America and Michael Jackson.

Two things made America more influential and awe inspiring than any other nation on the face of the earth: cowboy movies and Michael Jackson.

Long before the American Tomahawks, B-52s and the rest of the American weapons used in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, Michael Jackson entered the houses of the nations across the Middle East and Central Asia.

Some say these Muslim nations want war with America. That’s typical Langley hogwash. Long before Karen Hughes and Don Rumsfeld came up with kooky concepts of public diplomacy, and long before Pentagon and State Department established offices for outreach to Muslims, this icon of modern American culture was welcomed in a region that knew little about American culture or simply didn’t care.

America didn’t need men with twisted minds and Darth-Vader plans for global domination to open the doors for American supremacy [this is for you, Richard Perle]. It happened anyway thanks to Jackson, Stallone and Madonna.

Those who knew one face of America – Reagan at the time – and vehemently hated it became crazy about another American face. I am sure they could never reconcile this contradiction deep in their hearts. But it was there, the two sides coexisting side by side.

Aside from our region, Michael’s music opened the doors of the Soviet Union and China to everything American, not to mention Africa, East Asia and the rest of the world. Before his album, Thriller, for example, only members of the elite in some of these nations knew the truth: that there is another side to America besides imperialism, a good side.

It seems so ordinary now. But, really, think about it; closed and proud societies warmly welcoming a completely new and alien culture of a country whose foreign policy was viewed suspiciously by many.

Right about the same time as Michael’s Thriller and the moonwalk, there came Sylvester Stallone with his accent, Tom Cruise with Top Gun, and then ‘USA for Africa’: forty-five American singers joining in a song for the victims of the African drought. The song, We Are The World, gave the world this amazing message about an American nation striving to help the needy. Even the best American diplomats and the best image consultants couldn’t buy the goodwill that these ordinary good Americans created for their nation.

Sure, while this was happening, CIA was secretly supporting terrorist militias in Latin America and Africa, pushing Iraq to declare war against Iran, destabilizing governments and exploiting the pure passion and the blood of the Afghans to settle an American score with the Soviets. America’s governments were doing dirty things. But it was the good side of America that the people of the world preferred, the one that was really launched by Michael Jackson and others. The Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union didn’t exactly crumble thanks only to America’s gung-ho politicians or military strategists. They crumbled because of the enduring power of the image that Jackson and Madonna and Tom Cruise and Stallone and others spread worldwide.
This is the lesson that America desperately needs to learn today. Jackson almost launched America’s cultural supremacy in the digital age. CIA or the US military used it, not caused it. So who is the real asset?

Enough of US government using Hollywood celebrities to get back at China like Stephen Spielberg did when he canceled a contract for Beijing Olympics last year in a theatrical move to politicize Tibet; and enough of the US government using YouTube and Twitter as political tools in its not-so-innocent battle with Iran.

The Americans need to bring that time back when they came together for something like ‘USA for Africa’, an effort devoid of any political mileage, like the search for cheap oil in African jungles, which is what they’re doing now.

This ugly and militarized side of America has eclipsed everything else in the past decade. Let’s remember that Washington’s entire might in Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t and couldn’t generate the kind of real goodwill that America received with Jackson’s death.

Your Jacksons are far more appealing than your Tomahawks. Get it. Or beat it.

Sufi’s world (Beware of extremism in religion)

Sufi Mohammad doesn't speak for himself - He speaks for thousands of barbarians who don't respect the law!
THE uproar is understandable but should it really come as a surprise that Sufi Mohammad and his band of barbarians are opposed to all that we hold dear? Of course not. The position held by people who kill those who don’t subscribe to their point of view is diametrically opposed to that of all right-thinking persons.
From day one, the stance of these militants who murder in the name of religion has been all too clear. These people are savages, yet we don’t put them behind bars. Why? If we don’t have the wherewithal to take them on, we should admit as much and stop making ludicrous claims that the enemy will be defeated in due course.
Striking ‘deals’ with an enemy that is simply buying time won’t help either. Talibanisation is not just a threat, it is the reality today. Face it.Sufi Mohammad’s organisation, which is sympathetic to the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, is interested less in matters of faith and more so in power in Pakistan. It is now clear that the Taliban will not stop until they have their way. And this is their prescription for Pakistan: a nation, armed with nuclear weapons, jerked back to a mediaeval age. A country where men without beards are flogged, and women killed if they choose to express themselves. That is where we are headed.
And one is wrong if one thinks this can’t happen in Pakistan. It can and it will unless we strike a decisive blow for the silent majority.We must resist this onslaught. Should we be surprised when Sufi Mohammad says that that the high courts and the Supreme Court are un-Islamic? Certainly not. Are we to register shock when he says that democracy is un-Islamic? Of course not. He is merely articulating what he and his followers have thought from day one.
Sufi Mohammad’s Tehrik-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat Mohammadi, the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda are all committed to overthrowing the State of Pakistan. How many times do we have to say this? Their interest is not limited to enforcing — at gunpoint — Sharia law in Swat and the rest of Malakand. They want to take over all of Pakistan and subject each and every citizen to their brand of ‘justice’.
This government is ceding them territory and emboldening them to an extent where they will be able to dictate terms without fear. Fazlur Rehman of the JUI may say that Sufi Mohammad, a terrorist Mr Rehman supports despite being a member of parliament, speaks for himself. No, you are wrong Mr Rehman. He speaks for thousands of extremists who have no respect for the law. He is renouncing the constitution, which is perhaps tantamount to treason.We didn’t vote for this on Feb 18, 2008. We didn’t vote for barbarity in the garb of religiosity.

Some Examples of Taliban Justice







Extremism is not only a religious problem but also a law and order problem and if religious extremists destabilise the Pakistan, it will undermine the government as well. If we in Pakistan want to resist the rising tide of Muslim extremism, then we better realise that conservative Muslims like those of the JI for instance have a lot more in common with liberal Muslims than they have with the extremists that are blowing up girls’ schools, burning CD shops and forcing men to grow beards.Religious extremism is however complicated by the fact that there are two distinct forces that are using religion at this time. It is important in my opinion to separate them and tackle them differently. The first type of terrorism and violence we see in Pakistan these days is politically motivated. The second type is motivated by a desire to implement an extremist Islamic system within Pakistan. I would like to make a simple point. I believe that most Pakistanis are not beholden to the extreme version of Islam that is being pushed by those that bomb girls’ schools in Swat or terrorise theatres in Lahore.



Muhammad ( صلى الله عليه وسلم ) said,

إياكم والغلو في الدين، فإنما أهلك من كان قبلكم الغلو في الدين

"Beware of extremism in religion, for it is extremism in religion that destroyed those who were before you." (Ahmad and An-Nasaaee)

Imaam Maalik said,

ينبغي للمرء أن لا يتكلم إلا فيما أحاط به خيرًا، فقد كان رسول الله وهو إمام المسلمين وسيد العالمين يُسأل في الشيء، فما يجيب حتى يأتيه الوحي من السماء

“It is incumbent upon a person not to speak on an issue until he knows everything about it. Even the Messenger of Allaah who is the leader of all Muslims would not answer a question posed to him until he received a revelation to that effect from Heaven.”

{ and verily, among them is a party who distort the Book with their tongues (while they read it) , so that you may think it is from the Book, but it is not from the Book, and they say, “This is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah; and they speak a lie against Allah while they know it.} [3:78].

The Shaykh ‘Allaamah Saalih Al-Fawzaan was asked:

هل أسامة بن لادن ومن تبعه من قوله وأيدهم على مذهبهم يُعتبرون من الخوارج؟

Is Bin Laden and those who follow his views and promote his beliefs considered to be from the (deviant sect known as the) Khawaarij?

He responded:

عندكم قاعدة أن الذي يخرج على ولي الأمر أنه من الخوارج سواء أسامة بن لادن أو غيره، اللي يخرج على ولاة أمور المسلمين هذا من الخوارج .

There is a (well known) principle, and this is that everyone who rebels against those in authority is considered to be from the Khawaarij, whether this is Bin Laden or anyone else. Anyone who rebels against the Muslim leaders is deemed to be from the Khawaarij.


Finally, I would like to quote Imam Abu Hanifa from his reply to a letter by Uthman Batti:

“I assert that all people of the Qibla are mu’mins and that none of them becomes an infidel by omission of works. He who has faith and also performs his duties is without doubt a mu’min and destined for Paradise. He who is devoid of both faith and works is an infidel and destined for Hell. He who has faith, but omits to act is certainly a Muslim, but a sinful one. It is up to God to punish or forgive him.”