US to use "Modernist" Islam to divide Ummah

US to use “Modernist” Islam to divide Ummah
A strategy for the West to counter Islamic extremism by supporting Islamic moderates has been put forward in a report funded in part by a conservative American foundation.

It says that the West should help religious “modernists” in the Islamic world in order to prevent a “clash of civilisations.”

The report, called “Civil Democratic Islam: partners, resources and strategies”, was drawn up by the Rand Corporation with financial help from the Smith Richardson Foundation, a conservative trust fund which hands out more than $120 million a year to universities and other research organisations.

It is a sign perhaps that some American conservatives, many of whom want to press democratic reform in Muslim countries, realize that a focused approach is needed.

It is a contribution to a debate well under way in the West. The latest manifestation of this debate was a recent speech by the former Archbishop of Canterbury Dr George Carey, who wondered why Islam was “associated with violence throughout the world.” His conclusion is not dissimilar to that of this report.

The United States and its allies need to be more discriminating in the way they perceive and interact with groups who call themselves Islamic
Cheryl Benard, Rand Corp The recommendations have also come as the Bush administration is proposing to use the G8 summit in the American state of Georgia in June to push the issue of democratic and social reform in the Middle East. The summit will coincide with the handover of power in Iraq to an interim Iraqi government.

The Bush initiative has raised suspicions in Arab countries and among some of America’s European allies who do not want anything imposed from the outside.

**It says that Muslims disagree on what to do about this and identifies four essential positions in Muslim societies: Fundamentalists who “reject democratic values and contemporary Western culture.”

Traditionalists who “are suspicious of modernity, innovation and change.”

Modernists who “want the Islamic world to become part of global modernity.”

Secularists who “want the Islamic world to accept a division of religion and state.”

The report says that the modernists and secularists are closest to the West but are general in a weaker position than the other groups, lacking money, infrastructure and a public platform. **

It suggests a strategy of supporting the modernists first. This would be done by, for example, publishing and distributing their works at subsidised cost, encouraging them to write for mass audiences and for youth, getting their views into the Islamic curriculum and helping them in the new media world which is dominated by fundamentalist and traditionalists.

It goes onto the say that traditionalists should be supported against the fundamentalists by publicising the traditionalist criticism of extremism and by**" encouraging disagreements" between the two positions.** It says that “in such places as Central Asia, they (traditionalists) may need to be educated and trained in orthodox Islam to be able to stand their ground.”

A third strategy would be “to confront and oppose the fundamentalists” by, among other things, challenging their interpretation of Islam and revealing their links with illegal groups and activities.

Support for the secularists would be cautious and very selective, for example by encouraging “recognition of fundamentalism as a shared enemy.”

The Rand approach is more overtly political and has definite diplomatic gains in mind.

Rand strategy to Counter Islamic resurgance.

American think tank has decided to use some intellect and produced a strategy to counter islamic revival in the Muslim world, in particular they suggest in their plans to use the differences between the Muslims to their benefit is something all Muslims should be very wary of.

I dont believe any country should be held responsible for the division of another country's people. Sure they can support one side financially over the other, or use propaganda tactics to cause strife, but in the end, the people choose whether to accept or reject something like that. On the day of Judgement you cannot use the excuse of some foreign power affecting your ill deeds or getting out of touch with your religion, you have yourself to blame for that.

Others will always try to influence you, whether it be your family, neighbor, friend, government, that is a given. I think people need to learn to see through things and realize what is more important to them. Perhaps I am an idealist, I dont know.

I think muslims are bringing upon themselves destruction of islam sooner rather than later by their kill the kafit policy amongst themselves.

One only has to look at what happened to minorities in pakistan and other muslim states eg bangladesh, iran, afghanistan, egypt, beruit, sudan etc etc etc.

Not only that but whereever they are even in a minority they are making impossible to meet demands on the basis of their religion. When enough people are disturbed by their such silly actions the reaction has to be the end result.

Muslims are taught in their school that muslim are a brave people who can die for their religion whereas other people are cowards eg hindus in case of pakistan. We were not told that all humans get angry and react in a similar way when they are threaten with death or destruction.

To have peace between themselves people must learn to be friendly and that takes compromise on both sides of any divide. It is because people have fixed their religions and thereby have entrenched themselves in various intolerant positions that they have trapped themselves. This is why tolerant people cannot be blamed for intolerance of such relgious fanatics.

Muslims do not seem to be capable of understanding the position that if muslims must have indenpendence of everyone else everywhere to practice their beliefs, why the nonmuslims should not have exactly the same right where muslims are a majority?

If quran amd its followers can condemn infidels then why infidels cannot condemn the quran and its followers? Muslims are forcing everyone else to leave their ways of life so that islam could be practiced then the very same questions arise for muslims to answer. If faithlessness in god is condemnable by the faithfuls then faithfulness in god is also condemnable by the faithless. Thus clash of interests is obvious. The only people who could be blamed for intolerance are those who believe in god with out any proof whatsoever and force the same on others and obviouslt others are going to react.

As a result of this reaction muslims themselves suffer even more. The only way to break this cycle of intolerance and violence is that muslim too like others take their faith as personal so that contractors of Allah may become redundant. If they do not put their own house in order voluntarily, it would be put right by outsiders themselves. After all, how long and to what extende am I going to tolerant your intolerable behaviour towards me or vice versa? You cannot continue this or that excuse for too long. So I think chickens are coming home to roost.

My comments are in bold.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MMughal: *
I think muslims are bringing upon themselves destruction of islam sooner rather than later by their kill the kafit policy amongst themselves.

** Muslims cannot cause destruction of Islam, they can only destroy themselves, not the religion. You take a small minority of muslims and label it to 1.2 billion, that in my opinion is incorrect. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.**

One only has to look at what happened to minorities in pakistan and other muslim states eg bangladesh, iran, afghanistan, egypt, beruit, sudan etc etc etc.

Not only that but whereever they are even in a minority they are making impossible to meet demands on the basis of their religion. When enough people are disturbed by their such silly actions the reaction has to be the end result.

** What are their impossible demands? I find that muslims in America are doing just fine. Hate crimes against muslims are on a rise here, and for what reason? **

Muslims are taught in their school that muslim are a brave people who can die for their religion whereas other people are cowards eg hindus in case of pakistan. We were not told that all humans get angry and react in a similar way when they are threaten with death or destruction.

** I grew up in America, and I can tell you that I was taught the same thing about the people that built this country. A brave people, willing to die for their country. People came here willing to possibly die in the middle of the ocean because they wanted to practise their religion freely here...Muslims are not the only ones willing to die for their faiths. Let me not even go into what I was taught in my history class regarding people from other countries. It is ludicrous to think that education is never biased no matter what country you are in. **

To have peace between themselves people must learn to be friendly and that takes compromise on both sides of any divide. It is because people have fixed their religions and thereby have entrenched themselves in various intolerant positions that they have trapped themselves. This is why tolerant people cannot be blamed for intolerance of such relgious fanatics.

** You are assuming religions ask for people to be intolerant. You ask people not to use religion as a basis for their actions, then you yourself have decided to use religion as a basis for their shortcomings. sigh **

Muslims do not seem to be capable of understanding the position that if muslims must have indenpendence of everyone else everywhere to practice their beliefs, why the nonmuslims should not have exactly the same right where muslims are a majority?

** They are very capable of it. Majority of muslims live in peace. Just as the majority of people of other faiths. **

If quran amd its followers can condemn infidels then why infidels cannot condemn the quran and its followers? Muslims are forcing everyone else to leave their ways of life so that islam could be practiced then the very same questions arise for muslims to answer. If faithlessness in god is condemnable by the faithfuls then faithfulness in god is also condemnable by the faithless. Thus clash of interests is obvious. The only people who could be blamed for intolerance are those who believe in god with out any proof whatsoever and force the same on others and obviouslt others are going to react.

** I'd like to know how and where muslims are forcing everyone to leave their way of life. You cannot tell a muslim that he has no proof for his faith in Allah, just because he may see it and you dont, doesnt mean it isnt there. That goes for people of any belief. As far as I know, majority of muslims do not go around giving dawah, or forcing others to accept Islam. Christian missionaries are far more widespread than muslim ones. **

As a result of this reaction muslims themselves suffer even more. The only way to break this cycle of intolerance and violence is that muslim too like others take their faith as personal so that contractors of Allah may become redundant. If they do not put their own house in order voluntarily, it would be put right by outsiders themselves. After all, how long and to what extende am I going to tolerant your intolerable behaviour towards me or vice versa? You cannot continue this or that excuse for too long. So I think chickens are coming home to roost.

** Muslims are suffering not so much due to their actions, but due to their inactions. Because the majority of muslims prefer to live in peace and keep to themselves, they dont want to participate in quelling the violence of the minority of people that cause trouble. They talk about being an Ummah, but dont act like it. (myself included) Majority of muslims do take their religion as personal, which is why majority stay silent. Perhaps if they started practising Islam in the way its supposed to be practised, there would be a lot less violence by the minorities who take to the streets and cause strife. I dont want to get into a finger pointing match of which peoples or countries are intolerant. That would get me nowhere. Majority of world countries are not muslim, and need only to read to know what goes on there. There is such a focus on Islam in the west because it is the least understood faith here. Consider in what part of the world there is great animosity towards muslims and Islam. Food for thought. **
[/QUOTE]

No one is saying muslims are not to blame for there predicament. but we all know who support both militaily and financialy the puppet regimes who keep us down.

It is also clear countries like the USA have an agenda to control and dominate muslims lands for a number of reasons these include the natural resources, the threat of an islamic state and the threat of americas domination of the region.

This report from RAND organisation is clear in its intention to sow disunity even more amoung the muslim populations by supporting the secular amoung the muslims.

most of the actions suggested by the report r already being put in to practice....
'modernists' r already being highlighted while 'islamic scholars' r being put to defame by all means possible....
also non-muslim 'islamic claimers' like ahmadis and bahais r given full support by the american government in attempt to change the true meaning of Islam....

but Allah's words r the most true....
Quran 9:33
*He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse. *

Quran 10:82
*And Allah will vindicate the Truth by His words, however much the guilty be averse. *

Quran 9:32
*Fain would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah disdaineth (aught) save that He shall perfect His light, however much the disbelievers are averse. *

wb Saif.