Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims Home Links Articles Authors About Us Feedback Leaving Islam Library Contact us
15 Jan, 2005
or illiterate, moderate or fanaticâkeep
harping about them being oppressed in America, Europe and
Australia, in India, China, Philippines, Thailand, Russia
(Chechnya), Nigeria, Serbia and of course in Israel. As a rule of
the thump, wherever Muslims are a minority, they are being
oppressed there by the majority ethnic or religious groups. In
this blame game, Muslims have found a number of well-known
Western activists, namely reporter Robert Fisk, UK MP George
Galloway, US professor Edward Churchill and Naom Chomsky, London
mayor Ken Livingstone and many more. These Western liberals, who
come from the leftist and/or communist background, constitute a
case of strange bedfellowship with the Muslims because these
staunch lefts and liberals, many of whom are atheists, agnostics
or skeptics, are the most hated enemies of the faithful of Islam.
Let us recall here the Koranic injunctions on these group of
people: "The worst beasts in Allah's sight are the
disbelievers" [Koran 8:55] and when gotten the opportunity, this
group of people will be dealt with by the Muslims in the harshest
way as evidenced in the way such people are being treated in
Islamic Kingdoms, such as in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan
etc. It should be recalled here that the nave Lefts and
Communists joined the Islamists in the Iranian revolution to
ouster the secular dictator Reza Shah. When the Islamist
Ayatollahs gotten into power, these strange-bedfellows were
ladled out the cruelest of treatments in which tens of thousands
of them were exterminated by the Mullahs. We must not forget also
as to how the body of Afghan communist leader Nazibullah was
dragged across the streets of Kabul when the Taliban militias
swept into power.
Oppression by Israel in Palestine
Coming back to the issue of injustice against the Muslims, a careful look into Muslim's complaints of injustice in hotspots like Kashmir and Israel does not substantiate those claims but instead the opposite appears to be the case. The United Nation (UN) approved the creation of Israel in the 1940s and yet, the Arab world started a war against Israel the next day after the creation of Israel was declared in 1948 and a few more times subsequently. These wars were whole-heartedly supported by the entire Muslim world. Palestinians never believed in the existence of Israel until recently (~1990) when only Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), seeing no hope of destroying Israel, abandoned its original aim and started negotiation for two states. Then again, PLO is a minority in Palestine. They got defeated by Hamas alone in elections, the latter's aim is still to destroy Israel. If other prominent militant groups like the Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, also intent of destroying the Jewish states, join HamasâPLO will be washed away. Under such circumstances how does one guarantee security to Israel?
There is a lot of hatred against America
amongst the Muslims and majority of the leftists, communists many
liberals worldwide for her standing up in favor of Israel in the
UN by resisting dozens of resolutions against Israel over the
years. How could the UN pass resolutions against Israel one
after another before the Muslim world and the Palestinians agree
to UN's resolution in favor of creating the state of Israel?
If not for the United States, the state of Israel would not exist
Creation of Pakistan vs. Israel
The State of Pakistan was created in 1947 because of the sole insistence of the Muslims under no justifiable reasons or compelling circumstances. Muslims came from Arab world, ruled the Indian subcontinent with intimidation and murder of people of indigenous religions and massive enslavement and rape of the local non-Muslims people albeit with some limited periods of respite. And when the Hindus saw the hope of taking the destiny of their land in their own hands after so many centuries, the fanatic Muslims divided that country to create the state of Pakistan for the Muslims. But the Hindus of India never wished to destroy the Pakistani state nor did they ever send suicide bombers for killing innocent people. Neither did the Hindus from other parts of the world wished to destroy Pakistan nor did they send suicide bombers to kill innocent people in Pakistan - unlike the two British Muslim suicide bombers who went to Israel to kill the Jews.
But instead, it is Pakistan who started aggressive wars against India on a couple of occasions to divide that country further starting with Kashmir. Indeed, Muslims worldwide have overwhelmingly supported the separation of Kashmir from India. Indians are being killed regularly by the Muslim terrorists and separatists. The creation of Israel was much more justified in that, that land belonged to the Jewish and Christian people, which the Muslims forcibly occupied in the early days of Islam. Also the WWII and Holocaust experience made it an urgency to create a state for the Jews to give them a respite from centuries of oppression and persecution by Muslims and Christians. Pakistan was created under no such compelling urgency but for the sole reason of Muslims' unwillingness to co-exists or to live under non-Muslim rule, even if the latter being the overwhelming majority in the land.
So much has been said about the occupation and cruelty of the Israeli Government. But has any Muslim ever condemned the occupation of East Timor by Indonesia, a Muslim country? In their 24-year occupation of East Timor and in ensuing guerrilla war, Indonesian army killed an estimated 200,000 people. Did we ever hear a single word of condemnation from any Muslim Government or Islamic leader? Has Israeli conflict resulted in that many killing and death in 57 years despite the extreme hostility shown by the Palestinians and the entire Muslim world?
The Hindu population has been reduced from
~15% to ~1% in Pakistan and from 30% to ~10% in Bangladesh since
1947. But in Israel, Muslim population has risen at a great pace
that they are poised to be the majority in a few decades, despite
the active migration of Jews to Israel from all corners of the
world. Although some discriminatory regulations may exist in
Israel given the extraordinary circumstances it faces, Israeli
Muslims are still known to enjoy better life, human rights and
freedom than Muslims in the entire Middle East. We must also put
in perspective of the fact that Muslims living inside Israel are
also intent on annihilation of the Jewish state. Muslim member of
Israel parliament (Knesset), Azmi Bishara, recently joined voice
with the radical Iran president Ahmadinejad that Israel is the Greatest Robbery of Century
should be move from the Middle East to Europe. Yet in another
instance, Knesset Members Mohammed Barakeh joined with Azmi
Bishara to rally Arabs to support and strengthen Syria, which
alongside Iran is most intent on extirpating the Jewish state,
and declared: "I will never recognize Zionism even if all Arabs
Plight of non-Muslims in Muslims Countries
In truth, Muslims remain by far the most discriminatory and oppressive people against their minority population. Even a casual look at the plight of the non-Muslim people in Muslim-dominated countries will certify this claim. In Saudi Arabia, one will be beheaded if preached Christianity or another religion. Recently British Airways have banned passengers from carrying Christian Bible and Crosses on flights to Saudi Arabia in order to avoid offending the Muslims. Yet, Saudis are investing hundreds of millions of dollars for preaching Islam, building mosques and madrasas in the non-Muslim countries including in the West, which analysts believe is major cause of unfurling Islamic radicalism and terrorism around the world. It is almost impossible to build a new Church in Pakistan and Bangladesh and yet the latter country has been recognized as a model moderate Muslim state. Although preaching other religion is not banned in these countriesâthanks to the pseudo-democracy and secularism there, a gift of colonial ruleâpreachers of other religions are targeted and killed by the Islamic fringe groups, emboldened by the connivance of the state's law-enforcing authority so as to make sure that such activities are virtually impossible.
Malaysia has received world-wide recognition as a modern and progressive Muslim state, including from the West. Former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Muhammad in the World Economic Forum in New York (2004), declared, "Malaysia is a modern, secular and progressive Islamic state - not despite but because of Islam". Yet, the minority non-Muslim citizens (mostly Chinese and Indians) in Malaysia have faced a situation of apartheid designed by the state over the decades. Non-Muslims are barred from Government educational institutions, jobs and business ventures through positively discriminatory measures. Yet, these minority Chinese and Indian non-Muslims (~35%) are the life-line of Malaysian economy despite the severe discrimination they face. It is the Muslims who get all Government-funded local and overseas education whilst the non-Muslims have to settle for local private schools, Universities or overseas education supported from their own pockets. In the religious front, non-Muslims cannot preach and seek converts from amongst the Muslims whilst the Muslims have created elaborate programs for converting the non-Muslims to Islam. Even then, without the contribution of the hard-working non-Muslims (non-Bhumiputras) population, Malaysia will be like any other impoverished and anachronistic Third World country - not a modern and wealthy state which Malaysia and the Muslims worldwide always keep boasting about.
Is there a single country in the entire
world dominated by the non-Muslims, where the minority Muslim
people are discriminated like this? Such is the true color of
a modern secular Muslim state! The fact that the Muslim
population is increasing disproportionately in countries
dominated by the non-Muslims, whilst non-Muslim population is
decreasing in Muslim-dominated countries, including in Israel
clearly demonstrate that Muslims' crying foul about the injustice
against them is without foundation. Instead the opposite scenario
is the glaring reality of today as has been in the past. Yet,
this fake "trump card" of injustice
against Muslims has been used effectively by the Muslims to draw
sympathy and sometimes staunch support from amongst the gullible
non-Muslims in the Western world and elsewhere.
There are a lot of complaints and resentment amongst Muslims about the British colonial rule of the past in their countries, which they hold responsible for creating all sorts of problems there. In the weeks of violence by the immigrant Muslim youths in France in November 2005, the same excuse was brought forward repeatedly in the media. Some prominent Muslim immigrant activists even demanded an apology from the France Government for its past colonial legacy as a cure to the violence. We must be bear in mind here that the British, French and other European colonialists were not the sole imperialists in the World. In truth, it is the Muslims who made the colonial rule a fashion in the centuries preceding the colonial activities of the European nations. In reality, the British and other European nations, taking cue from the Muslims' centuries of colonial and often ruthless and barbaric rule in foreign lands, mastered the art of colonialism.
Yet again, the British did not only rule Muslim countriesâthey ruled Hindu and Buddhist countries as well and those people are not sending suicide bombers to UK or accusing the Britain for all of their problems. Many of those former colonies have established excellent bilateral relations with the UK instead of keeping themselves busy in making such complaints about the past. Muslim world's making UK the scapegoat for all of their problems is absolutely baseless.
In the previous section, I have discussed Muslims' deafening foul-cries of whole loads of injustices against them in countries wherever they form a minority population, as well as issues like Israel-Palestine and Kashmir conflicts. It has been clearly demonstrated that there is hardly any injustice against the Muslim minorities anywhere in the world. In stead, it is Muslims who commit all sorts of injustice against the non-Muslim minority population even in highly regarded moderate Muslim countries like Malaysia, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Whilst in Kashmir and Palestine, the problem lies in the failure or unwillingness of the Muslims to live in peace and harmony with the non-Muslim people.
Muslims' foul-cries of alleged injustices
against them do not just end with countries where they are a
minority. Muslims are also oppressed, in their claims, in
countries where they are even a majority, such as in Afghanistan
and Iraq that were invaded by the UN-approved coalition and the
US/UK-lead multilateral coalition, respectively. It does not stop
there; the Muslims are also oppressed in countries like Saudi
Arabia because of its hosting foreign troop for security and
stability reasons. Foul-cries of injustice of the latter type
have received an overwhelming support from the entire Muslim
community and have been heavily exploited by extremist groups
like Osama bin Laben's al-Qaeda. I will dissect these issues in
this current section.
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
Following the bombings in Madrid and London, the people worldwide have identified the recent US and Western foreign policies in Muslim countries as the underlying reasons for these acts of terrorism. Muslim leaders of UK claimed that injustices in Iraq and Afghanistan have lead to the terrorist act of July 7 (7/7, 2005) London bombings that killed 52 innocent commuters. The would-be suicide bombers, who failed to explode their bombs on July 21 (2005), also affirmed the same reason for their attempt to bomb transportation systems in London. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have become the focus of Muslims' complaints nowâaway from the traditional pet issue of injustice against Palestinians by the Israelis. Indeed, it has become an unshakeable belief amongst the leftists, communists and majority of the liberals in the West that 'the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have invited the terrorist activities to Spain and London.' But the question naturally arises as to why did those wars angered these suicide bombers to such an extent that they would be ready to sacrifice their lives? In other word, we must examine how good reasons were there for these specific individuals to commit those acts of terrorism and destruction in Madrid and London!
There is no doubt that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have terribly angered the Muslims all over the world so much so that if given loose, they will bombard cities in UK, Italy, Spain, Australia and US with suicide bombs on every opportunity. Although the blame has been placed on those wars, yet we must ask what al-Qaeda and other extremist Islamist cells have been doing in many European countries, including in France and Germany who vehemently opposed the Iraq war, since long before the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and even before the 9/11 attack in the US? Which wars against or occupation of Muslim countries brought these Islamist terrorist cells to Europe and USA long before the Iraq and Afghanistan invasion? Recently, France averted a plot to bomb Paris subway and airports, similar to 7/7 London attacks, by Islamic extremists and arrested 9 militants in this connection. On another instances, they have busted a terror cell that was plotting to shoot passenger planes using a surface-to-air missile in Paris. Yet, France has been the strongest opponent of the war in Iraq and a strong proponent of the Palestinian cause. Occupation of which Muslim countries by France inspires these Muslims to launch terror attacks in France?
Why not Iraqis and Afghans? There are tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans living in Britain, USA and other Western countries. Until today, hardly any Iraqi or Afghani (if at all) has been arrested in Spain, UK, Italy or USA for allegedly planning terror attacks or for being part of al-Qaeda cells. Pakistanis, Moroccans, Algerians, Saudis, Somalis, Sudanese and Jordanese are the ones being caught for taking part in such terror acts and plots. Yet, it is the brothers, sisters and mothers of Iraqis and Afghanis being killed everyday in those countries, many of them by suicide bombers, mostly coming from other Muslim countries. Hence the question simply arises: Don't the Iraqis and Afghans have any love for their own countries and for their mothers, sisters and relatives who are being killed there because of these wars? Why aren't they joining the Jihad in UK, Italy, Spain and USA? Are the people of Pakistan, Saudi Arab or Morocco more compassionate for the mothers, brothers and sisters of the Iraqis and Afghanis than the Iraqis and Afghanis themselves?
Saddam's Occupation of Kuwait in 1990: When Saddam Hussein sent his troops to occupy Kuwait and murdered hundreds of Kuwaitis, raped their women and ravaged that country in 1990, where were these compassionate suicide-bombers to deter the atrocities of Saddam Hussein on their Muslim brothers and sisters of Kuwait? But in stead, Muslims around the world (>95%) vigorously supported the murderous killing of their Kuwaiti Muslim brethren by Saddam Hussein's invading army? Surprisingly, Muslims around the world prayed in mosques such that Saddam could defeat the US-lead forces, who under the UN approval, fought to free the Kuwaitis from Saddam's aggression. In stead of sending suicide squads to deter Saddam Hussein's murderous army, tens of thousands of Muslims from countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh had signed up for a suicidal mission to fight on behalf of Saddam Hussein against the US-led forces such that Saddam Hussein's killing, ravaging and raping the Kuwaiti Muslims could continue.
Israel/Palestine conflict and 9/11
connection: So much has also been said about a connection
between the 9/11 and Israel-Palestine conflictâthat
is, it is the Israeli injustice against the Palestinians with the
US support lead to the retaliation attack of 9/11 in the US
masterminded by Osama bin Laden. But was there is a single
Palestinian in the brigade that drove airplanes into the WTC and
Pentagon HQ on 9/11 or in any other terror acts and plots,
despite the fact that tens of thousands of Palestinians are
living in the US? Many liberals, the lefts and the communists in
the West quickly join the chorus with the Muslims in blaming the
policies of Western countries in Iraq and Afghanistan, every time
a bomb goes off anywhere. But the questions raised in this
section, clearly indicates that these Muslims, who are
perpetrating the acts of terrorism across the world under the
excuse of oppression in Iraq and Afghanistan, have no reasons to
do so. If Iraqis and Afghans die of hunger tomorrow, no Muslims
are going to come to feed themânor
any of those suicide bombers. We have seen famine, hunger and
terrible sufferings in many Muslim countries of Africa including
Sudan, Somalia, Niger and Ethiopia in recent years resulting in
tens of thousands of death. No Muslim country or individual has
come forward with baskets of food and medicine. The same applies
to Iraq and Afghanistan. When the Iraqi children were dying
during the days of sanctions by the UN, never did the thought of
providing food or medicine to save the Iraqi children ever
crossed the mind of the Muslims. Similarly when the Afghan people
were suffering terribly during the Taliban regime's five-year
rule, forcing a quarter of the population leave the country to
become refugees in bordering countries mainly in Pakistan, Muslim
countries never came forward with the baskets of food or medicine
to alleviate the sufferings of their Afghan Muslims brethrens.
UN disapproval of War in Iraq
There has been a great deal of talk, especially amongst the Western critiques, about the US-lead coalition's ouster of Saddam Hussein in Iraq without a UN mandate. The general impression is that had the US gotten the blessing of the UN for the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the job for the US and her allies would have been all too easy in Iraq. These pundits seem to believe that there would not have been much suicide-bombing or resistance insurgency in Iraq, if at all, in such a case. Such thinking is nothing but nave.
One cannot deny the fact that we have heard relatively less condemnation of the war in Afghanistan from Muslim communities as compared to that of the Iraq war. That does not mean that Muslim world overwhelmingly supported the war in Afghanistan. Indeed, the number of Muslims that supported the ouster of the Taliban in Afghanistan remain very negligible, maybe almost as few as those who supported the ouster of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. However, most Muslim country had to keep quiet about the Afghanistan war because of the unanimous agreement of the superpowers and the UN and only under the extraordinary situation that arose following the attack of 9-11 in the US. The fact that there are no troops from any Muslim countries operating in Afghanistan clearly shows the glaring lack of approval of the Muslim world in the UN-approved invasion on Afghanistan. Former Malaysian PM Mahathir Muhammad had vehemently condemned both invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in his OIC meeting speech in Kuala Lumpur in 2003.
The apparently less anti-war reactions in
the Muslim world regarding the invasion of Afghanistan must also
be understood in the context of the Bush administration's change
of focus on deposing the Iraqi dictator not much after the war in
Afghanistan. This must have had quickly diverted attention to
Iraq obscuring Muslims' otherwise opposition and discontent to
the Afghanistan war. So, the impression some get that the
Afghanistan invasion was approved by the entire world is clearly
flawed. UN approval is totally irrelevant vis-Ã -vis the
opposition of Muslims against the war in Iraq. Despite the UN
approval, Muslims have resented the ouster of the Taliban regime
in Afghanistan as much as the ouster of Saddam Hussein of Iraq.
What if Iraq not attacked?
There is an overwhelming belief amongst the great majority of the non-Muslims, including the Westerners of Europe and America is that the attack in Iraq has enhanced the Islamic fanaticism and terrorism, especially against America. There is little doubt that the very intelligent Jihadists have exploited the worldwide unpopularity of the Iraq invasion by the US-lead coalition to get new recruits. However, it is equally nave to assume that had Iraq not been attacked, these Jihadists would have gone home and world would have been filled with peace and tranquility. Such thinking presents only half of the truth, if not zero truth. If it were not for Iraq, these Jihadists would definitely have headed towards Afghanistan. Indeed, Afghanistan makes a more desirable battlefield for the Jihadists as compared to Iraq for 2 reasons:
Hence, the Jihadists who are coming from across the Islamic world to fight Jihad in Iraq, mainly the suicide bombers, are not there for the love of Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi people but for the cause and love of Islam and with the dream of instituting a Taliban-style Islamist regime in Baghdad. If these foreign Jihadists can successfully drive the US-lead forces and their Shiite and Kurdish allies out of Iraq, they in alliance with local Islamist Sunnis would exterminate the secular Baathists of Saddam Hussein's regime. Thus the Jihadists have little interest for the welfare of the Iraqis since a Taliban-style rule will not bring any good but only misery to the Iraqi people. The Jihadists aim is purely Islamic, not pro-Iraqi or pro-Saddam, neither pro-peace.
As founding and protecting the Taliban-style Islamic kingdom is the ultimate goal of the radical Jihadists, which is in direct contrast with the secular Saddamist regime of Iraq, the Jihadists would have felt doubly committed to fight in Afghanistan, instead in Iraq. Given these facts, these Jihadists, who are now fighting in Iraq, must have headed to Afghanistan with greater commitment and resilience. However, the rejection of the fanatic Taliban regime by majority of the weary Afghans has made operations of the Jihadists more difficult there. Of course, the majority of Iraqis (Shiites and Kurds) are also equally weary of Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq which has been demonstrated in the courageous participation of the Iraqis under extraordinary situation in recent elections for establishing an interim Government, then again in October 15, 2005 for approving the constitution and finally in January (2006) for a permanent Government. Yet there was some difference between the two regimes' disposition towards the cross-section of the people that have made managing the aftermath of Iraq war more difficult than the Afghan war.
The Taliban regime of Afghanistan had made the life of every ordinary citizen extremely miserable and difficult which had reduced their support at every level. A massive 25% of the total population had to leave Afghanistan to refugee camps in neighboring countries during the 5-year rule of the Taliban regime. However, because of the Saddam regime's special favor towards the minority Sunni population over the majority Shiites and Kurds, there have been a good deal of support for Saddam Hussein amongst the privileged Sunnis. It is evident that these privileged Sunnis are the ones fighting in Iraq for retaining their decades of domination over the majority Shiites and Kurds through brutal repression and injustice. But the Taliban regime failed to garner such tangible support from any section of the Afghan population. Thus, their struggle against the coalition forces there has failed to create a momentum like in Iraq.
Secondly, Saddam's huge army, well-trained in sophisticated weaponry and artillery plus the huge stockpile of modern weapons have made the resistance by a small number of Saddamist fighters, accounted to 20-30 thousands, quite effective. The Taliban did not have any major army or sophisticated weaponry and training to launch a lethal resistance against the NATO-lead foreign forces there. Thirdly, unlike the impoverished Taliban regime, the Saddamist fighters have a substantial financial and material (weapons etc.) support at their disposal to launch effective resistance which Taliban regime of Afghanistan failed to garner. And lastly, the addition of the suicide-bombing campaign mostly by the foreign Jihadists, have added lethality to the resistance in Iraq by multiple folds. This has been aided by the welcoming atmosphere for the Jihadists amongst the Sunni communities in Iraq. But Taliban's failure to garner substantial support amongst any community in Afghanistan has failed the suicidal Jihadists to create a substantial base for their suicide operation there. Naturally, the Jihadists have settled for the less desired but more convenient battleground of Iraq where they can cause serious casualties on the US forces. A defeat of the US forces in Iraq would naturally mean a defeat in Afghanistan, too where also the US forces are engaged in difficult war-fronts against the Taliban insurgents.
Given these points, the idea that had Iraq
not been attacked, Islamist campaign would have died down is nave
in the least. These Jihadists would have redirected their efforts
to enter Afghanistan. We would have seen much more devastating
pictures in Afghanistan than what we see there today. The
invasion of Iraq has only alleviated the sufferings of the
Afghanistan people. The increased sufferings caused by the
Jihadists in Iraq is not because of the increased anger of the
radical Jihadists for UN-unapproved invasion of Iraq but because
of the reduced support base that they have received amongst the
people in Afghanistan as compared to that in Iraq.
Foreign occupation of non-Muslim countries
We have discussed the anger of the world-wide Muslim community against the UN-lead occupation of Afghanistan and US/UK coalition-lead ouster of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But Muslim countries are not the only ones that are occupied by outside forces. A startling example of invasion of non-Muslim country by foreign forces is the case of Kosovo in Serbia. The Serbians and Slavs populated the Kosovo region in the 6-7th century. The waves of northern Albania Muslim migration to Kosovo took place in the 17th century after the marauding Ottoman rulers had annexed Kosovo to the Ottoman empire changing the demography of the religion. This demography change was also a result of forced conversion to Islam (Islamization) and forced migration of the indigenous Christian Serbs through persecution. After the 1912 and 1913 Balkan Wars, Kosovo became an integral part of the Kingdom of Serbia. The Albanian population was negotiated to be evacuated from Kosovo to Turkey, but this was not conducted. 
However, once the Muslims have formed a strong force there - they cannot live under the non-Muslim Serbian rule. And instead of a negotiated evacuation to Turkey, they started campaign for self-determination and independence from Serbia for which they fought for over 50 years. In 1999, it turned violent as fighting broke out between armed Muslim militia and the Serbian forces. Under the US pressureâthe UN approved bombing of Serbia to stop the alleged genocide against the Muslims. Kosovo was bombed for 78 days before a truce was signed. UN forces moved there for almost 7 years now. There has not been a single suicide bombing there, neither has there been any armed resistance against the foreign forces from the Serbian Christians. In stead, the Muslims have attacked the Serbian community from time to time and are determined to drive them out of their homes. It is estimated that about 200,000 Serbian Christians have been evicted by the atrocious Muslims militias who had to settle elsewhere in Serbia. The Muslims are pitching for kicking the remaining Serbian Christians out of the Kosovo region so as to make Kosovo a purely Muslim state. These left-over Serbians, in fear of attacks by the Muslims, virtually live in specified ghettos under protection from the UN forces. Muslims are seeking complete independence from Serbia for a Kosovo free of the Serbian Christians. This issue of Kosovo independence is currently under discussion at the UN starting 25 January, 2006 and all indications suggest that Kosovo will get independence in due course of time.
Here it should be understood that the UN intervention in Afghanistan and US/UK-lead ouster of Saddam Hussein were meant for removing two of the world's most cruel and uncivilized regimes who had made the life of the majority of citizens miserable. The main purpose was that once these regimes are kicked out by the UN- and US/UK-lead forces, the people of these countries can choose their own governments through democratic means that can institute better governance and work for peace and prosperity of the people. In the case of Kosovo, the case is very different. The Kosovo Muslims, who are just refugees in Serbia, wanted to break away from the Nation of Serbia and the Serbians were trying to subdue that attempt, which lead to violence from both sides. The end result was that the Muslim refugees of Kosovo kicked out 200,000 of the native Serbians from their homes. So, the contrast here is that the Afghanistan and Iraqi people could probably achieve a better future for their country through the interventions there, while the UN intervention in Kosovo has nothing to offer to the Serbian Christians other than losing their territory, being evicted from their homes and those left in the protected ghettos live in constant fear of attacks from the Muslims. Despite this, there has not been a single incidence of suicide bombing or any kind of attack on the Muslim community or on the international forces there by the Serbian Christians or the Government forces. Neither Christian fringe groups from other parts of the world have gone there to unleash suicide attacks against the UN forces who are occupying the land of their Serbian Christian brothers and making arrangement to break up that country to give Kosovo to the Muslim refugees. If drawn a parallel, the people of Afghanistan and Iraq have much to achieve from foreign interventions whilst the Serbian Christians have everything to lose. Paradoxically, it is the Afghanis and Iraqis, who should have been more welcoming to the foreign interventions, have instead launched a barbaric campaign of violence and terrorism against the liberating forces as well as against their own people, including those trying to help the international forces to set things right. Nothing like that has been launched by the Serbians but in stead it is the Muslims who have attacked the left-behind Serbian community on a few occasions despite the tight security provided by the UN forces.
Similar parallel could be drawn with US-pressured ouster of Charles Taylor in Liberia and Aristride of Haitiâtwo Christian countriesâwhere too we haven't seen any serious kind of insurgency from native people, nor the Christians from across the world are flocking into those countries to unleash suicide bombing. Yet, when the UN forces lead the intervention in Somalia to help the terrible situation there in 1993, al-Qaeda cadres from other parts of the Muslims world flocked in there and drove the UN forces out. The world has witnessed the continued terrible sufferings of the Somali people. If the Jihadists win in Afghanistan and Iraq, the people of those countries are not destined for better fate than the Somalis.
Another parallel could be drawn in the case of Indonesia's invasion of Christian East Timor in 1974, not for liberation of the East Timorese from anybody unlike the Afghanistan and Iraq interventions but solely for the occupation and territorial extension by the Muslim Indonesia. Over 2 decades of occupation of East Timor resulted in death of about 200,000 people from resistance campaign, famine and other causes but there was no condemnation from the individual Muslims or nations of this unlawful occupation. Neither did we see the Christian crusaders from across the world rushed to East Timor to unleash suicide bombing to help liberate their Christian brothers from foreign non-Christian occupation.
Foreign Forces in Saudi Arabia
The presence of US and UK forces in Saudi Arabia, following the gulf war in 1991 after Saddam Hussein's Kuwait invasion, has been an eye-sore for the entire Muslim world. Muslims in India feel the same kind of resentment against the presence of Western forces as do the Saudis. One major aim of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda is to drive these Western forces out of Saudi Arabia for which an overwhelming majority of the World Muslims have unstinted support. There are many in the subcontinental region and in Africa who are willing to join al-Qaeda in their desire to help Osama bin Laden to drive the US and UK forces out of Saudi Arabia. Recently, we have witnessed a series of terror and suicide campaigns in Saudi Arabia as an effort to drive the foreigners out of that country in which foreign Jihadists have also been involved.
Yet, Saudi Arabia is not the only country to host foreign forces. Japan and South Korea have been hosting US forces for more than 50 years now for their own security and stability and of the region. There have been peaceful demonstrations by a section of the citizens against US forces in Japan and South Korea, there hasn't been any insurgent campaigns, suicide bombing etc. against the local and foreign forces in these countries. Neither the Buddhists from around the world ever bother at all about the presence of US forces in Japan and South Korea nor are they forming terror groups to launch suicide bombing or any other kind of campaigns to liberate their Buddhists brothers from the presence of foreign forces in those countries.
From these discussions, one distinguishing feature become very evident about an issue that concerns the Muslims and another similar one that concern a non-Muslim community. Wherever a Muslim country or community is becomes affected by foreign interventions or territorial and any other kind of disputesâsay Iraq, Kashmir or Chechnyaâit becomes an issue of grave concern for the entire Muslim community, so much so that Muslims from far corners of the world will not only raise fever-pitch protests but are also willing to join suicidal missions to fight for the so-called affection Muslim brothers. But arousal of such sentiment amongst other community, says Christian, does not happen if we consider the case of East Timor or Kosovo. It must also be noticed that it does not matter to the pan-Islamic community whether such an intervention is undertaken for the good of their Muslim brethrens or notâa classic case of which is the interventions in Somalia and Afghanistan. Whilst any such interventions in Christian countries normally receive worm welcome from the larger Christian communityâclassic examples are the US-pressured ouster of Charles Taylor of Liberia and Aristride of Haiti. Similar distinguishing parallels can also be drawn in regard to the presence of foreign troops in Muslims countries (Saudi Arabia) and those in non-Muslim countries (Japan, South Korea etc.).
It is a dilemma for the world community as to how to deal with the humanitarian situations in Muslim countries. Muslim countries will creates all kinds of dictators and corrupt administrators to lead the people to misery and sufferings along with all kind of violations of human rights and dignity. But the conscientious world community does not have any right to intervene so as to fix the problem there such that people can live in better peace and dignity and build their future. Another distinguishing trademark of the Islamic world is that when a Muslim country is in misery and povertyâthey will strongly hope and often forcefully ask other countries to bring aid and money to feed their Muslim brothers which they themselves will never do. Classic cases are Afghanistan and Somalia. Although Muslims are against any kind of foreign intervention and are willing to fight the interveners in these countriesâyet they never brought any food and medicine to the people of Afghanistan and Somalia when the tyranny and anarchy in those countries lead to terrible human suffering and disasters. Given this classic mind-set and dangerous attitudes of the worldwide Muslim communityâit has become extremely difficult for the civilized world community to work with the Muslim world and fix the problems there which are way too many in those countries.