Explaining IR to Muslims using “hudnah”

February 11, 2006 at 7:46 pm (Uncategorized)

Systemic international relations, perpetual inter-state competition, and Muslims’ optimal behavior – all explained using the concept of hudnah (“[temporary] truce”; this word also means “pause”).

Very unique and insightful.

inna naHnu-l-a’lamoon.

Permalink 3 Comments

Hypocrisy and Irrational Hatred from the Left, or Another Post on Why America is Great

February 11, 2006 at 5:47 pm (Uncategorized)

In this thread on the Ace of Spades Headquarters, a leftist directed a poster to the army’s website when the poster remarked the poster was in favor of war against Syria. Evidently, some people believe that if one supports war, one ought to participate in it.

How so very strange.

In the meantime, leftists proclaim the evils of capitalism and that socialism (of whatever interpretation) is the solution – whether it is soft socialism (a welfare state) or hard socialism (tyranny of the proletariat). Should they not, then, detach themselves from the capitalist money-making machine, or at least reject any royalties or payments for their words? It seems highly hypocritical for leftists to direct warmongering conservatives to join the military while they refuse to make the sacrifices they must make to realize their own dreams.

How many anti-capitalists (Chomsky, anyone?) are part of the capitalist market machine?
How many anti-Americans benefit from America’s rights, liberties, security, and stability?
How many pacifists benefit from an essentially violence-prone law enforcement presence?
How many environmentalists benefit from the polluting technological advances rampant in the West (the least of which include vehicles; including, of course, all methods of mechanical transportation, factory-made goods, use of fossil fuels)?
How many academics engage in Occidentalism while condemning Orientalism?

We shall bring this to a more pointed level: why is it that those who benefit from corruption will condemn in strong words others who benefit from corruption? Is the evil of corruption a partisan issue, that corrupt Republicans are evil but corrupt Democrats are fine? How can Democrats scream about corruption when the most corrupt state in The United States is the heavily Democratic Louisiana?

Why do leftists condemn the spread of democracy and democratic institutions? Why are they so obsessed with the evil of The United States and the good of others? Why do they sacrifice their own people, culture, values, and leaders to foreign cultures and values? Why do they have no pride in their nation and its awesome military? Why do they desire so much the downfall of their own society?

It seems contradictory that while promoting foreign and alien societies and values, they resent it when any one of these is able to open up to the light of democracy and democratic institutions: are they resentful of another people’s progress? Why can they not wish others to have what Americans and others in democratic states have?

We have lived in non-democratic states, including one that claims to be democratic. Elections a democracy do not make. We were so happy and proud when The United States liberated Iraq: finally, another people would be rid of their heinous tyrannical dictator and will be able to exercise popular sovereignty, able to write their own future. Perhaps leftists do not know what it is like to live in a non-democratic society, while opponents of democracy in other societies are afraid how they will loose control of the people. Democracy is empowering, collectively and individually. How strange, then, that those who claim to uphold values and rights and good would attack America so viciously when it seeks to overthrow unstable regimes of terror and tyranny in order to make a region more secure (in the long run), secure American interests, and provide for the liberated state’s people a better future.

Strange, is it not, that in America people can be so rabidly and vociferously against their nation – which they point out as proof of their claims, for no one is challenging them, or at least not challenging them in such a manner that they would accept the opponents claims (assuming, of course, they are rational, which these anti-Americans are not) – and yet the people of other states are less opposed to their nation. Nationalism or patriotism is seen as a good thing. This, too, is used by anti-Americans to boost up their arguments and hollow pride. Yet the reality lies not in the fact that people are not rising to protest their state, therefore they love it, but that these people are unable to. In America, one can say whatever one wants. In other states, this is not so. People may even pretend to be patriotic to escape their society’s or authorities’ censure. Thus, the very fact these anti-Americans can present and spread their despicable lies with such ease and without hindrance speaks more in favor of The United States than it does against them.

If The United States are evil, then, for all they do for others, then permit Us to be the vilest of demons. We will not change Our allegiance or values because of some doctrine or theory that is blowing in the wind. We do not base Our expectations and hopes on irrational, impractical, and utterly ridiculous slogans. We will not turn against Our society, community, and nation – America, America, and America, respectively – in favor of some foreign, alien, oppressive, tyrranical, deplorable, stagnant, unproductive, uneducated, and unfree people. We freely admit to judging peoples and states; We freely admit to not treating all peoples equally. Such equality is a fiction devised by those who would pander to and continue to enable unevolved and undeveloped peoples. The United States are the best in many areas, regarding which We will never equivocate, hesitate, or back down. We, furthermore, whole-heartedly support a self-interested, active, and autonomous approach to dealing with issues that affect The United States. (Why should The United States hesitate to defend its interests when every nation will do anything to defend their interests? Why should The United States fall into the mischievious hands of those who would sacrifice The United States if it will advance their nefarious interests? Why do people continue to insist on considering others to be benevolently disposed while The United States are malevolently disposed? When was the last time France or Britain instituted democracy? From what We remember, the entire quagmire that is the Middle East is a direct result of British and French imperialist, territorial, mercantilist, and economic meddling. The United States is now forced to mop up their messes: when the old hegema have ruined the world, why should The United States be forced to expiate for others’ sins?) If for this We are considered to be a rabid patriot/nationalist, irrational, insensitive, unaware, ignorant, intolerant, bigoted, or otherwise evil, then so be it.

The United States are not like Britain, or France, or Spain, or Portugal, or Imperial Russia, or the Soviet Union, or Imperial China, or Imperial Japan, or early Islam, or Babylonia, or Assyria, or the ancient Persia, or the Mongol Hordes – they do not hold the world’s people in thrall and slavery, subject to a foreign far-away potentate; they liberate peoples, enlighten peoples, and establish for current and future generations a better world. Why else is everyone clamoring for success and access to the world market? After all, even socialist China desired to join (and was successful in joining) the World Trade Organization.

Why The United States’ own people would oppose The United States – this We simply cannot comprehend.

inna naHnu-l-a’lamoon.

Permalink 7 Comments

Al-lughatu-l-‘arabiyyah – Arabic

February 11, 2006 at 12:41 pm (Uncategorized)

People are rightfully wont to ask what the Arabic We use means. Therefore, We write this post regarding Arabic, which will be updated as may be needed. All terms shall be presented according to classical Arabic and contemporary Arabic renditions.

muSlihoon – explained here
inna naHnu-l-a’lamoon (inna naHnu al-a’lamoon) (with its many version on this blog) – “indeed, we are the knowers of all,” a parody of sorts of what Muslims are wont to put at the end of their statements: “inna-llaahu-l-a’lamoon,” “indeed, God is the knower of all.”

Phrases and other Arabic (alphabetical according to the first word of the phrase, according to the English alphabet, determined by the beginning letter thereof):
‘alaihi, ‘alaihaa, ‘alahim – “upon him, upon her, upon them” (often as part of a blessing or curse said or written after someone’s name); whenever “‘alaihi” appears, it can be replaced by any of these terms.
‘Ashoorah – “tenth,” referring to the tenth day of Muharram (the first month of the Islamic lunar calendar), on which day Shiites commemorate the martyrdom of Hussein.
HafiZahu-llaahu wa barakaatu-llaahi wa raHmatuhu ‘alayhi – May God keep/guard him, and may His blessings and mercy be upon him
la’nah allaah ‘alaihi / la’natu-llaah ‘alaihi – “may God’s curse be upon him”
ummah – “community,” referring to the worldwide Muslim community

Languages other than Arabic:
Amerika ist nicht das Vierte Reich (German) – “America is not the Fourth Reich.”
NSDAP (German) – “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei,” the German National Socialist Workers’ Party, often called the Nazi Party.
Vali (Persian) – “Supreme Leader,” the supreme leader of the Irani government based on Grand Aayatollaah Ruhollaah Musavi Khomeyni’s Velaayat-e Faqeh. Khomeyni was Iran’s first Vali. The corrent Vali (successor to Khomeyni) is Grand Aayatollaah Ali Khaamene’i.
Velaayat-e Faqeh (Persian) – “Government by the Jurisprudent,” the theory of theocratic government published, promoted, and implemented by Grand Aayatollaah Ruhollaah Musavi Khomeyni.

Henceforth, a uniform system of transliteration shall be used. It shall be explained here:
The alphabet (name of the letter, how it shall be represented, sound it makes):
alif; a, aa; when short (“a”), like the “a” in “about”; when long (“aa”), like the “a” in “father.”
baa; b; as in English
taa; t; a dental “t”
thaa; th; like the “th” in “thing”
jeem; j; as in English
Haa; H; a throaty “h”
khaa; kh; an aspirated “h,” like the “ch” in the Scottish word “loch” or the German name “Bach” (no English equivalent)
daal; d; as in English
dhaal; dh; like the “th” in “the”
raa; r
zaa; z; as in English
seen; s; as in English
sheen; sh; as in English
Saad; S; a palatal “s” (no English equivalent)
Daad; D; a palatal “d” (no English equivalent)
Taa; T; a palatal “t” (no English equivalent)
Zaa; Z; a palatal “z” (no English equivalent)
‘ayin; ‘; the epiglottal stop, it is a consonant in its own right, and is different from the hamza’ (not always transcribed), which is a glottal stop (no English equivalent)
ghayin; gh; like the French “r” (no English equivalent)
faa; f; as in English
qaaf; q; a “k” further down the throat (no English equivalent)
kaaf; k; as in English
laam; l; as in English
meem; m; as in English
noon; n; as in English
haa; h; as in English
waaw; w, u, oo; when a consonant (“w”), like the “w” in “water”; when a short vowel (“u”), like the “oo” in “book”; when a long vowel (“oo”), like the “oo” in “moon”
yaa; y, i, ee; when a consonant, like “y” in “year”; when a short vowel (“i”), like the “i” in “bit”; when a long vowel (“ee”), like the “ee” in “meet”

Rather than rendering long vowels as double the vowel (aa, ii, uu), We shall render them differently (long “a” = “aa,” long “i” = “ee,” long “u” = “oo”), which will make it easier to be read.

Five consonants are represented by upper-case letters: Haa, Saad, Daad, Taa, and Zaa.

inna naHnu-l-a’lamoon.

Permalink Leave a Comment