Imran Khan is far worse than Nawaz Sharif
I hate Nawaz Sharif but I genuinely feel that Imran Khan would have been worse for Pakistan and that PTI would only have led Pakistan into further misery. If this seems strange to you then read on…
Every generation or so people get fed up of the dictatorial status quo in the Muslim world and a ‘reformer’ comes along. He seems fresh, free of the taint of the previous regime, arguing against corruption. He promises change and even uses some Islamic slogans. However the ‘reformer’ does not promise to implement Islam in its entirety and few push him too hard to do so. As the hopes of his people fall upon his shoulders he rides a wave of optimism to victory. However, his inevitable failure (because anything other than 100% Islam will always fail in the Muslim world as history proves beyond doubt) does far more damage to the work for lasting change than the old guard (of tyrants that the ‘reformer’ replaced) could ever manage. This is because his failure makes ordinary people feel they’ve entered a cheap struggle and lose hope in the possibility of change. They become cynical.
Often the ‘reformer’ turns out to be worse in some important way than the previous tyrant because his Western backers have a close link to him and it later transpires that he was installed by powerful nations to ensure he ‘managed’ the anger of the people and channelled the sincere effort so that it would never produce change or challenge Western interests. He is new to the role and requires more external support than the previous regime and finds it harder to push back against his masters.
While the examples vary in the details these principles apply throughout the Muslim world for the last few centuries. A ‘reformer’ comes along on a wave of hype to replace the old regime promising change, ends up even more oppressive/inept/corrupt than the guy he replaced and people lose hope. All of this has happened repeatedly from Gamal Abdul Nasser, Bassar al-Assad, Ayatollah Khomeini, Yasser Arafat etc. This also helps to partially explain how Obama won on a platform of change as people grew unhappy with the Bush Doctrine but is responsible for more deaths and drone attacks than Bush himself.
This should also explain why Imran Khan is such a waste of space and he would have been worse for Pakistan than Nawaz Sharif. Sharif is a donkey of course and no one should be happy that he is in charge but Imran Khan would have been far worse if history is any sort of guide.
And Allah SWT is the Source of all Strength

Imran Khan is far worse than Nawaz Sharif

I hate Nawaz Sharif but I genuinely feel that Imran Khan would have been worse for Pakistan and that PTI would only have led Pakistan into further misery. If this seems strange to you then read on…

Every generation or so people get fed up of the dictatorial status quo in the Muslim world and a ‘reformer’ comes along. He seems fresh, free of the taint of the previous regime, arguing against corruption. He promises change and even uses some Islamic slogans. However the ‘reformer’ does not promise to implement Islam in its entirety and few push him too hard to do so. As the hopes of his people fall upon his shoulders he rides a wave of optimism to victory. However, his inevitable failure (because anything other than 100% Islam will always fail in the Muslim world as history proves beyond doubt) does far more damage to the work for lasting change than the old guard (of tyrants that the ‘reformer’ replaced) could ever manage. This is because his failure makes ordinary people feel they’ve entered a cheap struggle and lose hope in the possibility of change. They become cynical.

Often the ‘reformer’ turns out to be worse in some important way than the previous tyrant because his Western backers have a close link to him and it later transpires that he was installed by powerful nations to ensure he ‘managed’ the anger of the people and channelled the sincere effort so that it would never produce change or challenge Western interests. He is new to the role and requires more external support than the previous regime and finds it harder to push back against his masters.

While the examples vary in the details these principles apply throughout the Muslim world for the last few centuries. A ‘reformer’ comes along on a wave of hype to replace the old regime promising change, ends up even more oppressive/inept/corrupt than the guy he replaced and people lose hope. All of this has happened repeatedly from Gamal Abdul Nasser, Bassar al-Assad, Ayatollah Khomeini, Yasser Arafat etc. This also helps to partially explain how Obama won on a platform of change as people grew unhappy with the Bush Doctrine but is responsible for more deaths and drone attacks than Bush himself.

This should also explain why Imran Khan is such a waste of space and he would have been worse for Pakistan than Nawaz Sharif. Sharif is a donkey of course and no one should be happy that he is in charge but Imran Khan would have been far worse if history is any sort of guide.

And Allah SWT is the Source of all Strength

The real internal threat to Pakistan is the US

Pakistan continues to be betrayed by Kayani and other traitors who serve the US plan to weaken it and combat Islam. The Americans are discussing an internal threat to Pakistan but aren’t they the real internal threat? 

What 'vigil aunty' says about Pakistan?

A strange news story last month got me thinking about Pakistan. A Pakistan TV personality, Maya Khan, gained notoriety for catching unmarried couples dating live at breakfast time. She was nick-named ‘vigil aunty’.

An online campaign began against her and she was later exposed for her hypocrisy since she was in no position to lecture anyone on morality. She was later forced into asking for forgiveness.

This whole episode tells us that even though Pakistan is a country with Islamic sentiments, there is a strong liberal voice in the country that will react publicly and in an organised manner to being lectured and told what to do. This is a lesson for those interested in how to save Pakistan and it means that efforts must be made not just to dominate public opinion on Islamic issues but to persuade these people that aping the West badly isn’t going to save Pakistan. The case for Islamic change in Pakistan can’t be on slogans and on emotion. It requires sophistication or we may witness a backlash far bigger than the one the vigil aunty got. 

US funds Sesame Street in Urdu?

This aid comes at a time when the US are so broke they have plans to suspend 800,000 federal employees due to budget cuts. David Cameron has also just pledged £650 million in aid for Pakistani schools. Why the interest in Pakistani children all of a sudden? Are Western nations being warm, fuzzy, kind and generous or is there an ulterior motive? Be serious.

http://bit.ly/gto0y4

Cameron offers £650m for education

British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has promised £650m in aid to fund 4 million school places, 90,000 teachers, and refurbish 8,000 schools, arguing that “education is the best antidote to terror”. However, he offered it to PAKISTAN!

He has the nerve to spend this kind of money on brainwashing children in another country like a filthy imperialist while his own people are facing savage cuts and demonstrating for their rights. Students are being charged fees that will burden them with debt if it doesn’t prevent them from having an education. Bombing Libya isn’t cheap either. People have lost their homes, jobs, benefits and public services while inflation has risen - http://bbc.in/grmQ7a.

This means ordinary people are hit in the pocket.

Capitalism is a system of selfishness. It doesn’t serve its people unless its by accident (invisible hand). This isn’t free money for Pakistan either and there are always strings attached. Is it worth taking this money? No. Will the dogs ruling Pakistan take it? Are you joking? I’m just surprised they didn’t bite Cameron’s hands off.

Imran Khan is far worse than Nawaz Sharif
I hate Nawaz Sharif but I genuinely feel that Imran Khan would have been worse for Pakistan and that PTI would only have led Pakistan into further misery. If this seems strange to you then read on…
Every generation or so people get fed up of the dictatorial status quo in the Muslim world and a ‘reformer’ comes along. He seems fresh, free of the taint of the previous regime, arguing against corruption. He promises change and even uses some Islamic slogans. However the ‘reformer’ does not promise to implement Islam in its entirety and few push him too hard to do so. As the hopes of his people fall upon his shoulders he rides a wave of optimism to victory. However, his inevitable failure (because anything other than 100% Islam will always fail in the Muslim world as history proves beyond doubt) does far more damage to the work for lasting change than the old guard (of tyrants that the ‘reformer’ replaced) could ever manage. This is because his failure makes ordinary people feel they’ve entered a cheap struggle and lose hope in the possibility of change. They become cynical.
Often the ‘reformer’ turns out to be worse in some important way than the previous tyrant because his Western backers have a close link to him and it later transpires that he was installed by powerful nations to ensure he ‘managed’ the anger of the people and channelled the sincere effort so that it would never produce change or challenge Western interests. He is new to the role and requires more external support than the previous regime and finds it harder to push back against his masters.
While the examples vary in the details these principles apply throughout the Muslim world for the last few centuries. A ‘reformer’ comes along on a wave of hype to replace the old regime promising change, ends up even more oppressive/inept/corrupt than the guy he replaced and people lose hope. All of this has happened repeatedly from Gamal Abdul Nasser, Bassar al-Assad, Ayatollah Khomeini, Yasser Arafat etc. This also helps to partially explain how Obama won on a platform of change as people grew unhappy with the Bush Doctrine but is responsible for more deaths and drone attacks than Bush himself.
This should also explain why Imran Khan is such a waste of space and he would have been worse for Pakistan than Nawaz Sharif. Sharif is a donkey of course and no one should be happy that he is in charge but Imran Khan would have been far worse if history is any sort of guide.
And Allah SWT is the Source of all Strength

Imran Khan is far worse than Nawaz Sharif

I hate Nawaz Sharif but I genuinely feel that Imran Khan would have been worse for Pakistan and that PTI would only have led Pakistan into further misery. If this seems strange to you then read on…

Every generation or so people get fed up of the dictatorial status quo in the Muslim world and a ‘reformer’ comes along. He seems fresh, free of the taint of the previous regime, arguing against corruption. He promises change and even uses some Islamic slogans. However the ‘reformer’ does not promise to implement Islam in its entirety and few push him too hard to do so. As the hopes of his people fall upon his shoulders he rides a wave of optimism to victory. However, his inevitable failure (because anything other than 100% Islam will always fail in the Muslim world as history proves beyond doubt) does far more damage to the work for lasting change than the old guard (of tyrants that the ‘reformer’ replaced) could ever manage. This is because his failure makes ordinary people feel they’ve entered a cheap struggle and lose hope in the possibility of change. They become cynical.

Often the ‘reformer’ turns out to be worse in some important way than the previous tyrant because his Western backers have a close link to him and it later transpires that he was installed by powerful nations to ensure he ‘managed’ the anger of the people and channelled the sincere effort so that it would never produce change or challenge Western interests. He is new to the role and requires more external support than the previous regime and finds it harder to push back against his masters.

While the examples vary in the details these principles apply throughout the Muslim world for the last few centuries. A ‘reformer’ comes along on a wave of hype to replace the old regime promising change, ends up even more oppressive/inept/corrupt than the guy he replaced and people lose hope. All of this has happened repeatedly from Gamal Abdul Nasser, Bassar al-Assad, Ayatollah Khomeini, Yasser Arafat etc. This also helps to partially explain how Obama won on a platform of change as people grew unhappy with the Bush Doctrine but is responsible for more deaths and drone attacks than Bush himself.

This should also explain why Imran Khan is such a waste of space and he would have been worse for Pakistan than Nawaz Sharif. Sharif is a donkey of course and no one should be happy that he is in charge but Imran Khan would have been far worse if history is any sort of guide.

And Allah SWT is the Source of all Strength

The real internal threat to Pakistan is the US

Pakistan continues to be betrayed by Kayani and other traitors who serve the US plan to weaken it and combat Islam. The Americans are discussing an internal threat to Pakistan but aren’t they the real internal threat? 

What 'vigil aunty' says about Pakistan?

A strange news story last month got me thinking about Pakistan. A Pakistan TV personality, Maya Khan, gained notoriety for catching unmarried couples dating live at breakfast time. She was nick-named ‘vigil aunty’.

An online campaign began against her and she was later exposed for her hypocrisy since she was in no position to lecture anyone on morality. She was later forced into asking for forgiveness.

This whole episode tells us that even though Pakistan is a country with Islamic sentiments, there is a strong liberal voice in the country that will react publicly and in an organised manner to being lectured and told what to do. This is a lesson for those interested in how to save Pakistan and it means that efforts must be made not just to dominate public opinion on Islamic issues but to persuade these people that aping the West badly isn’t going to save Pakistan. The case for Islamic change in Pakistan can’t be on slogans and on emotion. It requires sophistication or we may witness a backlash far bigger than the one the vigil aunty got. 

US funds Sesame Street in Urdu?

This aid comes at a time when the US are so broke they have plans to suspend 800,000 federal employees due to budget cuts. David Cameron has also just pledged £650 million in aid for Pakistani schools. Why the interest in Pakistani children all of a sudden? Are Western nations being warm, fuzzy, kind and generous or is there an ulterior motive? Be serious.

http://bit.ly/gto0y4

Cameron offers £650m for education

British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has promised £650m in aid to fund 4 million school places, 90,000 teachers, and refurbish 8,000 schools, arguing that “education is the best antidote to terror”. However, he offered it to PAKISTAN!

He has the nerve to spend this kind of money on brainwashing children in another country like a filthy imperialist while his own people are facing savage cuts and demonstrating for their rights. Students are being charged fees that will burden them with debt if it doesn’t prevent them from having an education. Bombing Libya isn’t cheap either. People have lost their homes, jobs, benefits and public services while inflation has risen - http://bbc.in/grmQ7a.

This means ordinary people are hit in the pocket.

Capitalism is a system of selfishness. It doesn’t serve its people unless its by accident (invisible hand). This isn’t free money for Pakistan either and there are always strings attached. Is it worth taking this money? No. Will the dogs ruling Pakistan take it? Are you joking? I’m just surprised they didn’t bite Cameron’s hands off.

About:

Because the way you view things determines everything...

- Islamic Angles
[On Twitter @IslamicAngles]

Following:

Follow @IslamicAngles