Alienating the Hearts and Minds of Muslims by Hassan

Ever since 9/11 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, one phrase keeps popping up in different forums. Not only this phrase is uttered by people opposed to the wars, but also interestingly by people who are cheering the deployment of cluster bombs in Muslim lands (even if it gets one or two wedding parties). The phrase of course is “Winning the Hearts and Minds of Muslims”.

The irony seems obvious and I do not want to belabor the obvious, except to point out that either American politicians (and their media bedfellows) are terribly retarded or genuinely insincere. So, where have they gone wrong?

Firstly, their emphasis on promoting progressives among Muslims is completely dumbfounding. One may wonder what is the benefit of it, since proggressives/liberals account for less than 0.1% of Muslims. Furthermore, proggressive views are radically (not slightly) different from the vast majority of Muslims who sincerely love their religion and their Prophet Muhammad (S). So, perhaps the politicians/media not just interested in winning hearts and minds, but changing the deen in these hearts and mind!

Secondly, and equally important, is the constant bashing of the hearts and soul (mind) of Islamic world. I am particularly referring to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan here. I sincerely believe these two countries to be of utmost importance to Islamic world. And perhaps the West realizes it as well. They may not have perfect Islamic systems or even remotely close to it, but these countries are powerful symbols for Muslim nations.

Pakistan has always been the first target, considering its strategic importance in the Islamic world (strengthened by nuclear status). I am not saying this because I am a Pakistani; rather the great, late King Faisal of Saudi Arabia called Pakistan the “castle” of the Islamic world. On an unrelated note, I do find it quite shameful and disheartening when some of our “indigenous” Muslim brothers and sisters in the West question the very existence and independence of Pakistan, instead preferring that it would have been part of India. For a Muslim to wish or prefer for a majority Muslim populace to live under non-Muslim governance, is a betrayal of sort to all Muslims, REGARDLESS of how well or how poorly the country has fared.

There are also historical factors for Pakistan's importance.
1. Pakistan's strategic location, neighboring vital nations such as India and China, and the closeness to the minerally and oil-rich central Asian countries. I believe that Pakistan would likely have been next country to be attacked by Russians, had the Russians not been defeated by Afghanis (of course with help of Allah first, then Pakistan and America).
2. Pakistan is home to around 160 million people, almost all Muslims. Manpower is very important in terms of labor and military.
3. And the most important factor is Pakistanis' extreme love and protective jealousy of Islam and symbols associated with it. No offense, but if Saudi Arabia would ever be attacked God forbid, Pakistanis may reach out to defend the holy lands, before Saudis would!

The reason I am discussing these issues is to set the stage and context for recent statements made by politicians and media personalities. With regards to Saudi Arabia, Presidential candidate John Edwards and most of the Democratic Congress is condemning proposed arm sales to Saudi Arabia worth 20 billion dollars. Of course, no one dare raise a voice against the proposed DONATION of 30 billion dollars worth of arms to Israel! The claim is that Saudi is not serious about fighting terrorism and our efforts in Iraq (I do not know why they expect other countries to be serious about the mess that they themselves helped create). Of course, Israel is serious about terrorism… as a state-terrorist. Nevertheless, the relationship with Saudi Arabia has always been complex, and no one is seriously discussing attacking Saudi Arabia (except the few loons of course, like Tancredo).

As for Pakistan, on the other hand, there has been constant rhetoric from Bush administration officials about crossing into Pakistan territory from Afghanistan in order to “fight terrorists harbored in Pakistan land”. Welcome to another potential quagmire! Neo-con Bill Kristol (Fox Noise) has advocated it openly on TV. Soon Murdoch's newly acquired Wall Street Journal will be running front-page articles advocating the same!

But don't blink now… Fox Noise has reached Senator Barak Obama's ears, who in his desperation to catch up to Hillary, and displaying full-well why he still has a long way to go before acquiring political common sense, is ALSO calling for a ground invasion into Pakistani territory. He criticized the war in Iraq (it's the popular thing to do of course), yet he is advocating another war with a nuclear-powered, more disciplined Pakistani army. Has he gone nuts? This of course could be mere political theatre to get votes. As I said, bashing Saudi Arabia and Pakistan cannot hurt. Rather, it is appreciated by most Americans, who see the world as a superman comic book—a clear enemy is always easy to focus on, even if it gets you into more trouble.

In conclusion, I doubt that any Democrats may actually do something as stupid as this, following elections. But anything emanating from neo-cons should be taking seriously. But here's my two-cents to sensible Americans anyway, Pakistan is no Afghanistan or Iraq (or both combined). It will not only NOT be a cake-walk, but it could well potentially turn into one a nightmare worse than Iraq. Furthermore, it will alienate Muslims around the globe like we haven't seen before. While a majority of Pakistani Muslims are the “moderate” kind (that is why no Islamic party has ever won a huge mandate), a “common cause” like an invasion of “our homeland” could make bed-fellows out of moderations and extremists, and that my friends, will be alienating the hearts and minds of Muslims, like never before!

Recommended Reading:
Counterpunch Article

Related Posts:

8 Responses

  1. Abu Muhammad

    Invading Pakistan would be the ultimate insanity.

    A people would arise that would make Bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri look like like progressives.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Reply
  2. Abu AbdurRahman

    I agree, invading Pakistan would unite all 160 million people of Pakistan against America; moderates, extremists , and all the other type of “ists”. Nationalism (unfortunately) is one of the few things that unite all Pakistanis.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Reply
  3. AnonyMouse

    How stupid is the American public to not know that Busharraf (borrowing your word here, Amad) is their ally?
    … Nevermind, don’t answer that!

    Honestly, though, their ignorance confounds me… even (or should I say especially?) that of the politicians! Don’t they know that if they ever try to do anything like that, it’ll be pretty much a guarantee of their own (further) destruction?

    Whatever happens, may Allah grant us the strength of emaan (and physical strength also!) to defeat the enemy, ameen!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Reply
  4. nuqtah

    Actually Brother is wrong to assume that Pakistan is a powerful symbol in the Muslim world. This simply isn’t true as a ground reality. Arabs couldn’t care less what happens to Pakistan, and no, most of them can’t even differentiate between a Paki and a Hindu.

    In fact, one recent Saudi king went as far as declaring that Pakistan is a nuclear power but NOT an ‘islamic’ nuclear power. I say, the betrayal of Arabs to this ummah is one of the reasons why it is so weak today.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Reply
  5. abu ameerah

    “…who see the world as a superman comic book…”

    lol…that sounds just about right.

    “…the betrayal of Arabs to this ummah is one of the reasons why it is so weak today.”

    I can see where this kind of sentiment comes from and I think you might be on to something here. However, it is seems a bit harsh. The reality is that Arabs make up only a small percentage of the entire Muslim Ummah and even amongst them (arabs) we find so much division and factionalism.

    I would simply be a bit more cautious when it comes to laying the lion’s share of blame for the difficulties confronting the Ummah on one specific group. Unfortunately there is, no doubt, more than enough blame to go around…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Reply
  6. Dawud Israel

    I have a controversial theory I’ve been wanting to hash out for a while. It deals with the POSITIVES, not negatives. I don’t want to be racist but I think our Ummah has a lot of resources that need to be analyzed.

    GENERALIZATIONS:
    Arab Nations–they have strong religious establishments, lots of oil and wars happening all around them. Masha Allah.

    African Nations–they are easily the most physically fit and have always endured the adversity of their land. Masha Allah.

    Subcontinent Nations–they are known to be more intelligent, (especially in Bangladesh) with a high percentage in the medical or engineering professions. Masha Allah.

    These aren’t absolutes, nor are they racist stereotypes. This list can go on and get more detailed–but my point is this: These are the strengths of the Ummah, we need to invest in them accordingly and make them stick to the glue of Islam.

    In order to start BEHAVING like an Ummah–we have to start THINKING like an Ummah. Does that make sense?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Reply
  7. Solomon2

    For a Muslim to wish or prefer for a majority Muslim populace to live under non-Muslim governance, is a betrayal of sort to all Muslims, REGARDLESS of how well or how poorly the country has fared.

    Muslim governance may be an ideal, but it seems very difficult or impossible to reach: unless everyone is a paragon of virtue, the structure appears to gravitate towards a top-down system that invites corruption because it lacks accountability.

    Maybe it can be done, someday. Until then, why shouldn’t Muslims seek to adopt a secular checks-and-balances system that is imperfect, yet recognizes human weaknesses?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.