in a journal closely linked to the US armed forces...........................

American has already given a detailed plan to CRS (Congressional Research Services USA) in the name of Transformed World. As per plan "not a single inch of Pakistani soil shall be dis-integrated till 2025. A good news is also available from IAEA that "No unclear devise would be used till 2025 in the world.
SMIQBAL.

 

[Abhiras]

^^^^^^^^
what after 2025??

 

[ARCHON]

That is not an excuse for the poverty of Indian Muslims, It has to do with the way they were singled out for oppression, read your own GOI reports.

This is WHY....


Muslims under 'Muslim-ruled' India long before Independence were divided into three groups economically. One was the family of the ruler or the ruling dynasty members at the top of the pyramid. After that was the group consisting of courtiers, landlords, and jagirdars etc. This second group had most wealth, they had land ownership and other resources. The third group at the bottom is where majority of Muslims were. These were peasants, craftsmen, lower rungs of soldiers. So in other words just because Muslims dynasties were ruling does not mean that all Muslims were prosperous.

They had to work as hard as anyone else. They were not privileged group during the so called Muslim rule of India. Even when people converted to Islam they remained economically were they were, there was no upward mobility. As a result of their conversion they did acquire social mobility because curse of untouchability was lifted. Disabilities arising as being part of Hindu caste system was no longer relevant. But it did not mean an upward economic mobility.

Most of the Muslim members of the elite did not take English education as fast as upper caste Hindus did. As a result, the were left behind in the path of modernization that lead to greater prosperity to the upper caste Hindus. Muslims could not progress because they were reluctant to acquire modern scientific education. Muslims being part of the old nobility wanted all the benefits and the British have no reason to please them. As a result Muslim elites did not accept English education and they were left behind.

After the formation of Pakistan, those who went there initially were top most officials who were in the top most positions of bureaucracy, military and so forth. They thought Pakistan was a land of opportunity. Even then it was not quite sudden, often younger brothers went and older brothers or parents remained behind. So migration was gradual and it was not uniform everywhere. Migration happened mostly in UP, Bihar and obviously Punjab and surrounding areas of Pakistani borders. Bhopal and areas south to that was less affected by migration to Pakistan. Hyderabad was affected after Operation Polo of September 1948. Lot of Bombay businessmen moved because they saw better opportunity in Pakistan because Pakistan did not have much of an industry. So flow of migration was uneven.


India is still a very poor country with fewer opportunity. We have to see that India is poor and Muslims are less educated, therefore Muslims are less able to compete.

There are geographic differences as well. India is not uniform and Muslims in India are not uniform. Most well off Muslims in India are in Tamilnadu comparable to upper caste Hindus. But if you go to the eastern UP and Bihar, then the Muslim condition is comparable to Dalits. So, we have to see India in segments, an all India picture can be very misleading.

With regards to discrimination, yes it exists but it is subtle and hard to establish in courts. But discrimination in of itself does not explain Muslims lower representation.

 

[sur]

...Why does Afghanistan get the northern chunk of NA/Kashmir ..

so that China won't get one country to reach seas... China will have to pass thru 2 countries which Neos will be playing against eachother....

 

[Spring Onion]

so that China won't get one country to reach seas... China will have to pass thru 2 countries which Neos will be playing against eachother....

In another such project, they are to choke Chinese and Russian oil supply lines. and in that scheme to Pakistan is to be divided.

Lets see who wins

Man proposes God disposes as they say

 

[ARCHON]

Should Pakistan be broken up?


The above link has a few interesting observations.. just read and comment..please...


why are not others coming up of map of Us divided into 3-4 parts with 1 going to racist whites, one to blacks and 1 to asians and migrants from mexico.. its after all a good idea ...

 

[garibnawaz]

From: Blood borders - June 2006 - Armed Forces Journal - Military Strategy, Global Defense Strategy

What will be the difference between Iran and Shia Arab State?

GB

 

[ARCHON]

What will be the difference between Iran and Shia Arab State?

GB

As an Indian tell me are you "happy" or concerned by this proposed map???