Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 20:31:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Pakistan: Concubine Among Nations
Last year Mr. Fatah wrote a book entitled Jew is Not My Enemy. It was reviewed in the Globe and Mail and Mr. Fatah was interviewed about it on CBC (The Current) and TVO (The Agenda). He has based his book on an episode from the early history of Islam in which the Prophet (PBUH) is alleged to have ordered the execution of Jews taken prisoner after the battle of Khaibar in 627 AD. Most Muslim historians have questioned the authenticity of the allegation, arguing that the evidence related to the incident is dubious, not based on fact but on biased Jewish fabrication.
Mr. Fatah contends that there is no record of the incident in the Jewish history books and it was the Muslim ‘extremists’ who had invented it and then blamed the Jews for it in order to discredit them. He does not explain precisely who these ‘extremists’ were but his basic premise about the incident not being a part of Jewish history is incorrect. It is generally accepted that perhaps the most authoritative and definitive account of the Jewish past is embodied in the six volumes of Professor Graetz’s History of the Jews (The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1894). In its volume III, p. 81, para 2 it states:
‘Nearly 700 Jews, among them the chiefs Kaab and Hujej, were ruthlessly slaughtered in the market place, and their bodies thrown into a common grave. The market place was henceforth called the Kuraiza Place. And all this was done in the name of God. ———–‘
It makes no sense for the Prophet (PBUH) to have the prisoners killed, not only because it is against injunctions in the Koran but also for the simple reason that prisoners of war were a valuable asset that could be bartered in exchange for considerable ransom later. However, that is not the issue. The real question is what motivated Mr. Fatah to write the book without first verifying if its very basis was sound and credible? Even more surprisingly, how did the publisher, the Globe and Mail, CBC and TVO fail to notice such an obvious fallacy? It was pointed out but all of them chose not to correct the error for reasons that are open to conjecture.
It seems an unlikely coincidence that not only Mr. Fatah but all the other highly regarded institutions should miss such an obvious gaffe at the same time. It becomes even more suspicious given Mr. Fatah’s jaundiced view of Islam as practised by the vast majority of Muslims and Pakistan in particular. This seems to have become an obsession with him. I blinds him to the realities of what the West has been doing to the Muslims in recent years —- 300,000 killed in the Bosnian genocide, three million excess deaths of mostly women and children in devastated Iraq, uncounted but probably a similar number of victims in Afghanistan, the grotesque brutalities in Guantanamo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib and other places, the crime against humanity of drone attacks against all canons of international law and Geneva Conventions —- the list goes on. It may be possible but to most of us it is incomprehensible that someone in this situation should insist on pinning the blame on one side alone and never the other. In the light of this if some of us have certain doubts about Mr. Fatah perhaps we could be forgiven.
To: ‘KHAN ZIA’
Sent: Friday, July 6, 2012 6:23:45 PM
Subject: RE: Pakistan: Concubine Among Nations
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 2:55 PM
Subject: [Writers Forum] Re: Who’s the Thug? Pakistani Concubine or Western Dicks? – Taraq Fatah vomits his vitriol:
With all due respect B. R. Gowani sahib, Canada is a free country and each of us has the freedom of expression. However,
an intelligent dialogue requires that one should criticize the message (but with mutually acceptable and well-argued references) but, must, at every cost,
spare the person of messenger. The decency of this cardinal rule, unfortunately, has been challenged by your remarks.
Mr. Fatah, as I have observed him critically over the years, is a practicing Muslims who hates Muslim violence and hypocrisy. As you both may have observed,
the majority of Muslims from Sabah (Malaysia to United Kingdom, with few examples in North America) have indulged in violence against minorities
(Christian churches have been burnt from Indonesia to Pakistan, non-believers have been wrongly accused of blasphemy, Christian girls have been abducted
and forcefully converted to Islam in Pakistan where wahabbi Muslims are openly killing the Ahmadi and Shia, irrespective of their age or gender —- I wonder who decides in the present age which sect of Islam is the carrier of the “true faith”) and against women.
The holy Qur’an [the highest authority on Islam] acknowledges only the person of the Prophet (Swa) and his “household” [there is no mention of Abu Bakr,
Omer, Osman or Aiysha] — we Muslims seek the blessings of Allah for the Prophet and his household in our all five daily prayers]. What the Prophet preached
was a “spiritual Islam” [our saints searched and sought that Islam]. However, while the Prophet was still lying on his deathbed, some Muslim leaders, pronouncing
that “for us God’s book is sufficient” excluded themselves in a small village to elect the “successor to the Prophet,” This was the beginning of “political Islam.”
This political Islam was further strengthened in “Battle of the Camel,” assassination of Imam Husain bin Imam Ali (and imprisonment of the household of the Prophet),
along with Abdullh bin Omer, and mandatory cursing the “House of Ali” (which in fact was the house of the Prophet) for more than 50 years until Omer bin Abdul Aziz
stopped the nonsense. I wonder if the religion preached by the Prophet survived through this period?
The only fault Mr. Fatah [a very respectable journalist, who was jailed in Pakistan by a military dictator for his views] has that he has put his life out to speak against the hypocrisy of Muslims who migrated to the west [sharia banking, which is an absolute fraud; polygamy practiced in Toronto and Calgary, the wahabbi and two-faced policy of various Muslim organizations in North America and United Kingdom, the Taliban and Al-Qaida violence against Muslims, and the hypocrisy of
Muslims throughout the world].
English is a beautiful and expressive language; one does not have to demean one’s thesis by sinking into the depth of obscenities, but, I am sure that both you gentlemen realize that all reformers, including the Prophet have face obscenities.
Hopefully, in future, I will be spared from such degraded posts.
Warm regards
Akhtar
From: KHAN ZIA
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 9:51 AM
To: Shahid Husain; Ahmed HASSAN; Qasim; Muzammil Siddiqui; Inam Khan; Commodore Tariq Majeed
Subject: Pakistan: Concubine Among Nations
Some mothers do have them. Their purpose in life is to ingratiate themselves with the West by ridiculing Islam and the Muslims, in particular, Pakistan. Tariq Fatah is one of them.
Pakistani Concubine or Western Dicks?
Who’s the Thug?
by B. R. GOWANI
June 07, 2012
The article, “Pakistan: Concubine among nations,” in the Toronto Sun by Taraq Fatah (former spokesperson of the Muslim Canadian Congress) stinks of fallacies. It is one thing to criticize Pakistan–and there are several things for which Pakistan should be condemned–but it becomes a bit too much when total blame is placed on Pakistan.
He is surprised at the arrest of Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani doctor who worked for the US CIA and helped in tracking down Osama bin Laden’s Abbotabad residence. If the US, Canada, or any other Western country had encountered a similar situation, what would it have done? Exactly the same thing. Whether the action was right or wrong is a different matter.
Even the cases where the purpose of the persons involved were humanitarian and peaceful, the authorities are ruthless in their treatment. Take for example the case of US soldier Bradley Manning. He had released classified information to the WikiLeaks. The information was related to US diplomatic cables, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and videos of air strikes.
Pakistan’s demand for an apology also bothers him: “Shamelessly, Pakistan is also demanding a U.S. apology.”
Either he is mixing up things or is ignorant about the apology issue. It’s about the NATO killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers and injuring thirteen others, and is not related to Osama.
He then vomits his vitriol:
“The country needs tough love. But no one is willing to wrestle Islamabad to the ground and drag it away to a detox centre where it can be woken from its visions of grandeur and confronted with its true worth — a nation that can offer nothing to the world other than jihadi terrorism.”
For his information, Pakistani concubine, for a long time now, has been on the ground with its face down; it’s just that the Western dicks can’t control their libido and the minute they get erection-which is quite frequent, as if hooked up on a permanent Viagra medication–they head towards the Land of the Pure to purify their manhood. (Pakistan means the Land of the Pure.)
Then Taraq Fatah goes back into history and reminds his readers that in August 1947, Pakistan’s founder M. A. Jinnah asked for US help by pointing out the Soviet threat.
The creation of Pakistan out of India in August 1947 was a collective folly of Jawaharlal Nehru, Jinnah, M. K. Gandhi, and British. Pakistan’s founding was one of the greatest tragedies and saw some million deaths and over 10 million refugees.
Pakistan was in dire need of money. India was not releasing it’s share of funds. (It was Gandhi who forced the Indian government to give Pakistan’s share.) The Kashmir issue was left unresolved by the last Viceroy Lord Mountbatten. There was a great deal of uncertainty and insecurity in the air. Jinnah himself was dying of TB. There was no other leader of his caliber. Like any Third World leader, Jinnah must have been well aware that whites were officially leaving but were unofficially going to be the Masters of the Universe for a long time. The choice was limited: Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin and United States’ Harry Truman–both mass murderers.
Except Subhas Chandra Bose, all other top Indian leaders were close to British and the US.
When Jinnah asked for help, the US was not some kind of a saintly and innocent entity which was unaware of real politics. It was a professional criminal, the only Super Power–since 1945, when it dropped atom bombs on Japanese cities. (In 1949, the USSR became the Super Power by joining the atom bomb league.)
The US could have simply refused to give any sort of help. As a reaction to the refusal, Pakistan wouldn’t have sent an aircraft carrier to the US.
Now Taraq Fatah feels that it’s enough: “For 65 years the U.S. has succumbed to Pakistan — until now.”
A person succumbs to another person for two reasons: Either the other person is too powerful to defeat or is too attractive to resist. None of these characteristics Pakistan is in possession of. The United States is not a vulnerable or gullible an entity which can’t resist a country which since its inception is searching for its identity.
In the the late 1970s, the US succeeded in luring the Soviet Union into Afghanistan, this according to President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski: “The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.“
Now to give the Soviets its Vietnam, the US needed Pakistan. Lots of arms and ammunition and money meant for the Afghan Mujahids ended up in the hands of Pakistani military rulers. The US knew about it. But then it is counted as part of the cost of maintaining the Super Power status.
After this costly experience, why after a dozen or so years, at a gunpoint, the US ordered Pakistan to join its “war on terror”? The US could have waged its illegal and unjust war against Afghanistan through Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, or Tajikistan. All three countries would have easily succumbed to US threats. The Soviet Union had disappeared; the US was again the sole Super Power. This would have provided the US a golden opportunity to take actions even against Pakistan without any inhibitions.
Then he suggests: “The time has come for Canada, the U.S. and the West to draw a line in the sand. If Pakistan is unwilling to free Dr. Afridi and arrest the al-Qaeida leader Ayman Zawahiri, then weshould cut all aid to Islamabad.”
Look at the “we” when he’s recommending to cut off all aid. Either he considers or imagines himself as part of the ruling class.
The question is: Who’s stopping you from cutting off all aid to Pakistan? It will be the only genuinely good thing the West would be doing to Pakistan. That country doesn’t have ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) with which it can bomb the Western world nor does it have the giant aircraft carrier/s that it can sail to the coastlines of the Western countries to attack them.
The US and the Western countries have supported the Pakistani military and corrupt leaders for its own advantage. Pakistan has not threatened the US the way the US issued a warning to Pakistan in 2001: Join our war on terror in Afghanistan or we’ll bomb you to stone age! Pakistan joined the coalition of the willing got into more mess than it was prior to September 2001.
In the end, he asks:
“The U.S., U.K. and Canada should ban the entry of all Pakistani military officers*, serving or retired, as well as their families and children. The thousands of Pakistan civil and military officials who have descended on America and Canada should be asked to leave immediately.”
In his opinion, the above action is necessary in order to prevent nuclear proliferation.
“If we don’t, a thousand AQ Khans will bloom.”
But sometimes, it’s only people like Khan who can dodge the Western monopoly and restrictions on transfer of technology to small countries. Iran wouldn’t be facing the threats from the US, other Western countries, and Israel if today it was a nuclear power. It should be a totally nuclear weapons-free world or all the countries should be free to acquire those weapons.
A word for Mr. Fatah: Instead of going after the screwed up concubine, go after the real dicks – the world will be a little better place.
Munter said he met with current opposition leader Nawaz Sharif as well as popular PTI leader Imran Khan, and that both had assured him that if they won the election, Pakistan would cooperate unconditionally with the US on the war in terrorism.
