Pakistan Back Bone for Muslim world
10:56 PM | 
Posted by
Syed Faheem Akbar
PAKISTAN our Pride
This is dedicated to one of the few Muslim countries that are a source of pride for not only its citizens but for all Muslims in the world. I am proud to say that Im Muslim, and after my religion I am most proud of the country to which I belong, Pakistan.
Here are some facts:
Pakistan is the only country to be founded on the basis of Islam
Pakistan posseses the 6th largest army in the world today.
Pakistan is the single most powerful Muslim country in the world today.
Pakistani Air Force and Army personnel train all other Muslim countries, which include most Arab nations today.
Pakistan is the only Muslim country that posseses Nuclear power.
Pakistan is the bridge between the Middle East and South Asia.
Pakistan does not recognize Israel or its right to exist, and has been supporting the Palestinian cause ever since its existence.
Pakistan is one of the oldest civilizations (5000 year known history), it is a mix of cultures, mainly influenced by Arabs and Persians.
All in all, I believe that Pakistanis should be very proud of their country, and their culture, we have no reason to mix or adapt things from our neighbouring countries, instead they should borrow from us. Its sad to see Pakistani people mixing so much with Indians to the point that they forget their actual identity. Our forefathers fought their whole lives so that we could have a seperate country, they bled so that we can have our own way of life, and today we are throwing it away by losing our identity. In the past 59 years we have fought 3 huge wars with India, if Indians and us were the same people, we would not have fought 3 wars and killed our own people.
I hope that Pakistanis wake up and realize that we dont need anyone else but ourselves in order to succeed. We have everthing we need, lets use it and be proud to represent one of the greatest nations in the world.
The Islamic Bomb
Pakistan's admission that her scientists may have spread the nuclear technology to Iran, has rekindled the fears that nuclear technology in the hands of an unstable state will remain a threat to the world peace. The serious observers are reluctant to accept that the government of Pakistan has not authorized or initiated any transfers of sensitive nuclear technology or information to other countries. There have been strong indications that Islamabad has sold nuclear secrets to some countries including Iran and North Korea over the years. And the latest development has only reinforced the suspicions.
The fact that the admission was not a voluntary act but a result of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency's inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities that showed conclusively that "Pakistani-linked individuals" had acted as "intermediaries and black marketeers," makes the situation more scary. Experts point out that Tehran's acknowledgment that it had used centrifuge designs that appeared identical to ones used in Islamabad's quest for the Islamic bomb did not leave any room for Pakistan but to admit.
Even Bush administration's statement that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had assured Washington that his government had not—at least "in the present time"—provided any nuclear secrets to countries like Iran and North Korea did not help in alleviating the anxiety of the international community. The experience of the international community with Pakistan has taught it to be cautious before accepting any assurances. The world still remembers that Pakistani plane was caught picking up North Korean missile parts thought to be part of a swap for Pakistani nuclear technology, long after General Musharraf told the world that he stopped such sales after coming into power.
Experts insist that unless Pakistan allows international agencies to install some kind of monitoring devices in its nuclear facilities to make the whole process really transparent, there is no guarantee that radical Islamists vying for power in the Islamic state will not share the secrets with their counterparts in other Muslim countries. In my opinion even if General Musharraf is sincere in his pledge to fight against radical Islamists, he is only one man against a national ethos. And as there is no alternate leadership that shares his enlightened vision, it is only a matter of time before an improved and "wiser" version of Talibaan will seize control of the nuclear installations.
The latest attempt on the life of General Musharraf has highlighted the dangers of continuing dependence on an individual in a non-democratic setup. Pakistan is a very different kind of a Muslim country. No Muslim country in the world was founded in the name of Islam. Pakistan did. As such it claims to be the citadel of Islam. Its armed forces are the armies of Islam and it champions the cause of each and every Muslim. Religion is not just its raison d'être but the only guarantee of survival. A system that has failed to provide equal rights to all of its citizens can only depend on a religious totalitarianism. Religion is the only effective weapon in the hands of an oligarchy that does not respect the will of the people to keep the centrifugal forces tamed. Pakistan's armed forces representing the ruling class believe that religion can make the minorities and smaller provinces forget the absence of social justice that keeps them in a perpetual state of poverty and helplessness.
Pakistan is not a natural country. It is composed of regions, sects, ethnic groups and linguistic factions who, in the absence of social justice, have never felt a part of the Pakistani nationhood. It is only the iron hand of the armed forces that has prevented them from seceding. Bangalis, taking advantage of their geography that placed them far away from the military and political center, did secede and established their own country, Bangladesh. This is a very volatile state. A country that is kept together by a fascist religiso-military ideology can never be a productive and positive player in the comity of nations. It will always try to seek alliances with totalitarian regimes.
Pakistan was created for the Muslims of South Asian subcontinent. It was supposed to be a secular Muslim state working for the benefit of its citizens irrespective of their religion, color, ethnicity or creed. But soon after its creation, Islamists who had opposed its creation, hijacked it and declared that the state was founded in the name of Islam and will work to defend and expand the frontiers the faith. The non-Muslims were reduced to the status of second class citizens and the armed forces of Pakistan were declared as the armies of Islam.
Radical Islamists do not believe in the true faith of Islam that preaches equality and social justice. They practice an ideology that believes in persecuting those who do not share their philosophy. The fundamentalists found a ready support in an oligarchy that lacked legitimacy. This oligarchy too was in need of a weapon to perpetuate its rule. They knew that the allegiance of all the citizens cannot be won without establishing a system of social justice, which they did not want. So they opted for a system that has always been the choice of the totalitarian minds. Religion was used to enslave different ethnic and linguistic groups in an artificial unity. Pakistan was declared an Islamic state.
Oligarchy's dependence on religion to sustain their rule forced them to depend more and more on radical Islamic groups. It presented itself as the champion of all Islamic causes. Every issue was now cast in a religious light and the world was either green or ungreen. Although this "Islam" failed to fool the minority groups, it did succeed in winning the support of fundamentalists and religious fanatics from all over the world. From Palestine to Paris, from Indonesia to Indiana and from Kashmir to Karbala, wherever there was religious terrorism, Pakistan found herself defending it. That's why when Pakistan decided to have a nuclear bomb of its own it touted it as an Islamic bomb.
In 70s when Pakistan's then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto launched his campaign to win funds for the nuclearization, he sold the idea to Libya, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Iran as an Islamic project. All these Muslim countries supported the project whole heartedly. Pakistan never faced any shortage of funds as far as her nuclear ambitions were concerned. And therefore it feels obliged to share the technology with other Muslim countries.
There has always been a tacit understanding that Pakistan's bomb will be used to regain the glory of Islam and defend the "rights" of the Muslims wherever they are persecuted by infidel powers. This was truly an Islamic bomb. On the one hand it strengthened the autocratic hands of the oligarchy and allowed Pakistan's armed forces to rehabilitate themselves after the humiliating defeat in 1971 and on the other hand it allowed Pakistan to gain a very profitable position within the Muslim world. It was felt that Pakistan's nuclear capability served as a morale booster for the entire Islamic world. Foreign Minister of Iran expressed his joy and pride and said that the nuclear test by Pakistan has strengthened the confidence of the Muslim world in the face of the nuclear threat from Israel.
Other Muslim nations were equally proud of Pakistan's achievement. "No more shall the West humiliate Muslims," thundered the Imam of Al-Aqsa mosque who saw in the explosion of the Pakistani bomb "the beginning of the resurgence of Islamic power." Sheikh Ahmad Yasin, the leader of the Hamas thought that the Pakistan nuclear bomb was a shot in the arms of the Arabs who had failed to produce even a single tank. The Saudi King Fahd and the Crown Prince Abdullah also expressed their satisfaction over Pakistani detonation of nuclear device and thereby strengthening the defense of the Islamic world. The UAE president too described the Pakistani nuclear response fully justified in the face of serious threats to its security. The Egyptian Mufti called upon the Muslims to rally support for the nuclear blast by Pakistan.
The detonations, which, according to Christian Science Monitor "transformed the global balance of power setting the pace for remaking the world order," were according to the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mian Nawaz Sharif were the results of an inspiration he derived from the holy book - Quraa'n. After conducting the nuclear tests, he proclaimed to the nation on May 28 that in resolving the dilemma "to explode or not to explode" he ultimately turned to the Holy Quran (Muslim holy book) for guidance and he came upon the divine commandment "always to keep your horses ready."
The relevant verse of the Holy Quran is as follows:
"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, (steed of war will mean the latest war technologies in the present context) to strike terror into (the heart of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others beside whom you do not known but Allah doeth know, whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah shall be repaid unto you and ye shall not be treated unjustly" (VIII: 60)
Islamists quote another verse of Quraa'n, to define the faithful and the enemies of Allah, "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah and those who reject Faith (Kafroon) fight in the cause of Evil (Taghoot). The concept of Ummah under which all Muslims are like the parts of one body, does make it an obligation for every Muslim to fight in defense of other Muslims. That's why the Muslims in Indonesia feel their responsibility to come to the defense of Palestinians. And that's why it is not a surprise if the ISI and the radical Islamists in the Pakistan armed forces and other sensitive establishments do not feel it inappropriate to help Iran, Libya or Saudi Arabia to attain the nuclear power or other weapons of mass destruction. A prominent political analyst in Pakistan wrote, ". . . the Ummah as a whole must keep itself ready with the state-of-the-art weapons and the latest war technologies and never to relent. And whatever spent on it would be recompensed by Allah."
Islamists want Muslims to conclude from the verses of the Holy Quran that the nuclear capability acquired by Pakistan should not be deployed only for the defense of Pakistan but also for the defense of the entire Islamic world. It should be used against the Judeo-Christian powers to re-establish the Khilafah. Muslim street is made to understand that the world of Islam has common enemies and they have common ideological frontier to defend. Therefore it will always be justified for Pakistan to share its nuclear secrets with the those who are willing to fight the Judeo-Christian powers.
The fall of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of a democratic and true Muslim government in Iraq will change all this. The radical Islamism will have a hard time to find governments ready to share their technologies with them to defeat freedoms.
SSsISLAMABAD: Pakistan's entire leadership was represented at the lunch table of Saudi Ambassador here to recieve king Abduallah's message of unity from high-profile emissary Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz.
Addressing Pakistani leaders,Murqin,the intelligence chief of the kingdom of Saudi Arabis,as a preamable of king's message said that Saudi leadership considers Pakistan as Back bone in Muslim world.
SUPPORT OF PAKISTAN TOWARED EVERY MUSLIM COUNTRY AS THE SPRITE OF MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD.
ONCE AN ISREALI FIGHTER ATTACKED ON IRAQ(BAGHDAD) THEN PAF GAVE HIM A MASSIVE REPLY:
ROLE OF PAKISTAN IN IRAN IRAQ WAR WHICH WAS IMPOSED ON AMERICAN INTRESTS:
The Iran–Iraq War, also known as the Imposed War (جنگ تحمیلی, Jang-e-tahmīlī) and Holy Defense (دفاع مقدس, Defā'-e-moghaddas) in Iran, Saddām's Qādisiyyah (قادسيّة صدّام, Qādisiyyat Ṣaddām) in Iraq, and (First) Gulf War, was a war between the armed forces of Iraq and Iran lasting from September 1980 to August 1988. It was initially refered to in the western world as the "Persian Gulf War" prior to the "Gulf War" of 1990 with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
The war began when Iraq invaded Iran, launching a simultaneous invasion by air and land into Iranian territory on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes, and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority influenced by the Iranian Revolution. Iraq was also aiming to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state. Although Iraq hoped to take advantage of revolutionary chaos in Iran and attacked without formal warning, they made only limited progress into Iran and within several months were repelled by the Iranians who regained virtually all lost territory by June, 1982. For the next six years, Iran was on the offensive.[12] Despite calls for a ceasefire by the United Nations Security Council, hostilities continued until 20 August 1988. The last prisoners of war were exchanged in 2003.[12][13]
The war came at a great cost in lives and economic damage - a half a million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers as well as civilians are believed to have died in the war with many more injured and wounded - but brought neither reparations nor change in borders. The conflict is often compared to World War I,[14] in that the tactics used closely mirrored those of World War I, including large scale trench warfare, manned machine-gun posts, bayonet charges, use of barbed wire across trenches, human wave attacks across no-mans land, and extensive use of chemical weapons such as mustard gas against Iranian troops and civilians as well as Iraqi Kurds. At the time, the UN Security Council issued statements that "chemical weapons had been used in the war." However, in these UN statements Iraq was not mentioned by name, so it has been said that "the international community remained silent as Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against Iranian as well as Iraqi Kurds" and it is believed[15][16][17] that "United States prevented the UN from condemning Iraq".[18]
Date 22 September 1980 – 1990 {Resumed Diplomatic Relations With Iran In 1990}
Location Persian Gulf, Iranian-Iraqi border
Result Stalemate
* Strategic Iraqi failure
* Tactical Iranian failure
* Both sides claim victory
GENERAL ZIA_UL_HAQ ON IRAN,IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN:
ROLE OF PAKISTAN IN AFGHANISTAN WAR1970:
Rarely does a country fight the same war twice in one generation. Even rarer is to fight it twice from opposite sides. Yet that is in many ways what America is doing today in Afghanistan. In the 1980s the CIA engineered the largest covert operation in its history to defeat the Soviet army in Afghanistan working from a safe haven in Pakistan. Today America is fighting a Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan operating from a safe haven in Pakistan. Many suggest that the outcome will be the same for America and its NATO allies as it was for the Soviet Union—ultimate defeat at the hands of the insurgency. That analysis misses the many fundamental differences between the two wars. But it is also important to note the one major similarity between them: the key role played by Pakistan, which could again determine the outcome.
The most critical differences are goals and objectives. America intervened in Afghanistan in 2001 on the side of the Northern Alliance to topple the Taliban Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan only after it had been used as a base for the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks in America. The American goal, endorsed by the UN and NATO, was self-defence against a government that had allowed its territory to be used for an act of war against another state. From the beginning, America has had no ambition to dominate or subjugate the Afghan people, or to stay in Afghanistan once the threat posed by al-Qaeda had been removed and the Taliban defeated. President Barack Obama said this again in his speech outlining his new policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan on March 27th 2009.
The Soviet invasion in 1979 was a different matter. Its goal was to shore up a communist regime that was on the brink of collapse. The Soviet leadership wanted an Afghanistan that would be like other Soviet satellite states, that is, under virtual Soviet imperial rule with only the façade of independence.
The Soviet invasion and the attempt to impose communism on a rural and largely illiterate Islamic country produced the predictable result: a mass national uprising. In contrast, polls show most Afghans have supported the coalition forces that overthrew the Taliban from 2001 onwards, although that support is now dwindling as the coalition has failed to provide law and order and reconstruction. The Taliban insurgency is very much restricted to the Pashtun community. It has little appeal to the almost 60% of Afghans who are not Pashtun. The Soviet Union's task was much more difficult than the one facing NATO today.
The Soviets responded with a ferocity and brutality that made the situation even worse. At least 1.5m Afghans were killed, another 5m or so fled the country to Iran and Pakistan, and millions more were displaced inside the country. A country that began the war as one of the poorest in the world was systemically impoverished and even emptied of its people. The Soviets carpet-bombed cities such as Kandahar, whose population fell from 250,000 to 25,000. Millions of land mines were planted all over the country, with no maps kept of where they had been laid. Nothing even approaching this level of horror is happening today in Afghanistan.
If the differences between the American and Soviet experience are significant, there is also at least one major similarity: the role played by Pakistan. In the 1980s, Pakistan was the base for the Saudi-American alliance behind the mujahideen. Today, Pakistan is the safe haven of the Taliban insurgency and its logistical supply line. Pakistan also serves as the major logistical line for the NATO forces in Afghanistan. Over 80% of the supplies coalition forces depend on to survive arrive via Pakistan from the port of Karachi. Geography effectively precludes an alternative, unless the alliance is willing to rely on either Russia or Iran for its logistics.
So Pakistan has unusually strong leverage on both sides of the war. This winter, Pakistani police for the first time began arresting senior Afghan Taliban leaders, but the campaign was not sustained and proved to be a one-off. It is widely assumed in Pakistan that American and European patience to fight it out in Afghanistan is eroding, an assumption reinforced by polls that show support for the conflict steady declining on both sides of the Atlantic. Mr Obama's mid-2011 deadline has been interpreted by many as signalling an early withdrawal, despite his aides' attempts to suggest otherwise.
Pakistan's passive support of the Taliban is thus a useful hedge against the day when NATO decides to start pulling out and gives up the struggle. Pakistan will then have a relationship with the Pashtun future of southern and eastern Afghanistan and will have an asset in the struggle for post-NATO Afghanistan. Thus it is crucial that the alliance makes it clear to Islamabad that the Taliban are not going to succeed on the battlefield and that Pakistan must aggressively weaken both the Afghan and the Pakistani Taliban.
There is no inherent reason for the NATO war in Afghanistan to follow the pattern of the Soviet war. The differences between the two outweigh the similarities, especially in what most Afghans want for their country. While pundits may find the cliché that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empire simplistically attractive, there is every reason to believe smart policies can avoid such an outcome—but much depends on Pakistan.
This is dedicated to one of the few Muslim countries that are a source of pride for not only its citizens but for all Muslims in the world. I am proud to say that Im Muslim, and after my religion I am most proud of the country to which I belong, Pakistan.
Here are some facts:
Pakistan is the only country to be founded on the basis of Islam
Pakistan posseses the 6th largest army in the world today.
Pakistan is the single most powerful Muslim country in the world today.
Pakistani Air Force and Army personnel train all other Muslim countries, which include most Arab nations today.
Pakistan is the only Muslim country that posseses Nuclear power.
Pakistan is the bridge between the Middle East and South Asia.
Pakistan does not recognize Israel or its right to exist, and has been supporting the Palestinian cause ever since its existence.
Pakistan is one of the oldest civilizations (5000 year known history), it is a mix of cultures, mainly influenced by Arabs and Persians.
All in all, I believe that Pakistanis should be very proud of their country, and their culture, we have no reason to mix or adapt things from our neighbouring countries, instead they should borrow from us. Its sad to see Pakistani people mixing so much with Indians to the point that they forget their actual identity. Our forefathers fought their whole lives so that we could have a seperate country, they bled so that we can have our own way of life, and today we are throwing it away by losing our identity. In the past 59 years we have fought 3 huge wars with India, if Indians and us were the same people, we would not have fought 3 wars and killed our own people.
I hope that Pakistanis wake up and realize that we dont need anyone else but ourselves in order to succeed. We have everthing we need, lets use it and be proud to represent one of the greatest nations in the world.
The Islamic Bomb
Pakistan's admission that her scientists may have spread the nuclear technology to Iran, has rekindled the fears that nuclear technology in the hands of an unstable state will remain a threat to the world peace. The serious observers are reluctant to accept that the government of Pakistan has not authorized or initiated any transfers of sensitive nuclear technology or information to other countries. There have been strong indications that Islamabad has sold nuclear secrets to some countries including Iran and North Korea over the years. And the latest development has only reinforced the suspicions.
The fact that the admission was not a voluntary act but a result of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency's inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities that showed conclusively that "Pakistani-linked individuals" had acted as "intermediaries and black marketeers," makes the situation more scary. Experts point out that Tehran's acknowledgment that it had used centrifuge designs that appeared identical to ones used in Islamabad's quest for the Islamic bomb did not leave any room for Pakistan but to admit.
Even Bush administration's statement that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had assured Washington that his government had not—at least "in the present time"—provided any nuclear secrets to countries like Iran and North Korea did not help in alleviating the anxiety of the international community. The experience of the international community with Pakistan has taught it to be cautious before accepting any assurances. The world still remembers that Pakistani plane was caught picking up North Korean missile parts thought to be part of a swap for Pakistani nuclear technology, long after General Musharraf told the world that he stopped such sales after coming into power.
Experts insist that unless Pakistan allows international agencies to install some kind of monitoring devices in its nuclear facilities to make the whole process really transparent, there is no guarantee that radical Islamists vying for power in the Islamic state will not share the secrets with their counterparts in other Muslim countries. In my opinion even if General Musharraf is sincere in his pledge to fight against radical Islamists, he is only one man against a national ethos. And as there is no alternate leadership that shares his enlightened vision, it is only a matter of time before an improved and "wiser" version of Talibaan will seize control of the nuclear installations.
The latest attempt on the life of General Musharraf has highlighted the dangers of continuing dependence on an individual in a non-democratic setup. Pakistan is a very different kind of a Muslim country. No Muslim country in the world was founded in the name of Islam. Pakistan did. As such it claims to be the citadel of Islam. Its armed forces are the armies of Islam and it champions the cause of each and every Muslim. Religion is not just its raison d'être but the only guarantee of survival. A system that has failed to provide equal rights to all of its citizens can only depend on a religious totalitarianism. Religion is the only effective weapon in the hands of an oligarchy that does not respect the will of the people to keep the centrifugal forces tamed. Pakistan's armed forces representing the ruling class believe that religion can make the minorities and smaller provinces forget the absence of social justice that keeps them in a perpetual state of poverty and helplessness.
Pakistan is not a natural country. It is composed of regions, sects, ethnic groups and linguistic factions who, in the absence of social justice, have never felt a part of the Pakistani nationhood. It is only the iron hand of the armed forces that has prevented them from seceding. Bangalis, taking advantage of their geography that placed them far away from the military and political center, did secede and established their own country, Bangladesh. This is a very volatile state. A country that is kept together by a fascist religiso-military ideology can never be a productive and positive player in the comity of nations. It will always try to seek alliances with totalitarian regimes.
Pakistan was created for the Muslims of South Asian subcontinent. It was supposed to be a secular Muslim state working for the benefit of its citizens irrespective of their religion, color, ethnicity or creed. But soon after its creation, Islamists who had opposed its creation, hijacked it and declared that the state was founded in the name of Islam and will work to defend and expand the frontiers the faith. The non-Muslims were reduced to the status of second class citizens and the armed forces of Pakistan were declared as the armies of Islam.
Radical Islamists do not believe in the true faith of Islam that preaches equality and social justice. They practice an ideology that believes in persecuting those who do not share their philosophy. The fundamentalists found a ready support in an oligarchy that lacked legitimacy. This oligarchy too was in need of a weapon to perpetuate its rule. They knew that the allegiance of all the citizens cannot be won without establishing a system of social justice, which they did not want. So they opted for a system that has always been the choice of the totalitarian minds. Religion was used to enslave different ethnic and linguistic groups in an artificial unity. Pakistan was declared an Islamic state.
Oligarchy's dependence on religion to sustain their rule forced them to depend more and more on radical Islamic groups. It presented itself as the champion of all Islamic causes. Every issue was now cast in a religious light and the world was either green or ungreen. Although this "Islam" failed to fool the minority groups, it did succeed in winning the support of fundamentalists and religious fanatics from all over the world. From Palestine to Paris, from Indonesia to Indiana and from Kashmir to Karbala, wherever there was religious terrorism, Pakistan found herself defending it. That's why when Pakistan decided to have a nuclear bomb of its own it touted it as an Islamic bomb.
In 70s when Pakistan's then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto launched his campaign to win funds for the nuclearization, he sold the idea to Libya, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Iran as an Islamic project. All these Muslim countries supported the project whole heartedly. Pakistan never faced any shortage of funds as far as her nuclear ambitions were concerned. And therefore it feels obliged to share the technology with other Muslim countries.
There has always been a tacit understanding that Pakistan's bomb will be used to regain the glory of Islam and defend the "rights" of the Muslims wherever they are persecuted by infidel powers. This was truly an Islamic bomb. On the one hand it strengthened the autocratic hands of the oligarchy and allowed Pakistan's armed forces to rehabilitate themselves after the humiliating defeat in 1971 and on the other hand it allowed Pakistan to gain a very profitable position within the Muslim world. It was felt that Pakistan's nuclear capability served as a morale booster for the entire Islamic world. Foreign Minister of Iran expressed his joy and pride and said that the nuclear test by Pakistan has strengthened the confidence of the Muslim world in the face of the nuclear threat from Israel.
Other Muslim nations were equally proud of Pakistan's achievement. "No more shall the West humiliate Muslims," thundered the Imam of Al-Aqsa mosque who saw in the explosion of the Pakistani bomb "the beginning of the resurgence of Islamic power." Sheikh Ahmad Yasin, the leader of the Hamas thought that the Pakistan nuclear bomb was a shot in the arms of the Arabs who had failed to produce even a single tank. The Saudi King Fahd and the Crown Prince Abdullah also expressed their satisfaction over Pakistani detonation of nuclear device and thereby strengthening the defense of the Islamic world. The UAE president too described the Pakistani nuclear response fully justified in the face of serious threats to its security. The Egyptian Mufti called upon the Muslims to rally support for the nuclear blast by Pakistan.
The detonations, which, according to Christian Science Monitor "transformed the global balance of power setting the pace for remaking the world order," were according to the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mian Nawaz Sharif were the results of an inspiration he derived from the holy book - Quraa'n. After conducting the nuclear tests, he proclaimed to the nation on May 28 that in resolving the dilemma "to explode or not to explode" he ultimately turned to the Holy Quran (Muslim holy book) for guidance and he came upon the divine commandment "always to keep your horses ready."
The relevant verse of the Holy Quran is as follows:
"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, (steed of war will mean the latest war technologies in the present context) to strike terror into (the heart of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others beside whom you do not known but Allah doeth know, whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah shall be repaid unto you and ye shall not be treated unjustly" (VIII: 60)
Islamists quote another verse of Quraa'n, to define the faithful and the enemies of Allah, "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah and those who reject Faith (Kafroon) fight in the cause of Evil (Taghoot). The concept of Ummah under which all Muslims are like the parts of one body, does make it an obligation for every Muslim to fight in defense of other Muslims. That's why the Muslims in Indonesia feel their responsibility to come to the defense of Palestinians. And that's why it is not a surprise if the ISI and the radical Islamists in the Pakistan armed forces and other sensitive establishments do not feel it inappropriate to help Iran, Libya or Saudi Arabia to attain the nuclear power or other weapons of mass destruction. A prominent political analyst in Pakistan wrote, ". . . the Ummah as a whole must keep itself ready with the state-of-the-art weapons and the latest war technologies and never to relent. And whatever spent on it would be recompensed by Allah."
Islamists want Muslims to conclude from the verses of the Holy Quran that the nuclear capability acquired by Pakistan should not be deployed only for the defense of Pakistan but also for the defense of the entire Islamic world. It should be used against the Judeo-Christian powers to re-establish the Khilafah. Muslim street is made to understand that the world of Islam has common enemies and they have common ideological frontier to defend. Therefore it will always be justified for Pakistan to share its nuclear secrets with the those who are willing to fight the Judeo-Christian powers.
The fall of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of a democratic and true Muslim government in Iraq will change all this. The radical Islamism will have a hard time to find governments ready to share their technologies with them to defeat freedoms.
SSsISLAMABAD: Pakistan's entire leadership was represented at the lunch table of Saudi Ambassador here to recieve king Abduallah's message of unity from high-profile emissary Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz.
Addressing Pakistani leaders,Murqin,the intelligence chief of the kingdom of Saudi Arabis,as a preamable of king's message said that Saudi leadership considers Pakistan as Back bone in Muslim world.
Not only Saudi Arabia but also the entire muslim world looks forward to Pakistan's military strenght and political stability,for leading Role it ought to play he maintained.
Pakistan has shared with Saudi intelligence chief the informations passed onto it by india on The Bumby attackers.The Saudi leadership is said to have assured Pakistan of their unbridged support in any eventuality.SUPPORT OF PAKISTAN TOWARED EVERY MUSLIM COUNTRY AS THE SPRITE OF MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD.
ONCE AN ISREALI FIGHTER ATTACKED ON IRAQ(BAGHDAD) THEN PAF GAVE HIM A MASSIVE REPLY:
ROLE OF PAKISTAN IN IRAN IRAQ WAR WHICH WAS IMPOSED ON AMERICAN INTRESTS:
The Iran–Iraq War, also known as the Imposed War (جنگ تحمیلی, Jang-e-tahmīlī) and Holy Defense (دفاع مقدس, Defā'-e-moghaddas) in Iran, Saddām's Qādisiyyah (قادسيّة صدّام, Qādisiyyat Ṣaddām) in Iraq, and (First) Gulf War, was a war between the armed forces of Iraq and Iran lasting from September 1980 to August 1988. It was initially refered to in the western world as the "Persian Gulf War" prior to the "Gulf War" of 1990 with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
The war began when Iraq invaded Iran, launching a simultaneous invasion by air and land into Iranian territory on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes, and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority influenced by the Iranian Revolution. Iraq was also aiming to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state. Although Iraq hoped to take advantage of revolutionary chaos in Iran and attacked without formal warning, they made only limited progress into Iran and within several months were repelled by the Iranians who regained virtually all lost territory by June, 1982. For the next six years, Iran was on the offensive.[12] Despite calls for a ceasefire by the United Nations Security Council, hostilities continued until 20 August 1988. The last prisoners of war were exchanged in 2003.[12][13]
The war came at a great cost in lives and economic damage - a half a million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers as well as civilians are believed to have died in the war with many more injured and wounded - but brought neither reparations nor change in borders. The conflict is often compared to World War I,[14] in that the tactics used closely mirrored those of World War I, including large scale trench warfare, manned machine-gun posts, bayonet charges, use of barbed wire across trenches, human wave attacks across no-mans land, and extensive use of chemical weapons such as mustard gas against Iranian troops and civilians as well as Iraqi Kurds. At the time, the UN Security Council issued statements that "chemical weapons had been used in the war." However, in these UN statements Iraq was not mentioned by name, so it has been said that "the international community remained silent as Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against Iranian as well as Iraqi Kurds" and it is believed[15][16][17] that "United States prevented the UN from condemning Iraq".[18]
Date 22 September 1980 – 1990 {Resumed Diplomatic Relations With Iran In 1990}
Location Persian Gulf, Iranian-Iraqi border
Result Stalemate
* Strategic Iraqi failure
* Tactical Iranian failure
* Both sides claim victory
GENERAL ZIA_UL_HAQ ON IRAN,IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN:
ROLE OF PAKISTAN IN AFGHANISTAN WAR1970:
Rarely does a country fight the same war twice in one generation. Even rarer is to fight it twice from opposite sides. Yet that is in many ways what America is doing today in Afghanistan. In the 1980s the CIA engineered the largest covert operation in its history to defeat the Soviet army in Afghanistan working from a safe haven in Pakistan. Today America is fighting a Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan operating from a safe haven in Pakistan. Many suggest that the outcome will be the same for America and its NATO allies as it was for the Soviet Union—ultimate defeat at the hands of the insurgency. That analysis misses the many fundamental differences between the two wars. But it is also important to note the one major similarity between them: the key role played by Pakistan, which could again determine the outcome.
The most critical differences are goals and objectives. America intervened in Afghanistan in 2001 on the side of the Northern Alliance to topple the Taliban Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan only after it had been used as a base for the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks in America. The American goal, endorsed by the UN and NATO, was self-defence against a government that had allowed its territory to be used for an act of war against another state. From the beginning, America has had no ambition to dominate or subjugate the Afghan people, or to stay in Afghanistan once the threat posed by al-Qaeda had been removed and the Taliban defeated. President Barack Obama said this again in his speech outlining his new policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan on March 27th 2009.
The Soviet invasion in 1979 was a different matter. Its goal was to shore up a communist regime that was on the brink of collapse. The Soviet leadership wanted an Afghanistan that would be like other Soviet satellite states, that is, under virtual Soviet imperial rule with only the façade of independence.
The Soviet invasion and the attempt to impose communism on a rural and largely illiterate Islamic country produced the predictable result: a mass national uprising. In contrast, polls show most Afghans have supported the coalition forces that overthrew the Taliban from 2001 onwards, although that support is now dwindling as the coalition has failed to provide law and order and reconstruction. The Taliban insurgency is very much restricted to the Pashtun community. It has little appeal to the almost 60% of Afghans who are not Pashtun. The Soviet Union's task was much more difficult than the one facing NATO today.
The Soviets responded with a ferocity and brutality that made the situation even worse. At least 1.5m Afghans were killed, another 5m or so fled the country to Iran and Pakistan, and millions more were displaced inside the country. A country that began the war as one of the poorest in the world was systemically impoverished and even emptied of its people. The Soviets carpet-bombed cities such as Kandahar, whose population fell from 250,000 to 25,000. Millions of land mines were planted all over the country, with no maps kept of where they had been laid. Nothing even approaching this level of horror is happening today in Afghanistan.
If the differences between the American and Soviet experience are significant, there is also at least one major similarity: the role played by Pakistan. In the 1980s, Pakistan was the base for the Saudi-American alliance behind the mujahideen. Today, Pakistan is the safe haven of the Taliban insurgency and its logistical supply line. Pakistan also serves as the major logistical line for the NATO forces in Afghanistan. Over 80% of the supplies coalition forces depend on to survive arrive via Pakistan from the port of Karachi. Geography effectively precludes an alternative, unless the alliance is willing to rely on either Russia or Iran for its logistics.
So Pakistan has unusually strong leverage on both sides of the war. This winter, Pakistani police for the first time began arresting senior Afghan Taliban leaders, but the campaign was not sustained and proved to be a one-off. It is widely assumed in Pakistan that American and European patience to fight it out in Afghanistan is eroding, an assumption reinforced by polls that show support for the conflict steady declining on both sides of the Atlantic. Mr Obama's mid-2011 deadline has been interpreted by many as signalling an early withdrawal, despite his aides' attempts to suggest otherwise.
Pakistan's passive support of the Taliban is thus a useful hedge against the day when NATO decides to start pulling out and gives up the struggle. Pakistan will then have a relationship with the Pashtun future of southern and eastern Afghanistan and will have an asset in the struggle for post-NATO Afghanistan. Thus it is crucial that the alliance makes it clear to Islamabad that the Taliban are not going to succeed on the battlefield and that Pakistan must aggressively weaken both the Afghan and the Pakistani Taliban.
There is no inherent reason for the NATO war in Afghanistan to follow the pattern of the Soviet war. The differences between the two outweigh the similarities, especially in what most Afghans want for their country. While pundits may find the cliché that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empire simplistically attractive, there is every reason to believe smart policies can avoid such an outcome—but much depends on Pakistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Facebook Badge
Popular Posts
-
Some Prominent Ulema of 1857 Revolt. ( By Allama Yaseen Akhtar MIsbahi) (Founder Darul Qalam Delhi) The Revolutionary Voice As India...
-
Nishan-e-Haider The highest gallantary award and is the senior most among civil and military awards. It is admissible to all ranks for ac...
-
By Maulana Muhammad Wali Rahmani, Historians and historiographers are expected to study and narrate an event objectively and without showi...
Awareness
of law
