"Vilification of Muslims in general and Pakistanis in particular" is why Techlahore opened this thread. I would expect a general pattern of Thomas Friedman vilifying Pakistanis. Now you are justifying your 'two thumbs wayyyy up' comment by saying that it shows the direction he leans in. That is not what the thread says. The bottom line is you cannot give any example of any pattern where he "Vilifies of Muslims in general and Pakistanis in particular". If you do not have proof spare me your spin.
Yes, he vilifies muslims and Pakistanis in general. He takes every opportunity to do so. If you haven't read his books, I can't help you. Go look at his most recent book in which he spends a couple of chapters vilifying muslims. His argument is so logically erroneous that the only conclusion you can come to is that the man has an extreme bias against the aforementioned groups.
In his book, when he talks about Saudi Arabia's history and brings up the subject of Abdul Wahhab he conveniently "forgets" to mention who brought the Al-Saud clan to power, who threw the Sharif of Mecca's family across the fertile crescent, who armed and funded Al-Saud to take over Arabia... and this is all much before oil. He lies when he says that oil is how the US has unknowingly and indirectly supported Saudi Arabia. The west has been supporting the Al-Saud thugs since before there was any oil, and the US unfortunately is continuing the British policy of keeping highly unpopular leaders in place while arming and supporting them in other ways. Oil came much after these policies were already in place and were being acted upon.
When he talks about Saudi madrassas along the Afghan border, he assigns 100% of the blame to Wahhabi proselytizing, not once mentioning that the Saudis were *asked* and *encouraged* by the US to build these madrassas during the Afghan war. When he talks about the curriculum of these madrassas he again conveniently forgets that the CIA encouraged a curriculum focussed on indoctrination; all of this was done with CIA involvement, encouragement and full knowledge.
And let me now complete the circle for you. How did the Soviets enter Afghanistan? Go look up your former Sec of State's official admission that the US manipulated Afghan politics through covert programs to bait the Soviets in. They designed Afghanistan to be a "Bear Trap". The entry of the Soviets into Afghanistan was of America's doing.
So, in summary, America got the Soviets to enter Afghanistan by Zbiegniew's own admission. The CIA asked for Saudi funds to indoctrinate fighters, build madrassas and buy arms, then when the American objective was achieved, America bailed and refused to spend a single crooked penny on the welfare of the Afghans and the refugees in the tribal belt (4 million of them!!!!), and yet, this is all somehow the evil "mooslums' fault. Ok.
Now, Friedman knows all this. He chooses to filter out parts of reality that conflict with the convenient narrative of, "These mooslums bad, they dangerous, they wahhabi terrorist. We free people of west good, we noble and smart!". This is bull$hit. There are things awry with every society on earth. If I start funding 20 newspapers and encouraging 200 journalists to conduct an unending study of what is wrong with American society that causes children to shoot and kill fellow students in their own schools, in their own neighbourhoods, or what causes American University students to kill their teachers and friends on campus, I could make the American education system look like it was created by Macphisto himself.
If I wanted to take the Tom Friedman "anecdote" methodology to explain the roots of racism in the US, I could point to encyclopedias and world fact books that introduce other countries with the line " XYZ is a poor and impoverished country..." - perhaps that's why I was once told by a young and forthright student in a US elementary school, that based on what he learned in class, (a country not to be named) was a big pit which Americans stood around and threw food in for the natives to consume. That they were all naked in this pit and had nothing to do or look forward to until the Americans threw the food in... By the way, this actually happened and I was in complete shock when I heard a sweet 7 year old describe another country in these terms. Is it a shock then, that such inward looking people can vote George Bush to power and support wars and all sorts of other nonsense as long as it is outside the continental US?
I hope you get the point. The point is that Friedman is not only biased, he not only filters out elements of history that complete the picture, he actually abuses facts - citing them in part and leveraging half truths - to paint a picture which is, in the end, damaging for America. A picture that encourages Americans to paint a bullseye on an enemy - 1.5 billion muslims - that is NOT THERE. Muslims are NOT the enemy, and many of those who now consider themselves as such are a product of this vicious cycle which Friedman and people like him feed. This is destructive for the world.
How many muslims wanted to kill or harm Americans in 1948? It was the premier world power even then.
As far as education goes, it is not of topic. Your educational curriculum is dangerous.
I went to a Pakistani school that used the official government educational curriculum as prescribed by the largest text book board in the country, the Punjab text book board. I never encountered anything I would consider to be dangerous or dastardly. Of course, when there are historic accounts concerning Mohammad Bin Qasim etc. coming into India, the protagonist is Mohammad Bin Qasim, and not Raja Dahir. The reason for why he came is explained as the piracy of Arab trading ships heading to Ceylon by Raja Dahir and so on. But sir, show me a history book written anywhere in the world, that is able to completely isolate the background of the writer from the account. I don't consider this abnormal or dangerous. It is standard fare even in US history books (I took two US History classes in College).
There is not one sentence about going out and starting to randomly kill people in our official text books. I think what you are referring to as Pakistan's education system, is actually a small number (given their overall number, a small percentage) of Madrassas which are run by really right wing mullahs who share the Taliban/Alqaeda salafi approach to things. Quaid-e-Azam, the founder of our country, was the product of Sindh Madrassa, and there are some very large and progressive madrassas visibly operating in Pakistan today. It is the fringe of these Madrassas that have been taken over by salafis that are the issue, not Pakistan's education system.
I will add here, that my parents have been philanthropists for the last 30+ years and have been recognized nationally and internationally numerous times for their work in education with the poorest children in Pakistan; including children in kacchi abadis, villages, northern areas - all over. I have spent uncountable hours in government schools, schools made in mud buildings, madrassas in Punjab and so on. Believe me when I tell you, that Friedman's allegation in his book - slightly paraphrased because I don't have it handy right now - that, "[The Saudis] are thinking forward 30, 40 years to a time when these madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan will produce an army of jihadis that will take over a big part of the world for them" is complete nonsense.
As I explained previously, when you make an allegation like this and then conveniently hide the genesis of these Saudi Madrassas (i.e. cooperation with the CIA) and then paint the goal to be one of world domination - which is not borne out by the numbers - you essentially create hatred, fear and doubt and conveniently remove yourself from the equation as all but the potential victim and the innocent supporter of freedom and democracy with high morals and ethics. This is a laughably simplistic and - at the same time - twisted approach to current affairs.
This is the standard response "the Taliban also attacked the Sunni" like it justifies the slaughter of the Ahmadis, or the Shias, or the Hazaras, or the Ishmailis. Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be an example of how wonderfully minorities would flourish under a Muslim majority rule, as opposed to a Hindu majority rule. What a joke!!!! You and Techlahore should claim yourselves as "apologists" for Pakistan's failures and "spin doctors" who would blame someone else.
Even though you are getting personal, I'll let this go. You seem to be a well meaning person who doesn't really understand Pakistan or the dynamics at play in our country. You have obviously lapped up what you've read... and again... thanks to people like Friedman, the results are predictable.
The fact is that targeted killing at gatherings which are identifiable as those of a specific sect, is a well established and oft-used Al-qaeda strategy. They used this in Iraq and they tried it in Afghanistan. Now they are employing it in Pakistan. They thrive in chaos and they don't have the numbers to directly create large scale chaos. Therefore, they have to leverage infighting. Iraqis, to a large extent resisted this as will Pakistanis. You didn't see the Shias killed in Karachi during the Muharram procession carry out their own revenge attacks. And you didn't, because we *understand* what is going on. These Alqaeda ba$tards are trying to create schisms. And people who innocently fall into the trap and start scolding him, her, it and them for somehow indirectly being complicit in these killings are talking nonsense. How is an average sunni or average shia complicit in a planned Alqaeda terrorist operation?
BTW, taking the above logic further, do you then agree also that Israelis are responsible for all Alqaeda actions all over the world? After all, Alqaeda leaders have themselves said on tape that what motivates them and that the very raison d'etre of their organization is to free the Holy Places and fight Israeli oppression...
Let's not ride the emotional rollercoaster and come out the other side as jackasses please... there has to some sense of balance in one's perspectives.
Nice spin. Either overhaul your curriculum to show you are serious, but please spare me the window dressing "improvements". Either enshrine minority guarantees in your constitution, or admit your minorities are going to wither away because there is no place in the Sunni version of Islam for any one else.
If there were no place in Islam for "any one else" then you wouldn't have had a 1400 year history of muslims treating minorities on their lands better than any Christian state in the same period. I will refer you to "Were they good for the jews" which is written by a jewish author and is a complete historic study of how muslim and christian rulers - including heroic, iconic western leaders such as Charlemagne and Richard the Lionheart - treated minorities, vs. muslim treatment of the same. You seem to be so motivated to find a stick to beat us with, that you will ignore all of history to find just enough elbow room to jab us in the ribs? By the way, I am pointing to a significant historical period where Islam was possibly more entwined with affairs of state than it is today in most muslim countries. Your allegation that there is something wrong with "sunni islam" or islam itself, doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Please. Be a little more enlightened and balanced. The US constitution and its celebrated creators enshrined many freedoms which were interpreted in various different ways over time. Despite the constitution, the treatment that was meted out to African Americans is before you. Please understand that no minority group in Pakistan is treated as blacks in America as recently as the 50s and 60s were. There are no "Ahmedi" sections on buses, nor any "Sunni-only" restaurants. Yes, the President of Pakistan has to be a muslim, and yes, according to EVERY sect of Islam other than the Ahmedis themselves, their beliefs are not in accordance with the fundamental tenets of Islam and therefore they are not considered muslim. But that's about it. You have sikhs, hindus, christians in the armed forces, you have had hindu ministers, christian war heroes, you have today a Shia President, a Shia Prime Minister and a Shia Foreign Minister.
Did you know that by the way? For all the talk of minority rights in Pakistan, did you know that all three of the key political positions are occupied by Shias?
Again "nice spin" you can preach on this pulpit about "wrong and unconscionable"all based on western ideals, give me on example across this entire world that minorities have thrived under Islam. Start by admitting the text books breed hate, then work to the laws to protect you minorities.
Oh my dear Lord in Heaven!! You are so wrong that I don't even know where to start with you. Kind sir, please refer to the book I alluded to earlier. It is inexpensive and available at Amazon. The price is well worth the education you will receive from it.
All I want is an answer to one question. Why is it that India with an equal number of (persecuted Muslims by your fellow Pakistani members) Muslims, not producing the innocent murdering monsters your country is ?
Actually, this is an unpleasant question to answer because I don't want to make this an India vs. Pakistan thread. But again, for your own edification and education, I would ask you to look into the Darul Uloom Deoband, which is in UP, India, and is the fountainhead of the right wing Deobandi Islam that the Taliban pay allegiance to. Please also look into the number of organizations that the Indian government deems to be terrorist outfits, and count the number of local muslim terrorist organizations on the list. Don't forget to include Simi - the Indian muslim students terror organization - that has conducted several dozen bomb blasts in the largest cities of India. Again, I can go on and on and on, but I really want to stop because like I said, I do NOT want this to become an India vs. Pakistan thread.
