shiv wrote:
Technically, Islam per se cannot win any battle. People (armies) win battles.
Don't want to be nitpicking here, but...
It is not only people who win battles. Often important is the strategy they use to win battles. Islam and Islamic history does provide a corpus of military theory, which does serves as the foundation for a war strategy. So if 'people' can win battles using such a war strategy, then one can say at some level of abstraction, that it is a
victory for Islam. Besides Islam does function as an effective war cry, a tool for motivation of the foot-soldiers.
In any case, Muslims do not really pride themselves for being creative and open-minded thinkers. They declare openly that all knowledge is in Qu'ran, and one need not look elsewhere. This mentality provides all the more reason to credit any victory to Islam rather than to the people.
shiv wrote:Islam will lose battles just as readily as any other loser if you remember that what is required to lose a battle is military victory for the other side, not religious dominance.
It is not the case, that a war strategy based on Islamic history, etc. will necessary be better than the war strategy of the opposing group. So there is no guarantee, that Islam is a winning strategy. For a military victory, one needs resources, battle field intelligence, good tactics, etc., and has little to do with Islam.
But Islam is in a continuous war. Even in 'peacetime', there is recruitment, weapons procurement, foot soldiers are motivated, next battles are planned, society is manipulated using siege imagery, new training camps are established, new alliances forged, provocations are carried out to test waters, motivate followers, etc.
As Islam is always in a state of constant war, everything that occurs in society which prepares itself for further battles, including the reaffirmation of society to the creed of Islam is considered part of the preparation. As such all efforts to introduce Sharia in a country; all efforts to bring down a regime, which does not fit the prerequisites of a purely Islamic regime; all occurrences of conflict, strife and war-hysteria against a non-Muslim country; all improvements in the networking of various Islamic and Jihadist groups in the world; all efforts at infiltration into a non-Muslim country; all new converts to Islam; the steady increase in Muslim populations both in the Muslim world and in non-Muslim countries; all these are considered important aspects of war preparation, important stages in the World domination of Islam, Islam's ultimate declared goal. All this is considered victory of Islam.
I just wanted to stress, that victory can be defined in many different ways. Even the definition of military victory is prone to manipulative propaganda. Sometimes a short-term victory is simply the first phase of a long-term defeat, e.g. in Afghanistan for NATO troops.
shiv wrote:But what Islam does is to survive military defeats. In fact it thrives better in societies that see defeat and degradation. This is what Brihaspati was talking about when he was asking about the nature of Pakistani failure.
Islam survives military defeats, but usually when the opposing side, is not interested in conversions of the defeated populace from Islam to some other creed, either because it conflicts with one's own faith, or because it requires too much effort, or it is not considered of any strategic value. That has been the case almost always w.r.t. to Islam's opponents. The opposing side would have to be more
'Islamic' than the defeated Muslims.
For the defeated Muslims, Islam serves as a psychological crutch. This is the case, because Islamic groups make it a point to always be at hand when a society under siege. Gaza comes to mind. Kashmir (to some extent) also fits the criteria. People who are on their knees have special psychological needs, and Islam is to the rescue.
shiv wrote:A failing Pakistan is a victory for islamism. Military defeats do not matter. In fact the greater the misery and privation, the closer a society moves towards the model society of AD 700 Arabia that allows despots of one ideology to rule. Islam has not been able to show the wherewithal to survive modernity. So far. Hence the desperation to make society into a type that fits the mould from which Islam was created and where Islam worked best.
A failing Pakistan is a victory for Islamism, only if it is let to its own devices. Three things stop another actor, like India, to come and mold Pakistan into a modernity-compatible society.
- The military might that TSPA+Lashkars represent, including the nukes, and support from 3½ friends
- A single-minded ferocity in conversions to the Dharmic faiths
- Resources and Determination to undertake such a project
Islamism can win after the failing of Pakistan only if other actors allow the Islamic groups to thrive unimpeded. Brain-washed Muslim populations of Pakistan, if not converted, can again be won over by Islamist groups, even after their initial defeat. USA may have thrown the Taliban out of power, but USA did not do anything to change the landscape of the populace, which remained ever susceptible for reconquest by the Taliban.
In fact it will be a totally futile exercise by India to undertake something in Pakistan, unless the populations are not shown the way back into the Dharmic fold in parallel. Otherwise India would have invested huge amounts of treasure and blood, only to have the whole effort brought to a failure a few years down the road, when the Islamic groups resurface.
).
. And resitance is futile. 
