Yes I suppose you're right 'we' have done enough. In the view of the Islamic fundamentalists, foreigners, especially from the West, are a profoundly immoral and corrupting influence. And the principal foreign enemy of the fundamentalists is the "Great Satan," the United States. The fundamentalists find it politically helpful to have an alien enemy because the solidarity of any community is enhanced if it perceives a common outside threat.

The main cause of the fundamentalists' hostility to the United States, however, is that they fear the impact of American culture and political interference in their societies.

The fundamentalists regard Americans (Westerners) essentially as barbarians - but as barbarians whose economic, technological, and military influence threatens the integrity of Muslim societies and
traditions. Their own governments, they claim are often used as mere pawns in America's geopolitical strategy, a strategy in which the interests of ordinary Muslims count for nothing.

Benazir Bhutto's aim was to bring democracy to Pakistan - and she was therefore looked upon by the fundamentalists as a threat to their traditional way of life.

On the other side of the coin - to many Westerners, Islamic fundamentalism seems like an almost scandalous return to a medieval morality. It conjures forth images of women behind veils, of adulterers being stoned, of thieves having their hands cut off, of public floggings and executions, of martyrdom in holy wars, and in extreme cases, of political fanaticism exemplified by the Bhutto
assassination, aircraft hijackings, and terrorist bombings.

In many ways it is difficult for most Westerners to comprehend, Islam is a comprehensive way of life, continuously abd intensely pervading belief and behaviour, public conduct and private experience.

The very word "Islam" means "submission" to the will of Allah, who demands personal integrity, social justice, and brotherhood among believers, and who has revealed the appropriate codes of conduct in virtually every field of life, from religious to personal hygiene.

The fundamentalists aim at nothing less than the replacement of their rulers by Islamic governments, in which the distinction between the religious and the secular would disappear...

ALLAH does not demand personal integrity, social justice, and brotherhood among Muslims.... He demands killing and fighting.

Take just 3 verses from the Quran:

(9:29) Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
(9:111)Allah has bought from the believers their lives and their money in exchange for Paradise. Thus, they fight in the cause of GOD, willing to kill and get killed. Such is His truthful pledge in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran...".

(8:67) It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

In other words, Allah wants you to do tyrany/killing in the land so you can have captives. Allah also wants you to end your life (see killing and being killed above) instead of having a nice plesant life. Allah is really smart.

Here is this verse in a great site with 15 translations.
http://islamawakened.org/quran/8/67/default.htm

Foxy, Please read the Quran and hadith, or least least the newspapers. Please tell me where all that integrity and social justice that you speak of is to be found in Islamic societies. I must have missed it.

Pakistan will fall into greater chaos and violence. It is bad one way or another. Pity the good people there.

Kactuz
http://www.kactuzkid.com/lies.html

Dear Kactuz,

I have a six volume collection called, "Great Religions of Modern Man,"
edited by Richard A. Gard. The volume on "Islam," edited by John Alden Williams - is the source of my information.

Dr John Alden Williams lectures on Islamic History at the Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University, Montreal. He is a graduate of the University of Arkansas and Princeton University (Ph.D).

Dr Williams also studied at the American University (Beirut) and the University of Munich. In addition to being a National Woodrow Wilson Fellow, he has received Fulbright and Rockefeller grants for study in various centers of Islamic civilization; he received a post-doctoral grant to study Islamic art and architecture from the American Center for Research in Cairo.

The book is divided into chapters dealing with:

1) The Qur'an: The Word of God.
2) The Hadith: The News of God's Messenger
3) The Law: Fiqh, Sharia
4) Sufism: The Interior Religion of the Community
5) Kalam: The Statements of the Theologians
6) The Dissidents of the Community

In this volume many facets of Islam are explored in the major writings of the tradition. From the revelations ("There is no God but Allah") the author takes us to the founding of the Muslim community under Muhammad the Messenger. He outlines for the reader the message of Muhammad and his role in the Muslim community.

There follow the classic writings from the Law of Islam, moral and social regulations for living the good life as a believer. The interior spirit of the community is expressed in the writings of the ascetics, the ecstatics, and the poets. Finally, there are extensive selections from the great theologians of the tradition and from dissidents of the community.

There emerges from this book a clear sense of the overwhelming unity of the tradition of Islam.

I trust that this has answered your query adequately. As you know
people can manipulate any religion to suit their own ends - especially fanatical fundamentalists...

It is probably worth bearing in mind that within living memory, Pakistan as a nation did not exist at all. It was created after decades of unrest, and following the consideration of any number of different ideas of how to solve the "nation divided by religion" problem.

Mountbatten was probably forced into a corner by i) time and ii) the limited attention that post-war Britain could allocate. Ghandi couldn't help but passively resist all along the line - his firm belief was that Hindus and Muslims should be able to live peaceably side by side.

Whatever, just sixty years ago Britain granted India its independence, upon which it created the countries we now know as India and Pakistan. Between twelve and fourteen million people moved either north or south, to find a home among their co-religionists. Half a million or so people were killed in the rush. In 1971, Bangladesh was also created out of East Pakistan, further underlining the basic instabilities. Kashmir continues to be disputed territory, etc. etc.

Why the history 101?

To point out that it might be just a little early to expect stability from such newly-created countries. Also, to point out that Ghandi was assassinated by a Hindu, Pakistan's first president Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated by a Muslim, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (Benazir's father) was hanged by a Muslim jurisdiction, and it appears that Benazir herself was killed by a fellow Muslim.

So it is a little premature to use the tragedy as an excuse to generate "the mozzies are coming" panic.

Thanks Pericles, as always, interesting, valid, and informative.
Much appreciated!

Yes, nice precis Pericles.

Let's just take a deep breath before announcing the beginning of World War III, eh ?