Barakzai: Where you stand

[Toramana]

I’ve had a few questions now from some forum members asking me to delineate what I stand for. Specifically, two of the questions ask what I envision for a Pashtoon state and how Americanism plays into this, in light of being raised here in the states. I’ll try to address this in a logical format. My hope is that this post sheds a little light on my prior posts and addresses some concerns.

BarakzaiAbdali, whatever your pretentions, the occasional revelation that you make of your desires and ambitions, portray you to be someone deeply involved, both at the emotional and rational level, in the ideological conflict between the advocates of moderation and reason and followers of radicalism and Islamist dogmatism in Muslim societies. The way you articulate your views and the metaphors/jargon you employ indicate that you most probably are a follower and affiliate of universalistic, pan-Islamists ideology and group considering all other interests-including ethnic interests- subservient/secondary to the primary interests of a utopian Ummah. You say you are an Afghan and that your mother is a Wazir and father a Kandahari but politically, your views vis-à-vis Pakistan-Afghanistan relations are more aligned with the views of the hard-core Pakistani-military associated Islamists and Pakistani nationalists. This also corroborates the above. Other evidences in support of the above are,


1. You criticise Afghanistan for initiating its troubles with Pakistan by making claims on its territory (forgetting that Pukhtunkhwa, FATA, and Baluchistan historically belonged to Afghanistan that it lost them to the British Raj under duress), inciting a rebellion a rebellion on its soil, and opposing its UN membership. Your stance imply that your respect the birth of Pakistani nationhood (a brotherly Muslim nation as proponents of Pan-Islam would put it) even if that came at the cost of Afghanistan. This is typical rhetoric of Pakistan-based Islamist ideologues and nationalists.

2. Your abhorrence for Pashtun nationalism is all too evident. This is indicated by the way you criticize ANP and PMP, the foremost Pashtun political parties that have fought long battles for Pashtun rights by rendering great sacrifices. You don’t even spare Ghafar Khan the much revered Pashtun social reformer and political leader and activist.

3. The fondness with which you mention the utopian Muslim Ummah brotherhood and urge members here to strive for that era ... the excitement with which you talk about the Muslim Ummah paradigm returning to US Muslim community, etc. are other indicators as to what could be your ideological associations.

4. The extreme hostility with which you are talking against Farhat Taj shows that it is not the death of civilians angering you...It is rather the death of some of the most effective Al-Qaueda leaders by drones and the survey by Farhat Taj confirming the effectiveness of drones and showing the support of tribal people for drone attacks on terrorists that is irritating you.

5. The way you are talking of America occupation...This is typical line that Islamist hardliners, especially in Pakistan, take when they talk about NATO presence in Afghanistan forgetting the occupation of Afghanistan by Arabs and ISI and its status as the dirty backyard of Pakistani military from 1988 to 2001 but criticising the UN-mandated NATO military operations in Afghanistan for rooting out Islamist terrorism.

6. You criticise American interventionism. The motives for this by all indications are not sympathy for Pashtuns or other occupied countries as you would put it but are to use this as a ploy to heighten propaganda hype for Taleban, who Pan-Islamists think are locked in an epic battle of clash of civilization with infidels. Your justification of the asymmetric warfare in which schools and mosques are blown and future of our next generation is darkened also suggests this. In fact communists and Islamists that criticize US interventionism and find justifiable explanation for the asymmetric warfare by Taleban have parallels in their political ideologies; one wants to establish a universal classless society; the other a universal empire run by a system applicable in medieval times. Both want to restablish empires run by authoritarianism.

Last, when you answer Pashtun question in terms of economic betterment and access to education that is intriguing and insinuating. This is the typical answer Pakistani ideologues on the extreme right say in response to any Pashtun nationalist aspiration as if human needs are reducible just to items of daily want and there doesn't exist a human need for artistic and cultural expression and identity assertion. This is fundamentally an authoritarian outlook and goes very well with commies also, who reduce the copmlexiton of human needs and desires to things of daily need.


In short, there is no doubt left as for the information in your post so far that you are fundamentally a Pan-Islamist most likely with Akhwani affiliation and consider every other feeling/aspiration subservient to the grander-broader interest/goal of Muslim Ummah. Your claim of Afghan identity also seems dubious or at least compromised for sake of the higher ideal of Pan-Muslim unity and defeat of the enemies of Islam ( no matter at what cost to Pashtuns). Your mother’s affiliation is also suggestive…People of such dual/triple identities are usually suspicious.

[Toramana]

I will turn to some of the views that you have expressed and statements you've made. First, let us take this proverbial Muslim brotherhood under Ummar that you have fondly talked of and have mentioned, in that regard, the sitting of Ummar and Bilal by the same table.

I am so sorry that this is mere your illusion. Real equality and brotherhood never existed at any point of Muslim history. Bilal was a black slave freed due to conversion to Islam and used to say prayers call five times a day but the fact is, he couldn't get himself elevated to the status of a Quraish or even a Beduine Arab during his whole life. And as for my knowledge is concerned, he didn't marry througout his life because it was very difficult in the then Arab society - as today as well- for a black African slave to marry a pure Arab woman.

As for Hadrath Sulaiman Farsi, he was a Maula (plural Mawali) meaning (being a non-Arab) he didn't have the same status in Islamist society as an Arab could have. and was a client of an Arab clan. In the first constitution of Madina which is considered a source/origin of Islamist constitutionalism /Islamist model of social contract, it was mentioned that a Maula could not change his/her gaurdian or master without the approval of the guardian. This is virtual slavery and shows that despite the existance of Islam, notions of social status were very much centered around clan-structure and the primacy of Arabs in Islamist religion.

The Dewan of Hadrath Ummar which provided criteria and rule for distribution of jazya and jehad spoils extorted from non-Arab lands among Mulimin (i.e. Arabs) had the highest stippends for the Quraishaid nobility of Mecca; the second in line were the influentials in Ansar-i-Madina where the Beduine counted lost in all this and a non-Arab Muslim counted even nowhere. So there was no such thing as equality and brotherhood and things to a great degree depended on the social status of your ancestors, clan, and proximity to the prophet and his companions.

All the earlier three Khalifa's except Abu Bakar were murdered in cold blood as a result of conflict over power or sense of deprivation in the downtrodden and the enslaven e.g., Hadrath Ummar was killed by a Persian because he thought he is being un-nice to non-Arab Muslims/Persians. This points to the fact that the proverbial brotherhood is just an illusion that never existed. In fact, most of the historians consider the period of Islamist history till Abbasayads as the era of Arab imperialism.

Moreover, the so-called Muslim Empire (sultanat) hadn't come into existance due to any productive or creative activity or economic revolution (e.g. industrial revolution) in Muslims. The production techniques of Arabs were still primitive except for some rudimentary form of trade that they did with the neighbouring regions. The actual economic base of Arab Empire was imperial exploitation and colonial extortion which was unevenly re-emberssed among the members of ruling community according to status and already determined pre-Islamic social pretige.

[Toramana]

The more Barakzai is telling us about himself, the clearer a picture of him emerges. As he tells us he is the son of an engineer and has been born and raised in US, it seems he is an example of typical Muslims brought up and bred in the West but faced with the question of identity and real or percieved racism in Western Culture, has fallen prey to the influences of radical Islam.

One can well understand that not having spent time on Pashtun land among Pashtun people, a concrete, animated, and lively image of daily life in Pashtun society couldn't get imprinted on his mind , consciousness, and subconsciousness, so consequently the deep sense of love and loyalty to that land and people couldn't develop in him.

His whole experience of a wider cultural expressionand communal/social participation, including participation in ceremnoies, rituals, practices, solidarity gatherings, etc. occured only in the Muslim community that he found in his environment in US. He couldn't experience and feel the kind of spiritual pleasure that a Pashtun derives from sitting with other Pashtuns in Hujjras on Pashtun land listening to folk-gossip or mangai and rabab songs or in mosques saying prayers alongside fellow Pashtuns, or in streets meeting other Pashtuns listening to their banter, name calling, gossip, etc., eating Pashtun food, and above all feeling the fragrance and "khusbo" of Pashtun land...

So the only model of social or collective-self that he has experienced is the Muslim community in his sorrounding in US with the ethnic diversity but net togethor by Islam into one whole of which he is a miniscule part with obligation to keep it strong and intact vis-a-vis the infidel community that is determined to destroy it in the sense of values and social ideals. He sees himself an integral, eternal, and inseparable part of this community. And as such he "views" Pashtuns as well (integral part of Muslim Ummah).

Now Barakzai is superimposing this model of the collective-self on the Pashtuns of Pashtun land i.e. he is considering Pashtuns to be a an integral and inseparable component of the body of Muslim polity called Muslim Ummah without any other function or goal or aspiration except the one that God has destined for them as part of Ummah, which can best be achieved only under Taleban and not Karzai or Asfandyar or Mahmood Achakzai, etc. (who are stooges of the infidels ). So in this image, Pashtuns don't have independent existance or destiny; their destiny is undetachbly interwined with the destiney of broader Muslim Ummah (just like he sees/considers himself to be an inseparable unit of the Muslim community in his sorrounding with destiny interwined with other Muslims)...

So his image of Muslim Ummah is the mirror image of the Muslim community in his sorrounding....

Now how much is this picture realistic can be decided by members but the one question I am seeking answer to is that, is he more qualified to cooment on or decide about the affair of Pashtuns than Karzai, Asfandiyar, Mahmud Achakzai, etc. who are there on the ground part and parcel of Pashtun community and rendering sacrifices for them...Does he understand more the intricate complexities of Pashtun society and its sorrounding or do our parties and leaders like Karzai, ANP, etc.?

The other thing I notice in him is the deep-seated hatred he has for Americans and the emotions of revenge he has against them, which will be satiated even if Khalqis show the courage to boot Americans out and teach them a good lesson.

Last few things about him make me doubtful about his real origin ...He knows bit more an Afghan can generall know about some events e.g. Sayed Ahmad Shaheed, etc. May be I am wrong on this.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

The more Barakzai is telling us about himself, the clearer a picture of him emerges. As he tells us he is the son of an engineer and has been born and raised in US, it seems he is an example of typical Muslims brought up and bred in the West but faced with the question of identity and real or percieved racism in Western Culture, has fallen prey to the influences of radical Islam.

One can well understand that not having spent time on Pashtun land among Pashtun people, a concrete, animated, and lively image of daily life in Pashtun society couldn't get imprinted on his mind , consciousness, and subconsciousness, so consequently the deep sense of love and loyalty to that land and people couldn't develop in him.

His whole experience of a wider cultural expressionand communal/social participation, including participation in ceremnoies, rituals, practices, solidarity gatherings, etc. occured only in the Muslim community that he found in his environment in US. He couldn't experience and feel the kind of spiritual pleasure that a Pashtun derives from sitting with other Pashtuns in Hujjras on Pashtun land listening to folk-gossip or mangai and rabab songs or in mosques saying prayers alongside fellow Pashtuns, or in streets meeting other Pashtuns listening to their banter, name calling, gossip, etc., eating Pashtun food, and above all feeling the fragrance and "khusbo" of Pashtun land...

So the only model of social or collective-self that he has experienced is the Muslim community in his sorrounding in US with the ethnic diversity but net togethor by Islam into one whole of which he is a miniscule part with obligation to keep it strong and intact vis-a-vis the infidel community that is determined to destroy it in the sense of values and social ideals. He sees himself an integral, eternal, and inseparable part of this community. And as such he "views" Pashtuns as well (integral part of Muslim Ummah).

Now Barakzai is superimposing this model of the collective-self on the Pashtuns of Pashtun land i.e. he is considering Pashtuns to be a an integral and inseparable component of the body of Muslim polity called Muslim Ummah without any other function or goal or aspiration except the one that God has destined for them as part of Ummah, which can best be achieved only under Taleban and not Karzai or Asfandyar or Mahmood Achakzai, etc. (who are stooges of the infidels ). So in this image, Pashtuns don't have independent existance or destiny; their destiny is undetachbly interwined with the destiney of broader Muslim Ummah (just like he sees/considers himself to be an inseparable unit of the Muslim community in his sorrounding with destiny interwined with other Muslims)...

So his image of Muslim Ummah is the mirror image of the Muslim community in his sorrounding....

Now how much is this picture realistic can be decided by members but the one question I am seeking answer to is that, is he more qualified to cooment on or decide about the affair of Pashtuns than Karzai, Asfandiyar, Mahmud Achakzai, etc. who are there on the ground part and parcel of Pashtun community and rendering sacrifices for them...Does he understand more the intricate complexities of Pashtun society and its sorrounding or do our parties and leaders like Karzai, ANP, etc.?

The other thing I notice in him is the deep-seated hatred he has for Americans and the emotions of revenge he has against them, which will be satiated even if Khalqis show the courage to boot Americans out and teach them a good lesson.

Last few things about him make me doubtful about his real origin ...He knows bit more an Afghan can generall know about some events e.g. Sayed Ahmad Shaheed, etc. May be I am wrong on this.

Obviously you feel threatened (perhaps by my ability to profile you as involved in Enduring Freedom? and as unrepresentative of the rural Pashtoon? per your devotion to Taj ANDERSEN). Otherwise you would not take the time to profile me. Ill go ahead and fill you in on where you might be accurate and where you were off. Your 15% accuracy rate ought to show you that you should avoid serving as a psychological profiler for any group, otherwise, you might end up getting some poor guy convicted of a crime or place him at a crime scene he was not at.

So this is for your benefit, and for the benefit of any poor soul (should you decide you are the detective in Silence of the Lambs).

Childhood:
Quiet he contrary to what you state: I was born in the deep south of the US and subsequently raised in the portion of the south bordering the midwest. I was predominantly shielded from my local Muslim community and spent about 1/4 of each year since childhood in my fathers inherited ancestoral Muhammadzai lands on the Afg/Pak border near Quetta (for saftey). This was near enough his native village of Sher e Surkh and allowed for occasional incursions into Kandahar itself. I had some great times in the hujjra there and fired my first guns there as well. I took part in Kaka and mamagan weddings etc.

**Contrary to your statements, the mosque was a place of DEEP divisions for me.** My father was somewhat more nationalist than I am and actually had it out and made quiet a few enemies amongst the local urdooban families and Panjabies due to his harsh views on Pakistan and what he views as its extensive abuse of the Pashtun people. He would go on to say that Pakistan ought to have adopted a [Europe to the Czech republic attitude] towards Afghanistan when the Russians invaded and minded its own business. He is however, like most Afghans observant of his prayers, but avoids the discussion of religion (usually preferring secular style discussions). His latest rants are about how amazing it will be when Pakistan is defanged (denuclearized). Trust me, I love the man, I truly admire him; but I disagree with him on a few things here and there.

My mother is generally a simple home Pashtoon women who is Khalil by tribe, but grew up in Kabul. Her father came as liberal as anyone who adopts Kabul as their city and took on another local wife of Persian origin. He was a linguist and put his skills to use serving the Afghan government of Zahir Shah. This link to Kabul is how a cross border marriage, which admittedly rarely happens, did happen. With the war, they were easily able to return to their own lands, without feeling the typical refugee experience, as the they were and are Khalils, who are native to the area around Peshawar. Occasional forays are and were made to the Khalil lands outside the vale of Peshawar during these trips towards Quetta. As any family of Kandahar knows, the circle is small. We were simple folk, but well off enough to know Mr. Karzai's family and associate with folks like Baha Zarjan. I was in attendence at his nephew Yama's wedding in Virginia. Yama, a good-for-nothing, much to my chagrin, is now head of the Afghan intelligence agency and was cited in the NY Times recently as having been given this position due to nepotism*

Adolescence:
Our family is a civilian-military one here in the states (that is US ARMY). The Fed has a division within itself for engineers who retain civilian status but work on national projects (and now projects abroad in Afghanistan/Iraq).

In my small town, I grew up around Baptists. I even speak with a southern accent (when I met David Gergen years later in an interview, he would remark how I was the first Afghan he met with a southern accent). For some reason, whether it was because of the respect I had for them by reading their Old and New Testaments, or respectfully listening to their attempts to prosyletize me, they grew to accept me. For a while, they were pleasantly surprised when I attended the local Baptist Church to learn about their ideologies and see their culture. In general, their attitude was one of "We're friendly to you now and we are definitely your neighbors, but we surely are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to Armegeddon." I grew to respect their hard work ethic and their general hospitality. My best child hood friends are baptist (with a few Catholics sprinked in there), white, and generally Republican. I saw many similarities between the simple southern Tennessean and the rural Pashtoons of Pashtunkhwa. Both groups are generally suspicious of government/outsiders, have bunkers of guns, and serve (or believe they are) God with vigor.

I was so simple minded in those days that I had no idea who Saddam Hussein was or what the Iraq Gulf War 1 really meant. I was all about America, hyper-patriotic, and was one of the typical 10-12 year olds tying yellow ribbons on the mail box.

Trust me I had the full southern experience, including the Wrestling (or Wrasslin as we call it down there) even cheering on Hulk Hogan during this time period as he took down Sargeant Slaughter, who (per the generated story line had deflected his loyalty to Iraq).

Our forays to the mosque were what most typical Afghan families undertook, which was to the Friday prayer. If some test was coming up, we were relaxed about it and usually skipped it.

Pre-adulthood:
I was still not too involved my the local mosque (A) it was 40 miles away in the nearest big city and (B) whenever I went there I usually had to listen to khutbas in Arabic (which I did not understand).

So for some reason, my local podunk library had a vast collection of books that were archaic and esoteric. I liked Science more, but I started to read the Avesta, the Gita, and some early Church Father writings. I saw these articles that challenged my world view as I had been raised to believe that the "jamaa" or collection of the Quran was as simple as there was a printing press and everyone, even the Sahaba had their Yusuf Ali translations of the Quran like we do today. These articles were by Islamic scholars, from Al Azhar that discussed the actual manner of the Quranic collection into a single book form. These conservative views were still shocking because they detailed a collection process that initiated after the Prophet passed (in the time of Abu Bakr Uthman etc.). I realized things were more complex than what I thought before. I started to read Bukhari and begged my father to buy me a full copy. He was more than a little annoyed (they were expensive), but since it had to do with reading, he indulged my fancy. I started to see hadith about companions discussing alternate readings of the Quranic text. The Short of the Long is that I made this search a hobby. It was a-political. I began to fall in love with the Islamic Science of isnaad and truly admired what I discovered about the intricate steps taken by these early companions to preserve and impart a systemic approach to religious scripture. I relished the stories of various figures like Zul Qurnain, in my personal copy of Yusuf Ali's Quran, who did amazing things like come to a people who were naked tribesmen, and simply left them as they were without forcing his view on them. My vision of the "ummah" was built on these stories from textus receptus itself my friend. If Zul Qarnain could leave a kaffir tribe on its own, why could we not see and observe these enlightened elements in the text.

Regarding Umar, I read his biography, as written by Christians/Atheists like Rodensen, and was struck by his governance and capabilities (e.g. suspending the cutting of the hand and comment to the bishop of Jerusalem regarding why he prayed outside of the mosque).

**So in summary, it was not in the mosques that I experienced the ummahs oneness. It was though the Quran itself and through the works I read by NON muslims about these great men.**

Transformation (or lack thereof?)
So up this point in adolescence, I find it easy to reconcile my Americanism with my unique identity.

However, I was assigned a text to read called the Power Game by NY Times reporter Hedrick Smith. I read about lobbies and various machinations and saw, through a high school reading assignment, how AIPAC could affect policy with power and money. This began to shake up my civic view of what modern America meant and did on the world stage.

Up to this point, it was purity of constitution with the works of Payne, the words of Washington, and ideologies of JQ Adams etc.

These two contrasting views, what American was designed as, and what it would become, were fascinating to me.

I subsequently went off to college to become an engineer (in the US, there are multiple paths to medicine to the bacclaureate period). In a photography class (to satisfy some elective credits), I saw this picture:

http://lanternreview.com/blog/2010/0...e-vietnam-war/

and was moved by its brutality. I wanted to understand Vietnam and made that my next pet project. History continued to be my hobby. I read up on King Phillips Wars and learned of Tecumseh etc. I realized that America was not some great white knight nation, sent to redeem the world. To this point, I could have cared less if America occupied the whole of the mid-east. I thought, sure, they might even make the whole mess of a place function better. I hated the whole paying of bribes on that highway between Quetta and Kandhar. I thougth maybe they will get rid of that crap. I realized instead, to my dismay, that America mirrored Rome in its ideologies, and that the constitution and perks of being an American did not follow the flag where it marched.

All the while, the majority of my friends start to be white, reasonably well to do folks, with parents who had some clout in the world.

I experienced an epiphany when a good friend of mine asked to borrow my copy of the Quran. I was a bit curious, this fellow was generally from a conservative area and was as white bread as they come. He borrowed it, read it, discussed it with me, and returned it to me 3 months later stating he could never be a Muslim due to his family status, but that he saw so much logic in it that he felt we, the Muslims had put the text to shame. It made me respect and want to understand my book even more.

9/11 Happened

This event triggered a momentous time in all our lives. I am forunate in that the folks that I grew up with were very defensive of me and my family and the local college folks were equally kind.

However, I wanted to understand what motivated this. I already saw that Vietnam was not as easy as simple a case study as they presented it was in high school.

So I wanted to slice through the rhetoric and know what motivated these people. After all, as a future physician, it would become my goal to understand why people continue to eat too much salt despite it not being good for them etc. I thought it was only natural to collect and read through the words of these folks.

I troubled me what I read, because I saw complexity and was able to confirm some of the events that they spoke of (e.g. Algerian massacre after the legitimate elections of an Islamist party). I came across troubling events and writings like the work of the former head of Algerian Intelligence (Mohammad Samraoui) who confirm the allegations of the Islamists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Samraoui

I read about the Iranian coup led by Kermit Roosevelt that was called Operation Ajax:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Ir...up_d'%C3%A9tat

And saw how a brutal Iranian tyrant (the shah) was put in place. Up to this point, all I knew was that some big bad shiah named Ayatollah Khamenei was in power in Iran. I suddenly made the connection as to WHY that regime ever came to power in the first place (BLOW BACK Concept)

I realized that, like William Wallace, these people had real grievances.

All this while growing up, I had known about our Pashtoon tribal history, but it became MORE fascinating in the context of this complex tapistry of history that I continued to read about.

At this point, I start interacting more with the local Afghan community, including Persian speakers. The city of where I went to college provided me this opportunity, unlike my home town. I experienced my first American Now Ruz with these folks and learned some of their views.

Post College:
Much to your chagrin, I still kept my circle of friends. I actually lived my whole first year of med school with a fellow in the marines, white, also southern born, but Catholic. We went to college together and remain fast friends. He is actually stationed in the north of Afghanistan right now.

He was apolitical, and our families continue to be the best of friends. His catholic priest actually called me and requested I talk to him about how a Muslim (by now observing my 5 prayers) could live so harmoniously with a parishioner of his.

Marriage:
I had choices that this juncture. I could go the way of some folks and marry in this culture, or I could marry a Pashtoon. My mother is a lovely woman without that much Islamic knowledge, and was going to be very kind to whomever I married, but I had been smart enough to see how stressful marrying out of the fold could be on some folks.

I was fortunate to marry into a wonderful family of educated engineers and physicians who my father knew from his travels. Our families were reintroduced through a common friend.

Still, you would be surprised that all the folks holding the bamboo polls on the dolaay in my wedding were either white catholic Americans or baptist Americans with who I maintain a fast friendship.

One of the gentleman is even the son in law of a southern politician who made the news calling for the banning of the Murfreesburro mosque. In fact, I was at his wedding and sat with his mother in laws political team.

MY in laws views were slightly more in line with a Pro Zia position. I knew little about the issues. So as always, I read. My commentary on Pakistan, which is NOT a defense at all, derives from these conversations and subsequent reading up for various debates.

I initially thought that I would find Pakistan as being a dastardly player in all this. Instead, what I uncovered was what I wrote. It was complex and much more intricate. It was about a new nation state having to make decisions about its national security. It was about adjacent states making decisions about the new state. I read Ian Talbot's book about these historical events as it was written by an American for an American audience and he verified these events. I read the research papers I cited at my local college library.

I think having this knowledge base allows us to better understand what the GREAT GAME as it is called is all about.

Mike Scheuer and Imperial Hubris

I noted above why I read the words and works of those perpetrators behind the acts of 9/11/01. Dr. Scheuer's brilliant work opened up my eyes to this greater understanding of Americas massive interventionalist involvements in the regions in question. I felt that his work, Imperial Hubris, helped me, an American-Muslim, for the first time, understand the Arab militant movements and what spawned them. Moreover, he provided evidence (open source I might add) based argument that reconciled much of what I thought and read. He also noted what I had in my earlier readings regarding state systems being allowed to EVOLVE over time uninterrupted as much as possible.

The subsequent works of Dr. Paul and the campaign of his son allowed me to reconcile theology and political philosophy.

I cemented my ideologies through them that the best thing an American muslim can do for themselves and their adopted nation is to adopt a NON interventionalist approach to ALL issues concerning their native countries(even the tragic Bosnian Muslim massacre). With this approach, an American Muslim can reconcile criticizing the killing of Palestinians in Jerusalem and can just as easily criticize his government for propping up the tyrannical Saudi state. This is intellectually possible because it all falls under interventionalism. This same approach allows the American Muslim to not become a foolish puppet of the feel good FOX news muslims who do a huge disservice to their fellow Americans by not telling them about what actually motivates these folks to wage war and attack American interest (i.e. our interventionalism) and shout Islamo facism to the top of their lungs.

It frees the American Muslim to tell his country man: I grew up with you, I know what you are and where you came from. I know people over there and what they are and where they came from. They too want to live their lives, evolve their governments, love their wives at night, and just be left alone like you. However, the interventionalism of your ruling elites (both parties) gaurantees that Blow Back will occur and ensure your innocent sons and daughters that were at my wedding, that went to my high school, and that played on my soccer team fight in a war not of their making, for a cause that is not in any way in our best long term interests.

I offer them the reality which is that you, Toramana, M16, and others who clamor for interventionalism abroad ought to fight your own wars and solve your own problems.

In summary, on the right hand side of my book shelf sits the Quran, and on the left side sits the works of JQ Adams the the founding fathers who urged a neutrality policy.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

So in summary, I never experienced the racism that you write of. In fact, it was folks like Zul Fikar Ali who experienced this and allowed it to form their ideologies.

By the way chap, brush up on your history. The more you write, the more you reveal that you truly are as uneducated as I hoped that you were not. Please fact check everything you write, otherwise I cannot take you seriously anymore:

Traditions relate that Bilal's marriage had been arranged by the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) himself. It is stated that the sons of Abul Bukar one day came to the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) and said, "0 Messenger of Allah, find a match for our sister. "The Holy Prophet observe, "Why do you not marry her to Bilal ?" Hearing this they went back, but after a few days they came again and repeated the same request, and the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) gave the same reply. Thus after a few days they came third time with the same request. This time also the Prophet (S.A.W.) giving the same reply added, "Bilal is an inmate of Paradise; you should marry your sister to him." So, having heard the Prophets advice, they married their sister to Bilal. Bilal (R.A.A.) took more wives after this marriage. According to Qatadah he had married a lady of the tribe of Banu Zuhra. It is also recorded that one of his wives was Hin-ul-Khulania who belonged to Yemen. Bilal had no issue from any of his wives.

Here are actual hadith references and additions:
http://main.islamweb.net/emainpage/i...twaId&Id=85162

Your other claims are a thousand red herring. As above, the record shows you were inaccurate on one of them and have proven your inability to accurately and faithfully convey history of many sorts. Therefore, your other comments are suspect and considered as such until you prove them otherwise with valid and authentic sources.

If you are so perturbed that you had to throw out so many of those herrings, you should examine whether your arm chair warrior status ought to change to making it so that you can stand in for an American combat soldier. That way you can get out the frustrations of your advocacy for war not equaling your ability to fight one. And that way an innocent boy from North Carolina or Alabama can make his way home.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I will turn to some of the views that you have expressed and statements you've made. First, let us take this proverbial Muslim brotherhood under Ummar that you have fondly talked of and have mentioned, in that regard, the sitting of Ummar and Bilal by the same table.

I am so sorry that this is mere your illusion. Real equality and brotherhood never existed at any point of Muslim history. Bilal was a black slave freed due to conversion to Islam and used to say prayers call five times a day but the fact is, he couldn't get himself elevated to the status of a Quraish or even a Beduine Arab during his whole life. And as for my knowledge is concerned, he didn't marry througout his life because it was very difficult in the then Arab society - as today as well- for a black African slave to marry a pure Arab woman.

As for Hadrath Sulaiman Farsi, he was a Maula (plural Mawali) meaning (being a non-Arab) he didn't have the same status in Islamist society as an Arab could have. and was a client of an Arab clan. In the first constitution of Madina which is considered a source/origin of Islamist constitutionalism /Islamist model of social contract, it was mentioned that a Maula could not change his/her gaurdian or master without the approval of the guardian. This is virtual slavery and shows that despite the existance of Islam, notions of social status were very much centered around clan-structure and the primacy of Arabs in Islamist religion.

The Dewan of Hadrath Ummar which provided criteria and rule for distribution of jazya and jehad spoils extorted from non-Arab lands among Mulimin (i.e. Arabs) had the highest stippends for the Quraishaid nobility of Mecca; the second in line were the influentials in Ansar-i-Madina where the Beduine counted lost in all this and a non-Arab Muslim counted even nowhere. So there was no such thing as equality and brotherhood and things to a great degree depended on the social status of your ancestors, clan, and proximity to the prophet and his companions.

All the earlier three Khalifa's except Abu Bakar were murdered in cold blood as a result of conflict over power or sense of deprivation in the downtrodden and the enslaven e.g., Hadrath Ummar was killed by a Persian because he thought he is being un-nice to non-Arab Muslims/Persians. This points to the fact that the proverbial brotherhood is just an illusion that never existed. In fact, most of the historians consider the period of Islamist history till Abbasayads as the era of Arab imperialism.

Moreover, the so-called Muslim Empire (sultanat) hadn't come into existance due to any productive or creative activity or economic revolution (e.g. industrial revolution) in Muslims. The production techniques of Arabs were still primitive except for some rudimentary form of trade that they did with the neighbouring regions. The actual economic base of Arab Empire was imperial exploitation and colonial extortion which was unevenly re-emberssed among the members of ruling community according to status and already determined pre-Islamic social pretige.

Regarding my criticism of Karzai, Achekzai, Taj ANDERSEN, and the others you mention, I refuse to detail again all I have written before. However, I will reiterate that leadership is earned. It is not harnassed on the back of empires by men who run when their country need them most. That is why both Karzai and Maliki for that matter shall never equal a Washington in their depth, bravery, or intelligence.

The soil belongs to those that bleed on it or for it. It does not belong to ideologues like yourself (who is unwilling to do the dirty work and has to pull Americans into doing your dirty work for you) or to Karzai (who like Zahir Shah left his people in their hour of need).

No matter how much you whine. No matter how often you distort and misquote history. No matter how often you have to quote an inferior intellect like Hitchens, you will never be able to change the fact that your heroes are those that ran away.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Finally, I re-read what you wrote and noted the following errors. Like your comrade Parsiwaan, you have shown an inability in reading comprehension.

My father hails from Kandahar (Sher e Surkh), my mother is a Khalil, and my WIFE (not my mother) is a Wazir.

Even M16 had enough capability to get the details right. Perhaps if intelligence is doled out according to tribes, we may find that your zaat ranks on the lower side of the spectrum per your limited ability to provide accurate arguments or dissect the arguments of others and your continued inability to truthfully cite sources or convey information.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

One final point, I keep saying this because with each re-read your work shows more and more error.

You make another unvalidated statement equating Pan Islamists with the ISI. Once again, my legitimate source, Dr. Michael Scheuer, head of Alec Station, lead unit hunting Usama Bin Ladin since the 1980s, himself appears to contradict you. While the Zia government was all to eager to eat up American funds and accept CIA help,

He states unequivically that Osama Bin Ladin (an actual Pan Islamist) was offered CIA collaboration and military funding, but refused to deal with the CIA. He said that when attempts were made to set up meetings with Mr. Bin Ladin, the latter ardently refused and made it clear he could fund his own endeavors:

YouTube - Conversations With History - Michael Scheuer[/URL]

Above is the interview.

You know Toramana, just as there is that factcheck.org for the republican/democratic debates, and as we see from dissecting your work, you make error after error after error. Perhaps Admin Khan and others would be willing to put together a fund with which we can pay FACTCHECK.org to run all your posts through their system.

It would save us all time and money. Perhaps you should be required to cite all your sources bibliography style.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Michael Shuer brings some decent view points but he isn't the end all be all, he has some views that are not cogent as well. The man believed that another attack on America would wake the Americans up again. Clearly he could have made a better point.

About the Pakistan's security reasoning and you softening up to them, well then you should be fair and apply that to each and every state, including your own's military interventions. After all interfering in those countries were due to their political and cold-war considerations.

Most importantly every state has security concerns that is a given. It isn't the point to recognize them, but to ask yourself if these concerns of theirs allign with your own people. Pakistan's 30 years security policy has not and did not work out for the better when it came to Pashtuns, rather it was a terrible thing to happen. What pushed them to do it is one thing, whether or not it is beneficial to us is another.

[Wrayun]

Shouldn't this thread, and the other one "where I stand" be in another forum and not in the New Member section?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Michael Shuer brings some decent view points but he isn't the end all be all, he has some views that are not cogent as well. The man believed that another attack on America would wake the Americans up again. Clearly he could have made a better point.

About the Pakistan's security reasoning and you softening up to them, well then you should be fair and apply that to each and every state, including your own's military interventions. After all interfering in those countries were due to their political and cold-war considerations.

Most importantly every state has security concerns that is a given. It isn't the point to recognize them, but to ask yourself if these concerns of theirs allign with your own people. Pakistan's 30 years security policy has not and did not work out for the better when it came to Pashtuns, rather it was a terrible thing to happen. What pushed them to do it is one thing, whether or not it is beneficial to us is another.

Once again I am not for Pakistani interventionalism. You are now stating, in your last paragraph exactly what it is that I have been attempting to convey. I am explaining why it occured. After all, the key to beating your opponent is to understand him. Instead of thinking with a victims mentality, we ought to understand the harsh realities of the world around us and adust to them.

Was this not after all Ahmad Shah Baba's approach? Did he not spring up at exactly the right time when Nadir Quli Beg passed? He used intelligence and maneuvering.

If you compare his approach with Khushal Khans severely failed insurgency attempts you will see what I mean.

[khyaal]

He would go on to say that Pakistan ought to have adopted a [Europe to the Czech republic attitude] towards Afghanistan when the Russians invaded and minded its own business. He is however, like most Afghans observant of his prayers, but avoids the discussion of religion (usually preferring secular style discussions). His latest rants are about how amazing it will be when Pakistan is defanged (denuclearized). Trust me, I love the man, I truly admire him; but I disagree with him on a few things here and there.

What is intriquing is that your father probably being an eye witness of those events should have known that Pakistan interfered immediately after the Saur Revolution. Pakistan immediately attacked at Spin Boldak. US and others came much later when General Zia convinced them that Pakistan must be paid a huge sum of money and that it was ready to revert the revolution.

Another thing is your amzing knowledge of Paki centric views vis a vis Pakhtuns issue in Pakistan and your complete ignorance of Pashtun(afghan) history and Pashtun(afghan) leadership's stand about the forced occupation of the outside indian subcontinent Pashtuns', Baloch territories. You haven't read even a single article from Pashtuns(afghan) perspective.

You talk a lot about Parsiban but never talk about the brutal Punjabi hegemony. I don't know why there is such an odd coincidence with Punjabi mindset.

[eusuphxai]

personal attack of the most sophisticated type, which makes you like it. Wish I could go that low so tactically.

[khyaal]

personal attack of the most sophisticated type, which makes you like it. Wish I could go that low so tactically.

BTW, you actually fulfilled your wish.

[Toramana]

Barakzai (if you really are), I would not comment on the aristocratic aura extended over two continents, three countries, and at least two religious communities that you are trying to weave around yourself (probably to inspire trust) because that is not relevant to this discussion. However, I will like to mention that although, I cannot say for sure you are not the one you are pretending to be, I can’t say the opposite with certainty as well. But I do consider people’s ethnic/cultural and political backgrounds important to understanding their positions and motives for their opinion about things over which there is a disagreement. I find you too knowledgeable about Pakistan and too pro-Pakistan that an Afghan can be. Especially(and apart from other things), when you call Sherzaman Taizai as Taizai Saib, that shows a pretty intimate level of acquaintance with that person, that casts doubt on your identity.

There were some Sardars of the Afghan Royal family who were exiled to India in 19th Century where they gained entry into the military of British Raj and during partition moved to Pakistan where some of them having served in ISI and Pakistan army also served on the panel of experts (on Central Asia and Afghanistan) of Area Study Center of which Fida Yunis and Taizai were also members (Area Study Center is a front of Pakistan’s intelligence wing).


Now, I will come to this Hadrat Bilal Habshi as they called it issue. As you would notice, in my post, I had qualified my statement about Hadrat Bilal with the sentence “as for knowledge is concerned”, which is a standard way in research not to give categorical statements about things about which there is little certainty (in research we say, to the best of the author’s knowledge). Anyhow, I am student of Science and would accept without any reluctance if there is credible and sufficient evidence that he was able to marry a respectable Arab woman of Hijaz as his status deserved.


Nevertheless, there is a degree of uncertainty about his marriage. I read in one source (that I cannot recall the name of) that he never married. Another source says, he married a Syrian lady at a very late age probably a couple of years before his death and didn’t have any male issue. It is a fact that during the prophet time, he had some respect as a Muazin. During the reign of Abu Bakar, who was his saviour and to him he was indebted for his freedom, he had sought Khalifa permission to go for jehad but that was not granted. Hadrath Ummar granted him permission with some reluctance. I mean although, he was one of the earliest converters and a companion of the prophet, he didn’t have the status that Meccan or Madinian nobility had.

About the three Khalifa’s dying unnatural death at the hands of dissatisfied mob, that is a fact that needs no comment.


For the Dewan of Hadrath Ummar, you can consult the “History of Arabs” by Philip K. Hitti who bases his work on classical sources of Islamic theology, history, and biography of the prophet. As for the imperial base of Arab economy during the earlier Muslim era, it would suffice to mention that Hadrath Ummar had issued an order to Muslim soldiers not to have any land holding in the conquered lands because he feared, then they would not send spoils of jehad back to Hijaz on which the Arab nobility depended. This is exactly what happened during Ali and Muawiya era who shifted the capitals of their kingdoms to the main basis of economy (Damascuss and Kofa).

I mean it is ridiculous to assume that early Muslims were not fallible to any worldly desire. They were as indicated by the above instances. The utopian attribute that you assign to them and the romantic brotherhood that you are talking about is not humanly possible. Accepting that they were given to human weaknesses would not lower their status…They would still be among great people of history to have given rise to great Arab civilization and religion of Islam but this would make Muslim thought process more rational (which in the end would be good for Muslims).