Mr. Akbar calls for "a regional, multinational Muslim force to step into the space created by American withdrawal." But this assumes that the Muslim world is monolithic. As Iraq has so clearly shown, Muslims are highly sensitive to sectarian allegiances. It's like calling for a Christian force to unify Ireland. How does he propose assembling a Muslim force among these disparate sects, and how does he propose employing such a force without inciting sectarian backlash?

If Bill Clinton created goodwill with the Muslim world, explain the origin of the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, and Mogadishu incidents. President Bush should not get a speechwriter who understands the irrational, fanatic, and fractious attitudes of the Muslim world. His best option is to not dig us further down the pit that was started decades ago. Attempting to develop an Arab Muslim nation into a functional, prosperous and free democracy or republic is a futile endeavor. Some nations can never be democratic no matter what we do (see Russia, China).

If the occupation does not help, withdraw.
If the war was illegally waged, withdraw.
If you can not win, withdraw.
If you are man enough, withdraw.
If so much bloodbath is your fault, withdraw.
Withdraw from that damn country;
Withdraw, withdraw, withdraw.

Mr. Akbar,

You don't write one sentence agaist what terrorists, Al Sadre's army and Sunni insergents are doing to each other. Who is killing/ It is Muslims killing Muslims and American solders are aslo killed.

Majority of Iraqui's voted in the elections. That shows they want a representative Government. A minority want to stop that Government from functioning. You are only criticizing American Gov't. America wants to establish democracy in the middle East. But Islam is the enemy of democracy. Islam menans submission. America still doesn't understand true face of Islam. When it does it might change it's policies. A muslim is blinded by his/her faith. A true follower of Allah can't practice democracy. He has to follow what Allah prescribed for him/her. America should stand by and leave the Iraquis settle their differences.

I myself like Iraq divided into three. Sunnis who dominated and ill treated others have to live by themselves without any oil revenue. They have to learn to live on their own.

I find it disappointing that the author, a Muslim from a secular country like India, proposes a solution of "multinational Muslim" army. Is anyone else appalled by the exclusionary nature of this ? Is it MJ Akbar's contention that Muslims will / should trust only Muslims ?

Apart from this, there is the very practical observation in an earlier comment that the Muslim world is not monolithic ; in fact the violence that we see in Iraq is primarily Sunni - Shia violence. So what type of Muslim army should keep the peace, Bahais, maybe ?

Also, I'm curious why you said "the Indian army occupied half of Pakistan...", and just a sentence later, you said the difference between liberation and occupation lies in the duration. So shouldn't you have said "the Indian army liberated half of Pakistan ..." ?

JS, Boston, USA

It is debatable whether a "multinational Muslim Force" would be successful in reigning in the warfing factions in Iraq rather than being sucked into the conflict, but certainly an American force can't do it.

Things are always seen with a religious perspective in Arab world. Common people will not view America as a democracy that has come to liberate them from Saddam but as a mainly Christian country out to force an Islamic country into submission. I therefore agree with Mr Akbar that only a multinational Muslim Force makes sense. Nothing infuriates a Muslim more than the thought that his religion is being insulted/endangered. Clerics and politicians can cite any incident from Abu Gharib to Haditha and draw conclusions in the muslim world that the basic purpose of Americans is to insult Muslims.

In such a hostile environment, US is doing more bad than good; it is getting sucked into a vicious civil war where it supports neither side, thus earning the ire of both of them. Its best chance is to put some sort of a multinational Muslim Force together, withdraw and hope against hope that somehow Shias and Sunnis will reach a power-sharing agreement. Only then, will the people of Iraq stop thinking of Americans as the perpatrators. Anyway, there is no point in staying back when you can't help it.

There is a great probability that the multinational force itself would become part of the civil war with Iran supporting Shias and Saudi Arabia and Egypt supporting Sunnis. If that happens, then people would again blame America for withdrawing too early.

So Mr. Akbar, I am for Multinational Muslim Force but I don't know whether it will do any good for America's prestige. Ofcourse, it has to do something about Iran and Israel as well -- earning respect is not so easy!

I am beginning to realise that even one of the best Muslims like Akbar thinks that he is first a Muslim and his primary allegiance is to Islam. Many Muslims today are living in India. There are many terrorist bombings and all of them are carried out by Muslims. There must be many Muslims who support them. Muslims ought to be relegated second class citizenship in India. They don't want to sing Vandemataram. It is hight time Hindus realise that Islam is dangerous to India's integrity and act accordingly. Mr. Akbar didn't write any thing about Vandemataram.

Mr Akbar,

You nailed it.

The only way forward is for US forces to withdraw completely from Iraq, and from the Middle East all together.

We are sick and tired of this immoral war.

A Muslim or Arab force can manage much better the situation in Iraq.

Virtually all US soldiers don't speak Arabic and yet they claim they are there to help.

They are there to kill and to take revenge for 9-11.

Well they have killed enough, it is time to go home.

To Ram,
India is not a theocracy it is a secular democracy and hence no vandemateram.
Now to making muslims 2nd class citizens you will have to start with your President! who is a muslim.

Mr. Akbar: a muslim, Born and living in a non-muslim majority country.

Dr. Zakaria: a muslin, Born, brought up in a non-mulim majority country and then working in another non-muslim majority country.

Dear Hypocrites
Ha Ha
what a laughable sentence..." Muslims of faith are sensitive to the difference between justice and injustice,"

Really Mr. Akbar!!! What is the status of justice for minorities in any Muslim state?
They are treated worse than animals with no protection under law. More faithful Muslims become worse they treat non-muslims.
Apologists and hypocrites like you and Farid Zakaria for Islamic terrorism should look in the mirror before condemning others.

There are five parts to my comment -
1) A brief response to ram and other who doubt Mr. Akbar's secularism.
2) Questioning Mr. Akbar's central thesis - is Iraq central to earning love?
3) Are muslims the only ones who need to mollified?
4) And does US really need to think about pleasing anybody?
5) Lessons from Iraq war.

1) Mr. Akbar is presenting strategic solutions to a conflict and calling it how it is. I doubt if it is his personal opinion that Muslims should first trust Muslims and then others. The only way Iraq can be liberated is if it is liberated from heavy handed American presence. I do think policing from India, or other third world countries that have some credibility amongst Iraqis can also work wonders in Iraq rather than the current US occupation.

2) Is Iraq central to earning the love of Muslim world? Maybe? I think the issue of Palestine and US's support of autocratic regimes through out Arab world and South Asia rile muslims too. The way to go about rectifying all of this is for America to think of itself in a long term strategic manner. A case in point - defending indefensible activities of 6 million Israelis against 1 billion muslims seems like terrible understanding of real-politik. The situation in Middle East and elsewhere won't rectify unless America's policy makers start looking for its own interests rather than the Israel's or Oil company execs or myriad other skewed pressures.

3) As soon as the question of America's reputation in the world comes into question, people automatically start phrasing things like "Muslim world". American policies rile not only Muslims but also China and Russia and France and countless other countries.

4)At one level US shouldn't really care about ruffled feathers because US is economically doing really well and all the wars and other chaos in the world doesn't really matter in a way. Even the footprint of terrorism is relatively small if you compare it to other countries. And that probably also explains US public's indifference to the massive goof-ups and genocidal campaigns like Vietnam. Yes, Americans don't need to care. They can afford not to care. US companies still do enormous business in Muslim countries and all is hunky dory.
Except that the world is paying the price. This is a moral question and not a strategic question. America may claim to have a moral center but it really doesn't. Its no different from all other countries except it has more military power than probably half the world combined and it has sponsored and fought countless military campaigns to enormous cost to the world. For the sake of the rest of the world - I hope America is try to please.

5)Lesson from Iraq war is same as Vietnamese war - America can bomb but cannot occupy. Its the same lesson Israel learnt in Lebanon in 1982. It doesn't do much one way for the other except the "shadows" get their chance to make money and conduct slaughter.

For my comments on not framing humanitarian issues like Iraq and Lebanon as Muslim issues, please check out: http://gbytes.gsood.com/index.php?id=579

Let's compare.

Option #1:
Goodwill towards America, sympathy from Islamist nations, and over 3000 people killed on 9/11.

Option #2:
Strong Anti-Americanism from many countries throughout the world.
Zero terrorist attacks on U.S. soil

Hmmmm.....I think I'll take what's behind door number 2.

As an American, I would love to see our country dump the problem of Iraqi security into anyone elses lap. However, I doubt you would get many takers for this dangerous and thankless duty.

The reason I say this is that the possibility that an American withdrawl combined with insertion of your hypotheitical Muslim multi-national force (MMNF) might result in inflamed sectarian tensions if both sides percieved power vaccum and attempted to take advantage of it. The only way to avoid this danger would be if your had overwhelming fire-power so that it could be assured of overcoming any such escalation in the fighting between the well armed insurgents and militias. This would probably require a sizeable commitment of logistical and air force assests. This leads me the question of which non-neighboring Muslim states (the Iraqis are likely to balk at the idea of any neighoring state having troops in the country) have the political will as well as sufficient military and logistical assets to commit to ensure Iraqi security?

If such safeguards are not taken with the proposed MMNF, your plan risks not only an Iraqi civil war, but that neighboring states could be drawn into a regional war. Either scenarios could lead to extreme oil price spikes which would put the world economy at grave risk. In the worst case scenario Iraqi, Iranian and Saudi Oil could be suddenly removed from the International market, the pain would be felt throughout the world with the brunt being born by the developing countries, where famine would be likely. For these reasons, your proposal seems to be an unrealistic pipe dream. However, if you modified your proposal to include lighter armed and equipped MMNF which would work in coordination with US or NATO forces for a specified period of time (2 years?), your proposal would have far more merit.

Some readers dont grasp the fact that Islam is a universal religion which is very diverse involving hundreds of nationalities.
For example look at Farid Zakaria who is born in India and Ingrid Mattson Ph.D.,the Canadian born American now the President of Islamic society of North American (ISNA).

It is the time for the current American administration and the future administration to stay away and stop imposing your democracy to other countries, either Muslim or non-Muslim alike. You must have learned that America has failed in anywhere, loosing war in Vietnam and now in Iraq. American administration only successful in making other country messy and planting more hatred and anger from Muslim people. Even American administration is not capable to "fight" Katrina's problem.

The Inquisition, Shatila, 1984 anti Sikh riots, no religion has a monopoly on violence.Yet the follwers of 'the merciful and the compassionate One' are demonised.
Iraq was a secular State well on the way to prosperity - many friends (of course all from India) attested to that.They never spoke of Shia Sunni tension in Iraq either.
Yet Iraq was a centre of terror ?
Ask Colin Powell.
I'd go a step further than Akbar and say let the world leave the Iraqis to their own devices!
Only ring fence the country to prevent its neighbours from grabbing what they can.
This is the country that gave the world its first civilisation -remember a place called Babylon?
Bombed as they are into the stone ages, they'd probably still find a way- if only we'd let them.

Mr. Akbar does make very thoughtful points on what may be done to help us with our situation in Iraq. It is funny how still we have Americans who can not see the value in having more Muslims involved in the stability of Iraq. It is also puzzling to hear one of the responders speak as if Bill Clinton did not help better our relations with the Middleast. At least Bill Clinton tried to talk to both the leaders of Palestine and Israel in a way that isn't judgemental and "holier than thou". Bush can not seem to do the same. It is like the man has no sense of how complicated the matter is. And his speechwriter is horrible. When you are the President of the U.S., you have a major responsbility to speak in a way that is firm; however, well knowledgeable of each side and their challenges. Bush fails at that. He simplifies our challenges in this war on terrorism to much. What we as Americans need to do is stop thinking so much like "Americans"....go beyond our "normal" train of thought...which can be a tad too self-centered. Most of the muslim world do not trust us as far as they can throw us. I see that this country is great and we have awesome potential to meet that greatness; however, we need to understand that our presence and ideas are not always the right things at the moment. There comes a point in time when someone else's presence and ideas may fair better. In this situation, having other muslims who also want to have a better relationship with American or also are Muslim Americans may be listened to much better. We do not want to say that all of the Muslim world think the very same; however, there are similarities due to a common religion/culture.

Saga:

"Apologists and hypocrites like you and Farid Zakaria for Islamic terrorism should look in the mirror before condemning others."

I am not familiar with Akbar's views except whatever I read here.

As to Mr. Zakaria, he supported and justified the war on Iraq.

Mr. Zakaria does criticize the Bush administration for what he calls "incompetence" but in reality no matter what the Bush administration did, it was doomed to fail.

Zakaria has no clue of what he is talking about. Iraq is NOT India.

He is indirectly responsible for all those deaths in Iraq.

If some day Bush and his team are tried for war crimes, I hope that they investigate people like Mr. Zakaria.

We can not let these war-mongers get away with the unecessary destruction and killing they have caused.

Mr. Akbar's comments are on the point in terms of the ways the United States projects itself onto the world. I don't believe a Muslim peace keeping force would work in Iraq, since the two main divisions within Islam are represented therein. I cannot imagine the consequences of another Muslim nation, predominantly Sunnis, for instance, opening fire on Shi'a Iraqis. I think that would light off the regional war some fear.
Mr. Bush, given his current rhetorical "offensive" which compares the enemies the "civilized world" faces who are Islamofascists, or Islamic extremists, or Islamic fundamentalists, should see that if he really wants to turn the tide of anti-Americanism throughout most of the Islamic world ... should deploy another 60,000 American troops to Iraq.
The reason would be to stabilize the security situation as quickly as possible, and provide enough "cover" for the Iraqi Army and Police to gel into cohesive units.
Of course, that move is long overdue.
Had the Bush team put in 200,000 troops, and kept them there, as General Shinseki advised, the situation in Iraq, I'd imagine, would be much better.
There is no reason ... if one accepts his dire warnings of a security situation similar to the war against fascism with Japan and Germany, or the Cold War, with Communism, as similar to today's climate ... that Bush can't order more troops into Iraq.
But, of course, politically, it's too late for that.
Making amends to the Iraqi people for not providing safety and security as a function of the Agenda for Democratizing that country, is too late. Rumsfeld's firing would be a clean break, but Rumsfeld runs cover for Bush and articulates another part of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld line of trash.
Given that there is now no way more troops are going to be sent to Iraq, or, Afghanistan, a programmed withdrawal needs to be announced.
If the insurgents hold back, fine. If such a programmed withdrawal finally states, unequivocably, for the Iraqi people, that there are finite limits on time and resources for American involvement, they might find the resources within to fight for their lives.
Freedom isn't possible where it must be force fed.
It either is an expression of the people, or it isn't.
If the Iraqi form of government moves towards a more Islamic government, there's nothing we can do to stop it.
The U.S. should focus itself on spending whatever it takes to begin to break away from fossil fuels.
The U.S. should stop telling other countries how to be.
The U.S. shoud stop warning other nations, or even the U.N., that it "must" do this or that.
The U.S. must stop pushing other nations around with military and political threats.
The U.S. must stop supporting Islamofascist regimes in Egypt or Pakistan, if it is to gain credibility as a fair and honest broker for Democracy.
More than anything, the U.S. must stop always giving Israel a free hand to do whatever it wants to Muslim neighbors. If the U.S. advised Israel that all funds would be terminated for military aid, and, possibly, economic aid, if settlements and outposts continue to be built in the West Bank of Palestine.
And, finally, the U.S. must initiate a full blown peace process to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
IF the U.S. did those things, among others, it might show, by it's deeds, that it was serious about an even-handedness for Muslims and Israelis.
The chance of these things happening is nil.
Hence, the U.S. will continue to receive very serious hatred from the Muslim world.
The reason none of this will happen is because a majority of the American people do not, in any way, value the lives of Arabs and Muslims as much as Americans and Israelis, Christians and Jews.
That's obvious.
And, because it's a true expression of the American majority, Muslims will continue to try and kill us and very definitely, hate us.
This is only the beginning.
I believe, unfortunately, that the U.S. WILL be drawn into a far worse war with Iran before Bush leaves office. And then, we will have Sunnni and Shi'a Muslims hating us even more than now.
Bush personifies that part of the American population who see Muslim hate as a reason to treat Muslims more rather than less harshly.
America is what America is: a nation where a majority voted a second time for a tough talker, and to me, that affirms they want what Bush is handing out.
Iraq and Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority ... they're manifestations of how America feels about Muslims.
It's that simple.

Comparing India's liberation of East Pakistan and immediate withdrawal of forces with the US operation in Iraq is erroneous.

While the mukti bahini managed to break the back-bone of most of the West Pakistani infrastructure, with some Indian help offcourse, before the Indian army officially declared war, there was virtually no Iraqi resistance to wage war against Saddam and make the US operation a cakewalk for installing democracy.

Instead of building up a loyal Muslim force from among the US allies in the Middle East backed by US forces, Bush, in customary knee-jerk fashion, possibly thought his forces would relive VE day once again, in circa 2002. He was wrong from the outset. To avenge the attempt on his father's life by Saddam, he got a chance with 9/11 by hyping up a virtually non-existent threat of WMD's to remove him.

Unsure and without a credible resistance movement within Iraq, he relied on cyber-weaponry to minimise US casualties in toppling Saddam. Result. He is still bogged down and his credibility and ratings in the region, even among his allies, have reached rock-bottom.

So a gallant retreat was out of the question from the very outset. Bush's mid-western psyche, seen many times over in John Wayne movies, translated into a revolution in US foreign policy, is proving to be his nemesis.

It would be a miracle if the US can wriggle out of the region without loosing the last bit of support and understanding left in the greater Muslim world. And few Muslim nations will offer their forces as part of a joint Muslim force to bail out Bush without risking the wrath of their citizens.

Islam is a religion of dominance and subjugation to non-muslims. With Saudi money and Pakistani muscle they are waking up again. In my University life in 1980's I always heard the Soviet enemy and hatred towards USSR and India among muslims. Now once they dismantled USSR's power, they are hoping to do same for America. The more US resists them, the more they become angry and agitated. Whoever comes in their way, they want finish them. Now China is giggling. But they will do same to China in future, once US was Islamic terrorists bosom friend. Unfortunately, Islam is a backward religion, so it's adherent and followers will always find themselves in lagging behind in science, education, development. I laughed at Mr. Akber's comment that Islam is sensitive to justice and injustice. I am a Hindu from Bangladesh. I know what is Islam!!!

Farid Zakaria is what the Blacks would call an Uncle Tom, or a "House Slave". An insecure Moslem who had to prove he was anti Moslem & pro war so he would be accepted in the US and get his 15 minutes of Fame on TV.
As for Mr. Akbars suggestion of a Moslem force in Iraq, it is ludicrous.
As for Mr. Ram, does he remember the slaughter of Moslems in Bihar. Re: Babri Masjid. What in Rams (the god) name does "Vandemataram"have anything to do with this topic?
As for Saga, How do the Jews in Israel treat the Palestinian Moslems? Animals are treated better.
For America to be loved, It should settle the Palestinian crisis. Condi, another "Aunty Tom" should relearn international diplomacy, "Birth pangs of a new Middle East!!!!!". George, Trust me Jesus will not come back to a land soaked in blood.

no Muslim country has a democracy. Democracy and Islam are incompatible. So the solution is elimination of either Islam or Democracy. Mohammad was a violent man and his follwores can't understand democracy.

All other religions have accpeted democracy in principle. So the rest of the world should deport all Muslims to the Muslim countries. Then they can do whatever want in their countries. Muslims and non Muslims can't exist side by side.

Farid Zakaria is a Muslim only by birth. I don't think he believes in Allah. He is a secularist. he didn't renounce Islam publicly. If he did some Muslim will kill him. Muslims who don't believe in Islam are many. Islam is not growing.

Whether we like it or not - the truth is that war clouds are gathering. A full out war between Muslims and the West.
Where countries like China and Russia want to be is their business.
However we can't tolerate muslim perfidy anymore. We are willing to leave all of the Middle East alone - provided EVERY SINGLE Muslim is expelled from our lands.
No muslims in the US, Canada and Europe. Not one.
That's a deal many of us would easily buy.

Neil, your idea amazes me.

When we are moving toward globalisation in all spheres of life, you talk of isolating a whole community for the fault of a small section disgruntled against the west.

I think it is high time you started cultivating some relativism which will broaden your mental horizon and perspectives. When you refer to fundamentalism in the name of Islam, you forget how rabid and intolerant Christian radicals can be. The situation in Europe and some parts of the US is such that even relatively educated young men and women confuse beards and turbans with Bin Laden. Any way of life that is contrary or different to theirs is considered heretical even now.

And lastly, even after the prophecies of Sam Huntington and the unfolding global events where many ordinary peace loving Muslims are getting castigated, their religion is confused with terrorism, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the US.

Guha,

Be amazed then.
Stop spreading BS like islam is the fastest spreading ...balh blah.
You may be a muslim and may be proud of it. More and more people in the US despise this vileness - which seeks to impose itself across the globe.
Disgruntled against the West you say ? You need to take out your head from the dark crevice it is in. Why are the islamists killing train passengers in India then? India is not the West!!
Last I checked they blew up 300+ innocent commuters and injured a 1000. From your name you sound like an Indian - but maybe you are an islamic convert or a Paki pretending to be Indian.
There are only 2 ways of dealing with islamic fundamentalism:
1) Wage a war of anhilation against muslim countries starting with Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Syria.

OR

2) Ban all travel to and from ALL muslim countries to the West and expel ALL fundamentalist muslims from the West.In other words quarantine the cancer.

The 2nd option is far more humane and will not result in the millions of deaths the first option will result in.
Frankly I don't think Islamic people can ever become democratic or tolerant - since that would be in direct conflict with their faith, the precepts of the Khilafat and Dar-ul-Islam.

Neil, For your kind information, I am not a Muslim, but I belong to India which houses the second largets Muslim population in the world.

Despite the train blasts and other terrorist activities within India, we do not blame Islam for that. We have had Hindu and Sikh religious fundamentalists in the past who have wrecked havoc on members of other communities.

I dont know where you belong to, but i guess you are from some English speaking country. It is high time you and realised that the all the nations in the world are gradually, but surely, becoming more multi-cultural and it is imperative that a certain amount of socio-religious relativism sets in the psyche of the citizens.

And if you feel that you need to quarantine Muslims, you have certainly gone bonkers. You represent the mindset that has not been able to understand the non-Christian world and culture.

Mr. Guha;

Being a Hindu you ought to know Your ancesters were Dhimmis' during several hundred years of Muslim invasions and rule. Exept for who was not really Muslim because he didn't follow Islam every other Muslim ruler destroyed Hindu temples, raped Hindu women, converted Hindus by force,made them pay double taxes under their rule. No Muslim condemns those Muslims who commited those crimes. Infact they are their heroes i.e. Mohammad of Gazni, Mohammad Gouri, Baber, Aurangazeb are their heroes.

Hindus in India are still acting like dhimmis. They still fear Muslims in India and send them to Mecca by paying their air fair. You seem to be one of the Dhimmis. Wake up, fear not. Islam is not a religion, Mohammad is not a prophet, Allah is not a God. Muslims and non Muslims can/t live together in peace. So separation is necessary and sufficient. They will be living in their own countries wihout any interference from ourtside, We will live in ours. Dr. Ambedkar did say Muslims and non Muslims can,t live together. He was a greater man than Gandhiji and Panditji.

Mr. Ram,

You are grossly misinformed about the taxation part. Muslim rulers could force Muslim subjects to go to war and fight for the kingdom, but he could not force non-Muslims to fight. Instead, they could pay taxes and money collected was spent for the war.

Your knowledge of history is myopic and blinkered. You should read how during the Caliphate, non-Muslims were offered protection in Europe. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Christian rulers.

And reading you, I am sure you consider jihad to be a Muslim pathology. Ever thought why Lord Krishna exhorted Kshatriyas in the Gita to fight for dharma since death on the battlefield for defending dharma would be considered the greatest of sacrifices?

I am sure you are mixing with the wrong kind of Muslims, who are in a minority and believe in conversion or extinction of all non-Muslims. You can find Hindus too, including yourself who feel likewise about Muslims.

Allah is how God is referred to by Muslims and since you dont believe in the existence of Allah, it is safe to conclude you are an agnostic under the payroll of Hindu fundamentalists for taking potshots at Indian Muslims.

If you read the Advaita Vedanta, you will know about the non-duality of God, which from the perspective of Islam will appear natural to you.

I have talked to Dalit families in Karachi, who would never ever settle in India because most Hindu temples are off limits for them. In Pakistan, they do not face any discrimination and are not segregated on the basis of caste. So much for your veneration of Ambedhkar.

Susenjit Guha;

I don't know whether you are hindu or a muslim. You apparently don't believe in truth. Did you biogrphy Mohmmad? If you did you would hahe known right after winning war agaginst meccans

Mohammad commanded his muslim army
1) to invade other lands, loot, ask the people to covert to Islam.
a) if they agree to convert don't harm them
b) if they didn't agree to convert ask them to pay double taxes and live under muslim rule in a separate locality. If they agree then let them live
c) if they don't agree to a) and b), wage war and kill them
That is follwed by Bin kasim, Gazni Mohammad, Gouri Mohammad, Aurangazeb and most of muslim rulers except Akber.
Akbar abolishes double taxation and treated all people the same. For that some muslims declared war on him. He crushed them. He was not following mohammad.

Muslims lived on the labor of other people. They never worked. Their work was war and lived on the booty. After they were no longer able to conquer other lands, they became weak and conquered by others. But they never said they did any thing wrong. They want to go back to old methods again.

I am not against muslim people. I have muslim friends. they are very good. Most muslims who live indian subcontinent are decendents of forced converts. Their memory starts with date they got converted to Islam. Islam erazed their memory of hindu past. They oppose rama temple without realising their ancesters worshipped ther.

Lord Krishna in Mahabharatha war did every thing to settle the disputes between pandavas and kauravas. He asked last time kauravas for only five villages for pandavas. Kauravas refused and said not a needle point of land will be given. So krishna urged arguna to fight. How can you compare that to Islam. Islam wages war for the purpose of loot and conversion.

Islam doesn't believe in democracy. they believe uran is the word of allah and mohammad is allah's messenger. Whatever quran says true muslims will follow. Bin laden is a true muslim. The rest will not oppose bin laden. they can't because bin laden is following quran and most muslims believe it is the word of Allah.

There is no choice as long as muslims believe quran is the word of Allah and muhammad is his messenger for non mulims live in peace with muslims. In every muslim country non muslims are leaving. They don't have equal rights. a month are two ago I read in samachar that "in karachi a lone hindu family was living with muslims. one day their only two daughters were kidnapped, converted to islam by force and the parents were told, theit daughters don't want to come home."

In Bangladesh I read a few days ago " kali temple is going to be relocated from center of Dhaka. The name of the city was derived from kali."

There no freedom in Islam. If a muslim wants to leave Islam, that muslim will be killed as commanded by mohammad and quran. That is how violent islam is. Why would any one wants to be a muslim unless he/she is brain washed.

Hindu religion is not good either. But constitution of india treats all castes the same. It promotes by giving reservations to people of lower castes. It is written by upper caste hindus. No hindu can proclaim that other castes are inferior any more for fear of punishment by law. Hidu religion is not a dogma like islam. Each one is free to worship or not worship, change religion, become an athiest. No hindu holy book says to invade, kill, convert or pay double taxes. As time goes on it is overcoming it's defects. Islam can't change as quran is good for all time.

There were 10 to 15 percent muslims in pakistan in preindependence days. now ther only a small number. most of them were expelled, their properties were confiscated. Likewise in Bangladesh all people who had any property were expelled. Only laborers ramained. They are being persecuted even today. In india there are more muslims than in 1947. Their percentage increased not decreased.

I agree with Dr. Ambedkar who chose buddhism and said muslim and non muslims can't live together in peace. So separation is better for all concerned.

Iqbal wrote there are only two lands.
1) the land of islam where muslims rule
2) the house of war where non muslims live. It is the duty of muslims to wage war to convert non muslims.

Therfore iqbal wanted a separate country for muslims. It is clear that pakistan was created out of hatred. Hindus were not smart and wanted secular country, not understanding the nature of islam. Maulana azad convinced Gandhiji and panditji that Islam doesn't teach violence. He was not telling it like it is.

Susanjit Guha,

If you think I have gone bonkers, wait a couple of years and see how muslims are disallowed from travelling to the West. Period.
See how fundamentalist muslims are stripped of their "citizenships of convenience" and sent back to the land of their forefathers - where they can live under Sharia , stone adulterers to death, wear the burkah, grow beards and stop girls from getting an education - to their heart's content.
The multi-cultural bug which bit us in the West and led to the "PC" sickness will be cured by the Jihadi's.
The law of unintended consequences is very strange - but in this case the outcome will be pleasing.

This thread is going off topic but
I do see that Neil Garret viewpoint shows an important issue.
And it should not be dismmissed lightly.
Look at what happened in UK.
The Bradford Riots were dubbed Asian Riots.
In reality it was Pakistani Muslim actors.
Asian in UK lumps all those of indian, pakistani, bangladeshi, nepali, srilankan
descent.
If you want to probe it deeper it was pakistani punjabi and mirpuri muslims in particular who did most of the rioting and still do most of that kind of nonsense.
And please dont forget 7-7
With this history should UK allow easier immigration from muslim dominated countries....
The same thing is played in US but these folks who came to US came with the terrorist activities preplanned.
They were from saudi arabia, yemen in case of 9-11. There were egyptians pakistanis involved in 1st worldtrade center attack in
93.
US would be secure if it stopped immigration from such sources.
UK's muslims are another case alltogether.
Those perverts took the benifit of multiculti and state assitance for religion
and still turned against their adopted homeland....
The terrorist hubs of the world are Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and UK.
Most terrorists connection can be traced to these places in 1 degree.

Horse Nebula filters the MINDS
HOW TO RESOLVE COFLICTS ?
THREE TIER CONFLICTS ARE MORE EVIDENT TODAY OVER THE CONTINENTS. HOW TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS IN MINDS?
SEARCH ALL AVENUES for PEACE
1. Cosmology World Peace
2. Neutral Governance
3. Dharma
Vidyardhi Nanduri
Google search:Cosmology Vedas

I hope we're not forgetting, after reading various comments, that Muslims are just reacting naturally to oppression and colonial/gangster occupation and rule.

1 million Iraqis killed to remove one "former friend" from power during sanctions (UN figure)

More killed in this war (30 to 100 thousand)

5 million Muslims killed by Europe in the beginning of this century (Lecture by Prof. at George Washington University)

Hundreds of thousands killed by Hindus in Kashmir and rest of india. Young Muslim girls and Grandmothers raped and having their privates sliced apart.

And lets not forget the jews...we all know how they cry after commiting violence.

Still I don't blame the religions of all these people including my own ISLAM. Its the people that drive that religion. For example the constitution of US is not all that bad. But, if you got the wrong player moving the levers the country and historical core of that country take the hit!

Terrorists are not born. THey are created from injustice and oppression. That is in the case of Muslims. Also, remember; One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Well i think that if the terrorism of the individual is horrible,the terrorism of a country is an ANOMOLY.USA which claims democracy has nothing to relate to it except its name.They killed over one MILLION innocent Iraqi muslims with the majority of children and women claiming killing them for fighting terrorism!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes there are terrorists who kill in the name of islam but those are paid and helped by the US and its alliance to create the ghoul picture of Islam.

If US wants to bring democracy by air missiles and cruise warheads and nukes to the muslim children because thier fault was that they were not born American,if that is so then keep your faked democracy far beyond the oceans into your borders.

USA claims fighting terrorism and fighting W.O.M.D threats,but who is the first country to drop nukes on innocent citizens like they were an ants or some kind of filthy insects except this country US????(like Hiroshima and Nagazaki)

If US and its allies invaded the Islamic world and killed children and women and raped in a barbarious filthy non-human way young girls of just 13 and 14 years old and nuke muslims and erase islam and Quran then they are liberators and must be welcomed with flowers,but if a man whose daughter bieng raped and his children bieng killed threw a rock on a tank or carried a knife in front of a stealth fighter then he is a terrorist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Those heroes who you call them terrorists are defending Islam and fight for their faith and lands,they are doing every possible effort to achive liberity from the brutual barbarious Multi-nationality armies in the Islamic world.I cant deny that there are real terrorists who kill for their own purposes and claim doing it for Islam.I can blow a student bus and catch a bible and appear in a video tape and claim that bible ordered me to do so but we all know that bible doesnt ordered his followers of doing such crimes for the name of god and that goes for Islam and Quran too.There is no single word in the whole Quran that ordered us to kill and slaughter non-muslims just because they are not muslims.This a dangerous idea that almost 95% of people in west thought of.Remember: Terrorism has NO RELEGION at all.

You want the world to be safe??? then start disarming yourselves from your barbarious brutual weapons to let the rest of the world feel safe and start doing the same step.But increasing your war machine ability every day and then order the rest of the world to disarm from his military power then you are opening the doors of Hell on yourselves.We muslims didnt cross the oceans with our carriers and slodiers and Marines and nukes and Submarines and tanks and laser weapons and invaded illegally a country with nothing to threat us with as USA did in Iraq.

You as an American or Western imagine that Russia invaded your country for example,will you call yourself a terrorist if you through a rock or even bombed yourself in a slodier who killed and raped your wife and children?? no you will call yourself a hero.So please dont continue throwing charges on GREAT ISLAM just like that without checking and searching for the truth by yourselves.Also do not belive all what you see in the media....Dont belive when they pay for an actor to appear with Quran in his hands and claims killing innocents for Islam and i swear that those who arranged the scene for this betrayer are the one's responsible for killing those innocents.

Thanks for Attention.

Muhammad.