Forum Menu - Click/Swipe to open
 

I Have a Purpose

Jump to page:

You have contributed 0.5% of this topic

Thread Tools
Appreciate
Topic Appreciation
Muadh_Khan, Naqshband66, Taalibah, Jinn, samah, the fake shaykh, abu mohammed, Acacia, dr76, my176, Abdullah bin Mubarak, BHAI1, Maria al-Qibtiyya, Abu Salma, Umm Khadeejah, abuzayd2k, Abdur Rahman ibn Awf, ALIF, sipraomer, hmdsalahuddin, saa10245, bint e aisha, a2z, tanveerzakee
6 guests appreciate this topic.
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Gham-o-Huzn
3,269
Brother
3,503
Maripat's avatar
#436 [Permalink] Posted on 8th October 2015 05:26
I consider myself a partisan of Deoband.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Abdullah bin Mubarak's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
244
Brother
105
Abdullah bin Mubarak's avatar
#437 [Permalink] Posted on 8th October 2015 07:15
Why would Russia want to attack the khwarij? Or is it just a false pretence?

They have no issue with Assad and are more pals than foes.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Gham-o-Huzn
3,269
Brother
3,503
Maripat's avatar
#438 [Permalink] Posted on 9th October 2015 07:09
Abdullah bin Mubarak wrote:
View original post

Russia is in Syria to support Asad.

report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
11,537
Brother
112
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#439 [Permalink] Posted on 11th October 2015 23:09
Maripat wrote:
View original post


What is your take on Bihar elections? Will it permanently dent Secular India if BJP wins?

Posted via the Muftisays Android App
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Gham-o-Huzn
3,269
Brother
3,503
Maripat's avatar
#440 [Permalink] Posted on 12th October 2015 07:06
Muadh_Khan wrote:
View original post


People tell me the at the moment situation is impossible to decide.
The same was the case in UP in 2012.
I suppose we can take it as a failure of so called election analysis.

Of course I hope BJP does not get better of others.
The ground situation in India is turning very bad.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Gham-o-Huzn
3,269
Brother
3,503
Maripat's avatar
#441 [Permalink] Posted on 13th October 2015 05:04
Implement the Emergency Protocol


When pious people start getting caught in calamities then the believers are supposed to take a note.
It is the time to implement the emergency protocol.
To develop an emergency protocol if there is none already.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+0 -0Agree x 1
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Gham-o-Huzn
3,269
Brother
3,503
Maripat's avatar
#442 [Permalink] Posted on 13th October 2015 06:36
The Current Phase


When you ignore the proper things for too long a time then you create a gap between your efforts and recovery.
This gap consists of sacrifice without positive results of gratification.
We are passing through that stage at the present moment in the life of Muslim Ummah.
For some more time we have to continue sacrifices before we see the tide turning in our favour.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+0 -0Agree x 1
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Gham-o-Huzn
3,269
Brother
3,503
Maripat's avatar
#443 [Permalink] Posted on 14th October 2015 04:24
So what is the real news about the Islamic State?


Wall Street covers the Islamic State assertion that it can govern.

Other news outlets have been telling us for last two weeks that Russia has bombed the Islamic State into oblivion.

So which portion of the news is true?

Since the west, the US branch, has complete control over the news coming out of the region where the Islamic State is operating the responsibility of the full truth falls upon US itself.

Since Muslims are trapped in that region it is our right to know every single bit of info about that region.
We are not abdicating our right to know about the ground situation in that region.

I wish there was some Muslim agency keeping in touch with the ground reality in that region.
As well as some Muslim organization actively observing, advocating and protecting our interests.
The whole drama is taking place in our courtyard and at our expanses yet we are the one who are the people who have no control over it at all.

Not a very respectable state of affairs.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Gham-o-Huzn
3,269
Brother
3,503
Maripat's avatar
#444 [Permalink] Posted on 17th October 2015 05:54
Syria and all that


Here is the current round up.

(1) The Wall Street Journal
thinks that it is the regional discord that is fueling the Islamic State.

Really? Can they be so naive?

For last few centuries the west has made a hunchback of Islam and Muslims.
And some Muslims are up in arms against the western forces.
Why is that so difficult to figure out?

It is clear that the west is absolutely clueless about the ground reality.
They just can not fathom what is happening.

The west might still have a role to play but that has to be quite different from their current attitude.

(2) The Express says that Russian strikes have crippled the Islamic State.

Well as usual this is a western news.
Of course from the different branch of the western propaganda.

What we know about Russia is that rather than focussing on ISIS they focused on the rebel groups fighting against Asad and bombed them.

This will not be appreciated in the Muslim world.

(3) Sydney Morning Harold says that Iran, Hizbullah and Russia are bombing the Islamic State.

My fears are that they might be bombing the anti-Asad rebels.
And it makes amply clear the axis.
Taghut joining Shia armies against Sunnis.
Why is the world so stupid a place where the west either does not understand the ground reality or when it does it indulges in divisive activities?

(4) A website says that Obama has no course on the Islamic State.

This is clear to us all by now that Russia has trumped US up.
Good for the US.
They are in their place to some extent, whether they know it or not.

Of course this is no good news for Muslims.
It is like US/NATO and Russia taking turns to thump us.

(5) Islamic State takes credit for Shia killings in Saudia.

So Sunnis are always bad.

To tell the truth every single Shia-Sunni clash must be seen with the overall perspective and any one detaching such
events from their collective historical perspective is indulging in subterfuge.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Unspecified
913
Brother
385
#445 [Permalink] Posted on 18th October 2015 10:07
Maripat wrote:
View original post


The conclusion :

1) Shia and Sunni infighting
2) The war being fought in Muslim sensitive lands,wth every possibility of it spreading to Turkey,Saudi,Jordan. (While Iraq & Syria already in flames)
3) Involvement of major superpowers in the region,with their own agendas ( or the common agenda of killing Muslims one way or the other...and spreading chaos in Muslim lands,already the 'arc of anarchy' stretches from North Africa to Afghanistan).

Dear Maripat, the militancy in Muslim lands did not start with the sudden emergence of armed gangs.An atmosphere was being prepared for it,a whole new meaning was given to the ayaat and ahadeeth concerning jehad,a complete new Fiqh of jehad was being prepared,a proposition was spread that all the 'secular' governments were 'kafir' and those working for them in state institutions were similarly kafir...and killing them was halal,the old scriptures were digged to discover 'prophesies' for the so called 'mujahideen' giving them a sort of legitimacy as well as a purpose... and we,our scholars,looked on, wide eyed,rather terrified,dumbfounded and speechless....

An enemy is after all enemy,how could they miss such a golden opportunity presented to them on a plate ? They started their crusade on two levels,the media ( presenting Muslims as barbaric,uncivilised,blood thirsty and a threat to world peace) and militarily, striking the 'nerve centres' of Islam wth all the self proclaimed 'justifications' in the name of 'Global peace and security'....

The chaos and anarchy is bound to spread,by now it has become an 'ideology' and thoughts never die.The more blood spelled,the more strong it becomes.The results are unpredictable though...the history has taken a decisive turn.Nthing will be the same from here onward....
report post quote code quick quote reply
+2 -0Like x 1Winner x 1
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Gham-o-Huzn
3,269
Brother
3,503
Maripat's avatar
#446 [Permalink] Posted on 19th October 2015 05:55
ALIF wrote:
View original post

I agree mostly ya akhi.

In eirly eighties of last century I bought an issue of the Reader's digest.
This magazine has a long feature article at the end, usually a book extract.
In that issue this article was about a French sleuth.
His speciality was hunting terrorists.
To my consternation all the terrorists he had hunted had Muslim names.
It was an eerie feeling for me.

This paradigm of terrorist vs hunter was in place long before we came to know of the
proponants of G!h@d. This was the pre-USSR-decimation era.

After decimation of the USSR in 1989 the US and hence the west was completely free to turn their attention to Muslims.
That they did.
They have ever since focussed all of their energies and attention to Muslim countries and they are
destroying them successfully.

Of course we got to give due consideration to us not managing our own affairs properly.
Perhaps that is what we should be doing primarily.
But we can not ignore that the west finds us an easy target.
From crusades onwards there is a constant fear of Muslims and a concerted effort to subjugate these lands.


For far too long we Muslims have refused to wake up to the reality that the west is an extremely powerful neighbour and has a few grudges against us. They mitigate their grudges but by couching it in a diplomatic language.

report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Arfatzafar's avatar
Offline
India
1,269
Brother
1,585
Arfatzafar's avatar
#447 [Permalink] Posted on 19th October 2015 18:52
Maripat wrote:
View original post

As nobody spends millions of dollars for the sake friendship only, so Russia is playing games in different grounds behind the pretext of supporting Syria.

1: To let the world be known to sharing the title of super power equal to US

2: To raise the demands of Russian-made weapons

3: To decentralize the US monopoly in the middle east

4: To snatch the control over all oil resources after annihilation of enemy

5: To get its own share of benefits in middle east
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0Like x 1
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Gham-o-Huzn
3,269
Brother
3,503
Maripat's avatar
#448 [Permalink] Posted on 20th October 2015 05:43
West Struggles with ISIS


West is struggling with the Islamic State, ISIS.

The latest to open military operations against ISIS is Russia.

The ideological conundrum, of course, is still difficult for west to fathom.

This is strange given the fact that the west pretends to be knowing Islam better than Muslims.
Till now they look absolutely clueless as to what is going on.

Muslims of course look at the western confusion with amusement - if and when they can afford it.

In case anyone is listening here is the most brief explanation of the situation for the benefit of the west.
"Muslims would like to live their lives according to Islam in spite of the massive western propaganda against Islamic way of life called Shariah." This entails no western interference in Muslim affairs, particularly in value system.

Following article in a US publication that should be taken as nearly an official publication has all the American confusion in spite of an innovative approach from their own standards.

As usual I'll present my comments paragraph wise in the style of late brother Abu Tamim may Allah swt have Mercy upon his soul.


(Work in progress)

ISIS as Revolutionary State

New Twist on an Old Story

By Stephen M. Walt


Quote:
To many who have witnessed 
its brutal tactics and religious extremism, the Islamic State, or ISIS, seems uniquely baffling and unusually dangerous. According to its leaders’ own statements, the group wants to eliminate infidels, impose sharia worldwide, and hasten the return of the Prophet. ISIS' foot soldiers have pursued these goals with astonishing cruelty. Yet unlike the original al Qaeda, which showed little interest in controlling territory, ISIS has also sought to build the rudiments of a genuine state in the territory it controls. It has established clear lines of authority, tax and educational systems, and a sophisticated propaganda operation. It may call itself a “caliphate” and reject the current state-based international system, but a territorial state is what its leaders are running. As Jürgen Todenhöfer, a German journalist who visited territory in Iraq and Syria controlled by ISIS, said in 2014, “We have to understand that ISIS is a country now.”[/quote]

In the current phase of developments Russia has inflicted enormous damage on ISIS and this creates worries for US in addition to worries created by the ISIS. Strangely Russia is acting like the usual western imperial power against ISIS while this article takes the Marxist type of view of the situation. After the Russian onslaught against ISIS the American viewpoint should take that into account but from this preamble paragraph the US alarm at ISIS is at its peak.

The focus is on the new dimension in the west vs radical Islam clash, to use western terminology - the assertion that ISIS is a state. When you have Al Qaida, a western creation but conveniently forgotten, then the west is struggling to contain a gratuitously violent group. In case of the Islamic State the narrative has to be changed. The opponent of the west this time is asserting a governance role for itself. Of course the west is bent upon not allowing the ISIS that legitimacy but the governance clause has entered in this article.

Let me introduce an aside here - now that the present author has introduced tis new angle that ISIS intends to govern the rest of the western intelligentsia will hasten to supress this angle. By reflex the western mindset is fixated on denying any legitimacy to Islam. Crusades might not be part of the narrative but the same attitude has gone into western psyche to the level of being second nature.
As a result even while fighting a group like like ISIS where no ideological moorings are needed the west will not let go of the deep seated bias against Islam.

Partly because the west is baffled and partly because of the deeply ingrained attitude the article will not talk about Muslims to be left to be governed by Muslims. Focus will be that there is this deeply problematic group that should be dealt with. That there is an ideological vacuum, that Muslims would like to live according to Islam, will not reach the radar in this article or generally in the western discourse.

In last two centuries and half the west has managed to completely dominate the Muslim world. Today the Muslim world is writhing to shatter that control. The west does not want to let go of their social, cultural, economic, business, industrial, political, military, scientific and technological hold over the Muslim world.
That militant organisations are the ones who are trying to get back the Muslim space is of course a good excuse for the west to act in the way they are.

Of course lack of acceptable alternatives to the brutal groups like the Islamic State goes against the case that Muslims might have. I say might have because not many Muslims are asserting the view that we would like to live our lives according to Islam and implement Shariah in our lives.

Of course there are people who are trying to figure out how can Muslims live in the west - Yasir Qadhi type of people but no one is asserting that Muslims would like to live Islamically in their own countries. And if anyone does that in Muslim lands than even today it is a huge task to clarify that this is different from what the Islamic State is doing.

The problem is complex not merely on the ground but even at the ideological level.
And in turn that complexity has implications in real life.

This is the point, issue, juncture and corner on which Muslim thinking people have to invest enough time and energy.

This does not mean that the problems Muslims face today will disappear while we sit on the drawing board.
It only means that the pain and lives lost on the ground will be greatly minimized.


Quote:
Yet ISIS is hardly the first extremist movement to combine violent tendencies, grandiose ambitions, and territorial control. Its religious dimension notwithstanding, the group is just the latest in a long line of state-building revolutionaries, strikingly similar in many ways to the regimes that emerged during the French, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Cambodian, and Iranian revolutions. These movements were as hostile to prevailing international norms as ISIS is, and they also used ruthless violence to eliminate or intimidate rivals and demonstrate their power to a wider world.
[/quote]

The west has been inflicting massive pain, death and destruction upon Muslims and it can be argued that they do not care that much except for what the non-western people might object. In view of that organizations like ISIS do have serious implications for Muslims - suppose the affected societies, the western ones, turn against Muslims in general. Bin Laden was a single man with a small organization but whole of Afghanistan, including Pakistan, paid a heavy price for what those 19 semiliterate boys did.

in view of this the assertion of the author that the Islamic state is yet another revolutionary organization is strangely assuring.


Quote:
The earlier episodes are reassuring when contemplating ISIS today. They show that revolutions pose serious dangers only when they involve great powers, since only great powers have proved capable of spreading their revolutionary principles. ISIS will never come close to being a great power, and although it has attracted some sympathizers abroad, just as earlier revolutions did, its ideology is too parochial and its power too limited to spark similar takeovers outside Iraq and Syria.[/quote]
Quote:

History also teaches that outside efforts to topple a revolutionary state often backfire, by strengthening hard-liners and providing additional opportunities for expansion. Today, U.S. efforts to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS, as the Obama administration has characterized U.S. policy, could enhance its prestige, reinforce its narrative of Western hostility to Islam, and bolster its claim to be Islam’s staunchest defender. A better response would rely on local actors to patiently contain the group, with the United States staying far in the background. This approach requires seeing ISIS for what it is: a small and underresourced revolutionary movement too weak to pose a significant security threat, except to the unfortunate people under its control.[/quote]

WHEN EXTREMISTS TAKE POWER

Quote:
Revolutions replace an existing state with a new one based on different political principles. These upheavals are usually led by a vanguard party or rebel group, such as the Bolsheviks in Russia, the Communist Party in China, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, or Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his followers in Iran. Sometimes, a revolutionary movement overthrows the regime on its own; other times, it exploits a power vacuum after the old order has collapsed for other reasons.[/quote]
Quote:

Revolutions pose serious dangers only when they involve great powers, since only great powers have proved capable of spreading their revolutionary principles.
[/quote]
Quote:
Because revolutions are violent struggles conducted in the face of enormous obstacles, their leaders need abundant luck to topple a regime and consolidate control afterward. They must also convince their supporters to run grave risks and overcome the natural inclination to let others fight and die for the cause. Revolutionary movements typically use a combination of inducement, intimidation, and indoctrination to enforce obedience and encourage sacrifices, just as ISIS is doing now. In particular, they purvey ideologies designed to justify extreme methods and convince their followers that their sacrifices will bear fruit. The specific content of these beliefs varies, but their purpose is always to persuade supporters that replacing the existing order is essential and that their efforts are destined to succeed. Typically, revolutionary ideologies do this in three main ways.
[/quote]
Quote:
First, revolutionary organizations portray their opponents as evil, hostile, and incapable of reform. Compromise is therefore impossible, which means the old order must be uprooted and replaced. The revolutionaries in eighteenth-century France saw Europe’s monarchies as irredeemably corrupt and unjust, a view that justified radical measures at home and made war with the rest of Europe nearly inevitable. Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks insisted that only a thoroughgoing revolution could eliminate capitalism’s inherent evils, and Mao Zedong told his followers, “The imperialists will never lay down their butcher knives.” Khomeini thought likewise about the shah, instructing his followers to “squeeze his neck until he is strangled.”[/quote]

Quote:
ISIS is no different. Its leaders and ideologues portray the West as innately hostile and existing Arab and Muslim governments as heretical entities contrary to Islam’s true nature. Compromise with such infidels and apostates makes no sense; they must be eliminated and replaced by leaders following what ISIS regards as true Islamic principles.
[/quote]
Quote:
Second, revolutionary organizations preach that victory is inevitable, provided supporters remain obedient and steadfast. Lenin argued that capitalism was doomed by its own contradictions, and Mao described imperialists as “paper tigers,” both thereby reassuring their followers that the revolution would eventually triumph. ISIS' current leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, offered a similarly upbeat assessment in November 2014, telling his audience, “Your state is well and in the best of conditions. Its advance will not cease.”[/quote]

Quote:
Third, leaders of revolutionary movements usually see their model as universally applicable. Once victorious, they promise their followers, the revolution will liberate millions, create a more perfect world, or fulfill some divinely ordained plan. French radicals in the 1790s called for a “crusade for universal liberty,” and Marxist-Leninists believed that world revolution would produce 
a classless, stateless commonwealth of peace. Similarly, Khomeini and his followers saw the revolution in Iran as the first step toward the abolition of the “un-Islamic” nation-state system and the establishment of a global Islamic community.
[/quote]


Quote:
In the same way, ISIS' leaders believe that their fundamentalist message applies to the entire Muslim world and beyond. In July 2014, for example, Baghdadi declared that ISIS would one day unite 
“the Caucasian, Indian, Chinese, Shami [Syrian], Iraqi, Yemeni, Egyptian, Maghribi [North African], American, French, German, and Australian.” ISIS uses social media to spread its message abroad and is quick to claim credit for faraway violent acts. This claim to universal applicability forms a key part of the group’s appeal to foreigners and is one reason other governments view the group with such alarm.
[/quote]
REVOLUTION AND WAR

Quote:
Outsiders rightly worry that a revolutionary state might try to expand. Revolutionary leaders usually believe that it is their duty to export their movement and that doing so is also the best way to keep it alive—an idea captured in ISIS' slogan “lasting and expanding” (baqiya wa tatamaddad). Not surprisingly, then, the neighbors of revolutionary states typically consider preventive measures to weaken or overthrow the new regime. The result is a spiral of suspicion and an increased danger of war.
[/quote]
Quote:
Conflicts between revolutionary regimes and other states are exacerbated further by a paradoxical combination of insecurity and overconfidence on both sides. New revolutionary leaders know that their position is tenuous and that opponents may seek to crush them before they can consolidate power. At the same time, their unlikely success, along with their optimistic worldview, leads them to believe that they can beat the odds and overcome far more powerful opponents. Among nearby states, the same problem often occurs in reverse: they are usually alarmed by the new state’s extreme goals yet confident they can get rid of it before it consolidates power.
[/quote]
Quote:
Part of the problem is that revolutions create great uncertainty, which in turn fosters miscalculation. For one thing, outsiders often have little direct contact with the new regime, so they cannot gauge its true intentions and level of resolve or clearly communicate their own redlines. Few outsiders have met with ISIS' top leaders, for example, so it remains mysterious what they really believe and how resolute they will prove to be.
[/quote]
Quote:
Judging a revolutionary state’s fighting capacity can also be difficult, especially if it rests on radically different social foundations. Austria and Prussia thought the revolution in France had left it vulnerable to military defeat; instead, nationalist fervor and the mass conscription of able-bodied men—the infamous levée en masse—soon made France the strongest power in Europe. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein mistakenly believed that the fall of the shah had left Iran open to attack, but when his forces invaded the country in 1980, the clerical regime mobilized new sources of military power, such as the Revolutionary Guard, and turned the tide of battle in Iran’s favor.
[/quote]
Quote:
It is also impossible to know for certain whether a revolution will be contagious, but there is usually some reason to fear it might be. Revolutionary states’ ambitions inevitably strike sympathetic chords abroad and convince some number of foreign sympathizers to flock to their banner. Antimonarchical elements from all over Europe swarmed to Paris in the 1790s, and Westerners such as the Harvard-educated social activist John Reed journeyed to Russia following the Bolshevik Revolution. Such reverberations reinforce fears of contagion: Europeans from London to Moscow worried that the revolution in France might topple thrones across Europe, just as Europeans and Americans obsessed about the spread of Bolshevism after 1917 and otherwise sensible people succumbed to McCarthyism in the 1950s.
[/quote]
Quote:
To make matters even more confusing, revolutions also generate a flood of refugees fleeing the new regime. Eager to persuade foreign powers to help them return home, exiles typically offer lurid accounts of the new state’s crimes (which may well be true) while suggesting the new regime can be easily defeated. French, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Iranian, and Nicaraguan exiles made such claims to convince foreign powers to intervene in their home countries, but governments who took their advice usually came to regret it.[/quote]

Quote:
Ironically, the uncertainties that accompany most revolutions can sometimes help the new state survive. Because foreign powers cannot know for sure how powerful or appealing the revolution will be, they cannot easily determine which is the greater threat: the revolution itself or the possibility that other rivals will take advantage of the resulting chaos to improve their own positions. The revolution in France survived in part because its monarchical foes were suspicious of one another and initially more interested in making territorial gains than in restoring Louis XVI to the throne. Similarly, divisions among the major powers and uncertainty about the Bolsheviks’ long-term intentions impeded a coordinated response to the revolution in Russia and helped Lenin and his followers retain power after 1917.[/quote]

Quote:
Yet contrary to revolutionaries’ hopes and their adversaries’ fears, the aftermath of most revolutions is neither a rapidly spreading revolutionary cascade nor a swift counterrevolutionary coup. The more typical result is a protracted struggle between the new regime and its various antagonists, which ends when the revolutionary government is removed from power, as the Sandinistas were in Nicaragua, or when the state moderates its revolutionary aims, as the Soviet Union, communist China, and revolutionary Iran eventually chose to do.
[/quote]
Quote:
These complex dynamics are all evident with ISIS today. Its leaders regard the outside world as hostile and heretical, believe their opponents are doomed to collapse, and see their successes as the beginning of an irresistible transnational uprising that will sweep away existing states. The group has proved surprisingly capable at providing security and basic services in its territory, spreading its message online, and fighting on the ground against weak opponents. Its ability to attract thousands of foreign fighters, meanwhile, has raised concerns about the group’s broader appeal and its potential to inspire violent attacks in other countries. Testimony from refugees fleeing ISIS' territory has amplified these fears and reinforced opponents’ urge to destroy the new state before it grows stronger.[/quote]

Quote:
At the same time, just as with past revolutionary movements, efforts to defeat ISIS have been undermined by opponents’ conflicting priorities. Both the United States and Iran want to see the end of ISIS, but neither country wants to help the other gain influence in Iraq. Turkey also views the group as a threat, but it loathes the Assad regime in Syria and opposes any actions that might strengthen Kurdish nationalism. Saudi Arabia, for its part, sees ISIS' fundamentalist ideology as a challenge to its own legitimacy, but it fears Iranian and Shiite influence as much, if not more. As a result, none of these countries has made defeating ISIS its top priority.
[/quote]
Quote:
Its penchant for violence and use of sexual slavery notwithstanding, there is little that is novel about ISIS. Its basic character and impact are strikingly similar to those of earlier revolutionary states. We have seen this movie many times before. But how does it end?
[/quote]
THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT SPREAD

Quote:
Revolutions can spread through one of two ways. Powerful revolutionary states rely on conquest: in the 1790s, France waged war against monarchies across Europe, and after World War II, the Soviet Union took over eastern Europe. Weaker revolutionary states, however, can hope only to provide an inspirational example. North Korea under the Kim family, Cuba under Fidel Castro, Ethiopia under the so-called Derg, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, Nicaragua under the Sandinistas—all lacked the raw power necessary to spread their model by force.
[/quote]
Quote:
So does ISIS. The Soviet Union could impose communism on eastern Europe thanks to the mighty Red Army, whereas ISIS has perhaps 30,000 reliable troops, according to U.S. military intelligence, and no power-projection capabilities. Although alarmists warn that ISIS now controls a swath of land larger than the United Kingdom, most of it is empty desert. Its territory produces between $4 billion and $8 billion worth of goods and services annually, putting ISIS' GDP on a par with that of Barbados. Its annual revenues amount to a mere $500 million or so—about one-tenth the annual budget of Harvard University—and they are shrinking. ISIS is nowhere close to being a great power, and given its small population and underdeveloped economy, it will never become one.
[/quote]


[quote]Still, might ISIS overwhelm weaker neighbors, such as Jordan, Iraqi Kurdistan, the rest of Syria, or even parts of Saudi Arabia? This is highly unlikely, for ISIS has faced growing resistance whenever it has tried to move outside the ungoverned Sunni areas in which it arose. And were ISIS to expand significantly, the result would be more vigorous and coordinated resistance from its more powerful neighbors. ISIS has already triggered stepped-up efforts to contain it, most notably Turkey’s recent decision to seal its southern border, create a buffer zone in northern Syria, and allow U.S. aircraft to use the Incirlik Air Base for bombing missions in Iraq and Syria. One can say with confidence that the group will never conquer a substantial portion of the Middle East, let alone any areas beyond it.

[quote]Nor will ISIS spread via contagion. Overturning even a weak government is difficult, and revolutionary movements succeed only on rare occasions. It took two world wars to bring the Marxists to power in Russia and China, and ISIS succeeded only because the stars aligned: the United States foolishly invaded Iraq, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki governed in a particularly divisive manner, and Syria fell into civil war. Absent equally fortuitous events, ISIS will have a tough time replicating its rise elsewhere.

[quote]Spreading a revolution via contagion also requires a level of resources that only great powers possess. The Soviet Union was powerful enough to subsidize the Communist International and support client states around the world, but medium-sized revolutionary powers are not so fortunate. Iran has backed a number of proxies over the past 30-plus years, but it has yet to create a single successful clone. ISIS is far weaker than Iran, and any foreign subsidiaries it inspires will have to rely on their own resources to succeed.


[quote]Moreover, a successful revolution serves as a wake-up call for nearby states, prompting them to take steps to prevent a repeat performance on home soil. European powers contained the threat of Bolshevism domestically after 1917 by suppressing suspected revolutionaries and addressing the concerns of the working class, and the United States helped do the same thing in Europe and Asia after World War II by establishing the Marshall Plan and providing security through NATO and its alliances in Asia. Iran, the Gulf monarchies, and other Muslim governments are already working to contain ISIS' influence by restricting its intake of foreign fighters, interrupting its financing, and encouraging local religious authorities to challenge its religious claims. Muslim communities in Europe and elsewhere are busy countering its poisonous message, as well.

[quote]Despite these efforts, some individuals will still succumb to ISIS' allure, but even 100,000 foreign recruits would not be enough to shift the balance of power in its favor. Only a tiny fraction of the world’s billion-plus Muslims are interested in submitting to the group’s brutal discipline, and many who rush to join it today will become disillusioned and eager to leave or end up isolated in a landlocked country and unable to cause trouble elsewhere.

[quote]To be sure, some foreign fighters have already returned home and carried out terrorist acts, and foreigners inspired by ISIS' propaganda have staged “lone wolf” attacks in several countries. Such incidents will not disappear, but they will be too few and too small in scope to topple a government. According to The New York Times, since September 2014, groups or individuals claiming some connection to the Islamic State have killed roughly 600 people outside Iraq and Syria—a total dwarfed by the 14,000-plus people murdered in the United States in that same period. All these deaths are regrettable, but violence on a comparatively modest scale will not expand the Islamic State’s sway.


[quote]ISIS' ideology will also limit its ability to grow. Although the group’s leaders believe that their vision of a new caliphate is irresistible, it is unlikely to capture enough hearts and minds. The ideals of liberty and equality embodied in the American and French Revolutions resonated around the world, and communism’s vision of a classless utopia appealed to millions of impoverished workers and peasants. By contrast, ISIS' puritanical message and violent methods do not travel well, and its blueprint for an ever-expanding caliphate clashes with powerful national, sectarian, and tribal identities throughout the Middle East. Using Twitter, YouTube, or Instagram won’t make its core message more palatable to most Muslims, especially after the novelty wears off and potential recruits learn what life in the Islamic State is really like. In any case, a version of Islam that is anathema to the vast majority of Muslims will certainly not gain a following among non-Muslims. If one were trying to invent a revolutionary credo devoid of universal appeal, it would be hard to beat the Islamic State’s harsh and narrow worldview.


[quote]Finally, should an Islamic State–like movement manage to gain power outside Iraq and Syria—as could conceivably occur in the chaos of Libya—that group’s leaders would follow their own interests rather than slavishly obey Baghdadi’s commands. Outsiders often see radical groups as monolithic—especially if they take the revolutionaries’ own rhetoric too seriously—but such movements are notoriously prone to infighting. Deep schisms divided Girondins and Jacobins, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, Stalinists and Trotskyites, and Khrushchev and Mao. ISIS' tendency to treat minor disagreements as acts of heresy punishable by death makes such disputes inevitable. Indeed, it has already led to serious quarrels with al Qaeda and other extremist groups.

[quote]Critics might find this assessment too sanguine. They might contend that neighboring states are more fragile than commonly thought and that ISIS' example might shake the foundations of the House of Saud, Jordan’s Hashemite Kingdom, or Egypt’s military dictatorship. Given the fragility of the Middle Eastern order and the widespread discontent that sparked the Arab Spring, could ISIS be an exception to the rule that revolutions rarely spread?


[quote]Perhaps, but this worst-case scenario is highly unlikely. If it were easy for radicals to topple foreign governments, it would happen far more often. Existing governments do not have to be especially capable to ward off revolutions, and ISIS' potential targets have money, organized security forces, support from influential religious authorities, and sympathetic foreign backers. For all these reasons, ISIS' emergence does not herald the beginning of a revolutionary tidal wave.


THE WAITING GAME

[quote]Just because ISIS' long-term goal is doomed to fail, however, doesn’t mean that eliminating the group will be easy. In fact, history suggests that trying to destroy it with military force could easily backfire. Foreign intervention by Austria and Prussia radicalized the French Revolution, and Iraq’s invasion of Iran in 1980 allowed Khomeini and his followers to purge moderate elements in the Islamic Republic. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao used foreign threats to mobilize support and consolidate power, and both the Russian and the Chinese Revolutions survived several attempts to undo them. Likewise, aggressive efforts to destroy ISIS could help it survive, especially if the United States takes the leading role.

[quote]Outside efforts to topple a revolutionary state often backfire, by strengthening hard-liners and providing additional opportunities for expansion

[quote]That leaves patient containment as the best policy. Over time, the movement may collapse from its own excesses and internal divisions. That outcome would be preferable, of course, but it is not guaranteed. Fortunately, history suggests that if ISIS survives, it will become a more normal state over time. Revolutionaries can fantasize about transforming the world while out of power, but to survive over the long term, they must learn to compromise their ideals and moderate their behavior, even if they do not wholly abandon their original principles. Leon Trotsky’s dreams of “world revolution” gave way to Stalin’s “socialism in one country,” and Mao’s radical policies at home were accompanied by a risk-averse policy toward other states. Revolutionary Iran has followed a similar trajectory and conducted its foreign policy in a mostly prudent and calculating manner. Eventually, the rest of the world, even the United States, came to terms with these revolutionary states.

[quote]Normalization does not occur automatically, of course, and revolutionary states do not tame their behavior unless other states teach them that relentless extremism is costly and counterproductive. This means ISIS must be contained for the foreseeable future, until it moderates its revolutionary aims or even abandons them entirely. Containment worked against the Soviet Union, and a similar approach has limited Iran’s influence for more than three decades.

[quote]To succeed, a policy of containment must prevent ISIS from conquering other countries and imposing its radical vision on them. Because ISIS is weak and its core message is so corrosive, preventing further expansion should not be beyond the capacity of the frontline countries with the most at stake, with only modest help from the United States. The Kurds, Iraq’s Shiites, Iran, Turkey, Jordan, the Gulf monarchies, and Israel are not going to stand by and watch ISIS grow, and any minor victories it does obtain will encourage its neighbors to balance against it more vigorously.


[quote]Washington should provide intelligence, weapons, and military training to aid such efforts, but it should keep its role as small as possible and make it crystal clear that stopping ISIS is largely up to local forces. It follows that U.S. airpower should be used solely to prevent ISIS from expanding; trying to bomb it into submission will inevitably kill innocent civilians, strengthen anti-American sentiment, and bolster ISIS' popularity.

[quote]Regional actors will no doubt try to pass the buck and get Americans to do their fighting for them. U.S. leaders should reject such ploys politely but firmly and pass the buck right back. ISIS is not an existential threat to the United States, to Middle Eastern energy supplies, to Israel, or to any other vital U.S. interest, so U.S. military forces have no business being sent into harm’s way to fight it.

[quote]The more involved the United States gets in containing the Islamic State, the more it will reinforce the Islamic State’s propaganda about Western crusaders


[quote]Successfully containing ISIS also requires Middle Eastern countries to do more to insulate themselves against its revolutionary message. Governments can reduce the risk of contagion by undertaking energetic counterterrorist efforts—tracking and arresting potential sympathizers, drying up financial support, and so on—and by tackling the corruption that makes ISIS look like an attractive alternative. Respected Muslim authorities in neighboring countries should remind their coreligionists that Islamic civilization was at its height not when it was most dogmatic or intolerant but when it was most inclusive. To undercut ISIS' local support, Washington should continue to press the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad to adopt more inclusive policies toward Sunnis.

[quote]The United States should encourage these efforts in private and support them in public, while resisting its normal tendency to tell local governments how to run their own countries. Recent U.S. efforts to steer local politics in the Middle East have been a series of embarrassing failures, and U.S. leaders should be modest in offering advice today. Washington can also encourage its European allies to better integrate their own Muslim minorities, but that task is ultimately up to them, too.

[quote]Indeed, U.S. policymakers should keep in mind that the more involved the United States gets in containing ISIS, the more it will reinforce ISIS' propaganda about Western crusaders and their supposedly heretical Muslim allies. At the sectarian level, were the United States to undertake another costly effort to rebuild Iraq’s security forces, it would appear complicit in the anti-Sunni policies that helped make ISIS popular, thus encouraging Sunnis in Iraq and eastern Syria to remain loyal to the group.


[quote]A U.S.-led campaign against ISIS also risks heightening its appeal: if the world’s mightiest country keeps insisting that the group is a grave threat, then its claim to be the most faithful defender of Islam will gain credence. Instead of hyping the threat and reinforcing ISIS' own propaganda, it would be far better for U.S. policymakers to treat the group as a minor problem that deserves only modest attention.
Enjoy this free article from Foreign Affairs



[quote]Taking the lead against ISIS would also encourage free-riding by local powers with far more at stake. The best defense against Islamic extremism is improved governance throughout the Middle East, but that difficult process will not even begin if local governments believe Washington will protect them no matter what. The more the United States does, the less incentive local actors will have to get their own houses in order.

[quote]In short, containing ISIS is more likely to succeed if the United States declines to do the heavy lifting. This hands-off approach requires American leaders to remain cool in the face of beheadings, terrorist attacks, the destruction of antiquities, and other provocations. Such discipline is not easy to maintain in the era of partisan politics and 24-hour cable news, and it runs counter to the interventionist instincts of much of the U.S. foreign policy establishment.

[quote]But not every foreign tragedy is a threat to U.S. interests, and not every problem needs to be solved by American power. The United States blundered badly when it responded to 9/11 by invading Iraq—precisely the sort of error Osama bin Laden had hoped it would make—and ISIS would no doubt welcome another mis­guided U.S. intervention in the Middle East. It would be worse than a crime to make the same mistake again.



Source : Foreign Affairs
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Gham-o-Huzn
3,269
Brother
3,503
Maripat's avatar
#449 [Permalink] Posted on 21st October 2015 06:04
The End of Pax Americana


Pax Americana means the peace engendered by the United states.
So the peace created in the world by the US has come to an end.

This is a report in nearly an official publication in the US the Foreign affairs By Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson.
According to them Washington’s Middle East Pullback Makes Sense.

The article is accompanied by a very poignant picture of US soldiers returning to a military plane.

What is the significance of it for us Muslims?

It means that the US will not be targetting Muslims in the Gulf region in the name of US interests.
It also means that there will not be a powerful country breathing on the necks of autocrats, present or future.
It also means that Muslims have to get on their feet to manage their own affairs.
It also means Muslims have to deal with people like Asad and his supporters, including Russia and Iran, on their own.
It also means that Muslims have to learn to govern themselves.
It also means that Muslims have to decide whether it opens an opportunity to put Zionism in its place.
Particularly when India and Israel are cozying up to each other.

At the moment the news is too overwhelming for me so I earnestly request brothers and sisters to pay due attention to it and make their opinion known to us all.

The days are gone when we would sit at home and think that the king will take care of our interests.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Gham-o-Huzn
3,269
Brother
3,503
Maripat's avatar
#450 [Permalink] Posted on 28th October 2015 05:30
A personal looking for your weaknesses is most probably your enemy.

A person focussing on your weaknesses is your enemy.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top

Jump to page: