That is precisely the plan of western governments. To declare pakistan or any other “stan” a terrorist state in need of immediate attention. The rampant ignorance amongst the general world population takes centre stage as brilliantly driven media bandwagon conjours up the new “Osama bin laden. Armies get the marching orders and the goodwill nod by the “innocent” citiziens of a country halfway across the world is broadcasted on news as the beginning of yet another war on isla….terrorism. Another country invaded, pillaged and flagged as possible important strategic location for future conflict(s) and/or “free oil”.

Sadly everyone forgets the part where generations are destroyed for money and power but its alright, after all its “collateral damage”. Then you have the 10 year old orphan who has never heard of this “free country” before but now sees its people running a free recruitment service of al-qaeda near the local mosque. “We will give you the armor and the anger to carry out revenge attacks when you are old enough to understand why we are here”, reads the advertising board.

10 years on. This “…stan” is a terrorist state. We must do something about it. Ok we need a new man to pin this one on, says the “democratic leader of a free nation”. By the way, what do we need this time? Oil or a place to launder our hard earned money in a war we started somewhere else?

Chaz,

Your attempts to disrail the inclinations for Islam in public life, as a guidance of and template for government and society, and the complete implementation of Shariah are duly noted. But they are misleading. And on a purely intellectual level, they are unsubstantiated.

1) There is NO state or government which meets the minimal Shariah standards of being representative of Islam in the world today. Not Sudan, not Saudia, not Iran, not Pakistan, none. And this has been so for nearly 100 years.
Every state in the Muslim world has been constructed on Western ideological concepts, such as nationalism, has complied with Western based international and treaties, such as the UN charter. They have applied Western based political structures which have served as facades of authenticity while perpetrating oppression, such as legislative assemblies dominated by a ruler’s political party for decades, such as Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Algeria. These four countries have all been dominated by Western ideological concepts of liberalism and/or socialism or their hybridization, and have tinkered with Shariah for political pandering of the masses. Pakistan can be included with them.

2) Prior to the invasion, occupation, colonization, and transformation of the Muslim world by Western imperial powers, nonMuslim minorities, especially Ahlil Kitab, experienced quite a lot of material enrichment, commercial success, had political representation and respected avenues of political recourse, and many other benefits of living in a Shariah dominated societies.

But All historical arguments have political realties.
It should be noted that prior to the colonization of the Muslim world by the Western empires, Western empires had a strategy of economic war. They intentionally sought to destroy the trade and commerce of the Ottoman caliphate and Muslim world and replace it by Western dominated sea trade and Western controlled commerce. Thus, they targetted the land trade from China and India across Asia by replacing it with sea trade. On a global scale, as well as regionally and locally. As Western sea trade gained superiority across the globe, Muslim dominated land trade caused economies throughout the Muslim world to falter, stagnate, and eventually fall into a depression.

The effects of this depression were felt and eventually calcified and stagnated throughout the Ottoman state, which included India and other outlying but supported Islamic entities.

The Ottoman government did not successfully respond to this sustained crisis. It actually incorporated the economic ideas of the same empires who caused this by including individual taxation on top of Shariah based revenue. Moreover, nonMuslims who enjoyed centuries of economic enrichment while living in Muslim lands and following Shariah were sometimes wrongly targetted for unIslamic taxation by the Ottoman state due to their disparity in wealth. As well, some of them had financial ties to Western interests, including supporting the end of Shariah in Muslim lands.

3) The plight of nonMuslims in the Muslim countries today are a result of these two circumstances: the absence of Shariah and Islam in life, and the effects of the past 300 years of conflict with the West.

4) In comparison, a “citizenship” based on BELIEF is superior to a “citizenship” based on NATIONALITY. After centuries of conflict, the Western model has transformed the planet into a world order which follows only the NATION STATE model and citizenship based on nationalities. But no person can choose in which nation they are born. A change of nationality occurs only through the powers of men, usually elite men who control a nation.

For example, a person can be born in Japan, but if he is not over 75% Japanese ethnicity, meaning one parent 100% Japanese and the other 50%, then citizenship is denied him. And this regulation was inacted by a Japanese parliement. it served to resist any effort by any formerly colonized people who were born of Japanese men but foreign women, such as from Indonesia, Phillipines, Korea, China.

In contrast, according to Shariah implemented in an Islamic state, any person can change his belief to Islam and become a citizen of the state based on his own individual will. Allah grants this for mankind. Whereas Man choose to empower himself over others.