Islamic violent Extremism or Violent Extremism

During President Trump's recent visit to Saudi Arabia, the custodian of the Two Holy Sites in Makkah and Medinah made the royal announcement about something that the Muslim world has been led to believe caused by its faith. The Kingdom would set up a Global Center to combat Violent Extremism in Riyadh. The leadership of the entire Muslim world with the exception of Iran and its allies was present to take the message home that Saudi Arabia would lead the war against terrorism and extremism that President Trump called Islamist terrorism, Islamic terror, Islamic terror, and radical Muslim terrorism. President Trump contradicted himself during the speech when he said that terror has no religion and terrorists do not represent any faith. If terror has no religion that why categorize it as Islamic terror? 

Under Saudi Arabia's leadership, the Muslim world leaders, including Muslim-American organizations and leaders now would line up to combat violent extremism. Ironically, these are the leaders who for the last few years have been against Muslim participation in any federally funded program to combat violent extremism.

Violent extremism is a reality that cannot be denied, but it is not exclusively related to Muslim. It is a menace that is found in all religious communities. What is being witnessed in India in the name of cow protection is nothing but violent extremism, what is being done to Palestinians by Israeli in the name of national security is violent extremism, what is being pursued by several evangelical groups in the world clearly promotes violent extremism and what is perpetuated by Burmese Buddhist monks is nothing by plain violent extremism. But the Muslim American leadership failed to articulate its objections properly and played into the hands of those who never wanted Muslims to make use their tax dollars to serve their own interests. They fought among themselves and called those who wanted money to fight violent extremism lackeys and sell out. Their internal squabbling denied Muslim an opportunity to work with the rest of the country on the issue of violent extremism with the intention of removing the notion that as long as the US targets one religion, it would never inspire people to fight against the menace.

But now the situation is different. Saudi Arabia would lead the fight against religious extremism and the Muslim world, including the majority of the Muslim leadership in the US, would follow the Monarch.

Funds would flow from Saudi Arabia for this purpose in different parts of the world, including the US and the Trump Administration and the Monarch would determine who to classify as the terrorists and who to declare an enemy of humanity. Anyone who would not toe the Saudi way of thinking and Trump-style of administration would find himself and herself in the list of new terrorists. 

Muslim American leadership lacks the courage to question the Saudi-Trump vision of the new world in the offing. A world where  Saudis leadership would decide and determine the new face of Islam and implement it under the supervision of the Trump Administration. This vision would divide the Muslim world between Sunnis and Shias and within the Sunnis, between those who follow the Salafi version of Islam and non-Salafi versions. The Muslim world may be, into the bloodiest struggle of its existence and in the name of fighting terrorism new terrorism would be created with the approval of Saudi Monarchy and Trump.

Muslim religious leaders would be asked to seek God's blessings for the monarchy and religious decrees would be issued to declare anyone objecting to that as the kafir consigned to hellfire in this world as well as new the new world. Once again the Trump-inspired intellectuals would help the Muslim world rewrite their religion and redefine their priorities as the Reagan Administration had done in Afghanistan, wherewith the help of Muslim lives and resources, the US intellectuals defined what Jihad was and how should Muslims conduct their jihad.

All this is happening because the religious and secular leadership of Muslims in the USA and elsewhere has lost its capacity to analyze and read the events. It is still divided into sectarian, ideological, fictional, cultural, ethnic, and political linguistic camps. It is still indulging in discussions that have no relevance to what is happening in the world.

Like the Muslim world, most Muslim organizations in the US and the world are run by oligarchies who are promoting an archaic view of Islam that leaves little room for independent and critical thinking. It's a leadership that believes that the answers to all questions and challenges the Muslim Ummah has been facing were already given by preceding scholars. It's a leadership that follows despotic tendencies in its own affairs and refuses to acknowledge the changes that have taken place in the world and it's a leadership that still refuses to come on the platform to challenge the existing version of extremism and terrorism.

There were representatives from 50 countries present at the summit that Trump addressed. Not one had the courage to stand up and say that he differs from the definition of terror given by Trump and the King. Not one stood up to challenge Trump that there is no such thing called Islamic terrorism. The Muslim world leadership is no different than the Muslim American leadership because both have failed to challenge the dominant definition of terrorism, one through submission and the other through isolation.

Halala: A Practice invented by Sexual Perverts

The question was direct. “Do you know anyone who can perform halala?” Shocked as I was, I once again asked him to repeat the question. His words did not change. So you want me to play a pimp? I asked him. “What”, he questioned.

Yes, you heard me right? “You want me to play a pimp in the name of God and find a man who can sleep with the women divorced by her husband so that she could be divorced again to sleep with her original husband in a divinely sanctioned manner?”

“You want her to act as a prostitute for one night and expect her husband to wait for the morning when the new husband after sleeping with her would divorce her so that he could sleep with her again. And you think this is what would please God, almighty who calls him the just God.”

This is what we are told by our scholars here in America and in our back home countries.

“So you are telling me that God directs a woman to sleep with another man because her husband made a mistake by pronouncing divorce three times either in one sitting or in three separate occasions.” Probably, He might have given a wrong message in the Quran when he told the believers that no one would carry the burden of the other. I further explained. Why she should be humiliated in the name of faith for the wrongs of her husband/ It is neither logical nor rational nor human. 

This is not an imaginary discussion. This is what many people have discussed with me over the years and this is what I hear from many Muslim clerics who describe scores of incidents where they helped the distraught husband reunite with his wife after they did a favor in the name of God by sleeping with the divorced wife or arranged someone else in their circle to do the job for the sake of living up to the standards of the faith.

How religious and dedicated these holy men are to God who would not mind sleeping with the wife of someone else who wrongfully uttered the most dreaded words in the Muslim family system and how caring they are to divest their holy energy in keeping the spirit of the faith alive?

Even though the Prophet described those who perform halala and enforce it the worst of human beings, yet the practice is performed in the name of God by those who claim to follow the Quran and the messenger who introduced them to the Quran.

It is an inhumane practice and has nothing to do with divine guidance. It is barbaric and rooted in ideas that treat women as nothing but an object of sexual pleasure. The persistence of this practice in Muslim society speaks of the corruption that is prevalent in religious circles.

Halala is non-Islamic and it should never be associated with divine guidance because it is the antithesis of human decency and divine grace.

The Quran does not prescribe it and the Prophet opposed it very strongly. The Quran explains a few untoward situations in family relations in Surah Baqara, (chapter two verse 229 and 230). It says that when the dissolution of marriage takes place for the first time, the parties could make it final or resume marital relationship. If the marital relationship is resumed and dissolution takes place once again, then also the parties can finalize the dissolution or resume marital ties. However, if marital ties are resumed and dissolution takes place for the third time, then remarriage is not permissible.

However, there is an exception. If the woman married someone else and the marriage was dissolved following the rules of divorce, then the previous husband may approach his previous wife to remarry him, but it would be her decision to accept the proposal or not to accept it because a marriage is not considered valid without the consent of the two especially the wife.

Where does the Quran say that a one night stand has to be arranged to have wife go through the ordeal of sleeping with another man so that she could re-join the previous husband who could not control his own anger? Where does the Quran say that a religious cleric has to be involved in the process working as a pimp?

This practice is rooted in the concept of divorce that gives men the arbitrary power to decide the fate of his wife with whom he shared the vows of staying for life and living with love and mercy. That concept is also un-Islamic, yet many Muslim clerics are refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of the Quran over their schools of thought who developed a juristic position based on their circumstances.

Let us hope that the evil practice is brought to an end in our lifetime, so that we may not be counted as an accomplice in this crime against God and His creation.

And She Lost because most thought that her place was not in the corridors of power as a ruler.

There is silence everywhere. Only the Trump supporters are jubilant. With raised fists and renewed energy all over their faces, they are celebrating. In Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and North Carolina, Hillary Clinton's supporters are stunned. How did it happen, they ask, yet they all fail to speak the most visible and plausible reason.
Not enough of them came out to vote. In all these battleground states, as well as in Wisconsin and Michigan, there were enough Democrats to give Clinton a resounding victory. But they did not come out to vote. While the Trump strategy was simple. Increase your voters in counties, Republicans always win.
The Trump base was excited.
Muslims, non-White immigrants, Latinos, Syrian refugees, Jewish influence, African American prominence in the country that has over 70 percent white Christian population were some of the targeted communities in Trump electoral strategy that he played well and created fear among his constituents that if he is not elected they would lose whiteness, Christianity and all that the country has stood for centuries.
People believed him. He questioned the legitimacy of Clinton in serving the nation and the people accepted his logic and when the FBI director reopened the investigation into her emails 11 days before the election, their condemnation of her character even grew stronger.
But all this could have been overcome if the traditional vote bank of the Democratic Party had come out in large numbers.
The African American vote shrank and their enthusiasm for Clinton did not match their zeal for Obama in 2008 and 2012.
Latinos registered in large numbers, but they were split between a religious dictate that many of their churches issued against Clinton and their own conscience that wanted them to reject someone who had questioned their legitimacy in the country.
Muslims were not as active as the seriousness of the election had demanded. Only in Nevada, they actively worked to ensure that they bring out the maximum number of their voters to the polling booth to ensure that Democrats secure a strong victory and they succeeded in that.
In Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania they were dormant. A large number of them did not vote as in their view voting was not permitted in Islam. Then a substantial number of them refrained from voting Clinton because she was a woman and then a good number of Muslims were too indifferent to the challenges that the country was grappling with.
Jewish voters were more concerned about the candidate's commitment to Israel policy and many of them were angry at the Iran deal that was one of the issues Trump exploited to the fullest. Their votes for Hillary were not as solid as they were in the past.
Women and yes, women in general were not convinced that someone from their gender could ever lead a nation. Some 54 percent of them belonging to evangelical churches accepted their pastor's advice to not vote Clinton because women are not meant to rule a nation.
And white male voters were angry because their jobs were shifted to abroad. A few of them bothered to question the Republican leadership for allowing this to happen. They blamed a black president and his cronies for that.
All this resulted in one thing and only one thing.
A woman was prevented from becoming the head of the world's most powerful nation. It could have been the most earth-shaking moment in world history. It could have settled the debate about women's qualities as commander in chief in a man's world forever. It could have proven once for all that women can no longer live as a second class citizen in their own country or religion.
It is this set back that the nation would not be able to recover for long.  Parties win and lose. Policies come and go. Leaders fail or succeed, but nothing was more important than to ultimately demolish the myth that women are not meant to lead nations. It was time to prove that the world was no longer in an outdated idea that the creation of God suppressed for centuries and reduced to the role of a glorified domestic servant would not be able to govern a nation and uplift it.
 I am not concerned about the wall, or Obamacare, Muslim ban or Nafta treaty or mass deportation because Trump and the Republicans know it well that they would plunge the country into a crisis from which the recovery would be impossible if they tried to pursue what was promised in the elections. I am confident that the majority of the country would stand against these policies, but what the majority of the country is not willing to elect at the moment is the election of a woman as head of the most powerful nation of the world.

The relationship between African Americans and Muslim Immigrants

Dr. Aslam Abdullah
If one wants to describe the nature of the relationship between Muslim American immigrants and African American Muslims one can use two words, "uneasy and insecure.
Regardless of the hugs, or the praise they offer to each other or the work they share, the fact is that socially, culturally, and politically as well as financially they behave as two distinct entities where race predominantly plays an important role. Even among immigrants from Africa, the socio-economic and political relations are determined differently.
If anyone wants to have a quick understanding of the nature of the relationship between the two communities, one may ask the following questions from the members of the two communities?
1. How many Muslim immigrant families have allowed their sons or daughters to have matrimonial relations with African American Muslims? Of course, there are some examples, but when you look into the details you find that some were solemnized for the purpose of getting green cards.
2. How many Muslims have opened their business in predominantly African American communities? Of course, many, but most of these are liquor and smoke stores.
3. How many African American leaders are invited to give Friday sermons on a regular basis in an immigrant dominated community? Not many.
4. How many African American Muslims in proportion to their population represent Muslims through organizations such as CAIR, MPAC, ISNA or ICNA or ITNA or MAS. You can point out to a few, but compared to their total number their participation is insignificant in immigrant dominated organizations. The same can be true about African American organizations. How many immigrants you would find in an African American dominated Masjid.
5. How many African Americans you find in the big conventions organized by major Muslim organization when you compare their participation with their population. There are only a few.
6. How many immigrant controlled Islamic centers have any program to rehabilitate African Americans in their own communities. Of course, when some of them are in prison, they are showered with the Quran, caps, scarfs and prayer rugs beside demands from the authorities to serve them halal food. But once they come out of the prison, not many masajid (mosques) or Islamic centers are willing to offer them any real support.
7. How many groups that seek active conversion among African Americans are willing to go beyond initial conversion? 
8. How many African Americans-Muslims are willing to socially and culturally integrate with the general Muslim community by asserting their presence in their gatherings? Not many
The data on all these issues is anecdotal but sufficient enough to form some basic assumptions.
1. They have a token relationship and at almost non-existent at social, economic and political levels.
2. The two communities feel insecure in their relations with each other.
Immigrant Muslims
Immigrant Muslims, by and large, mostly in their private gatherings, do not relate and do not want to with African American Muslims beyond the masajid or through some relief work in their localities, etc. Even most relief organizations operated by immigrant Muslims created in the name of Islam are focused on Muslims abroad and not in the USA. They are more concerned about Muslims in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Palestine, but the African American Muslims, especially those who have been in incarceration. Not many fundraisers are organized to seek help for the local Muslim communities. Obviously, Islam does not discriminate people on the basis of their origin, but Muslim organizations through their choice of serving the foreign Muslims have given the impression that in their view the life and dignity, as well as the needs of African American Muslims, are of less importance than Muslims in Somalia, Palestine, Kashmir, Pakistan or Iraq. How much of the relief organizations' budget is spent on African American needs in the US, not much.
Immigrant Muslims by and large feel that that financial and social status should be the basis of relationship. African Americans belong to lower or poorer economic groups and are not as educated as many of them are, hence they cannot identify with them socially.
Many in the immigrant Muslim community also feel that African American Muslims, in general, lack a proper understanding the faith, hence they cannot be elevated to a position of religious leadership. The often criticize them for faulty pronunciation or non adherence to some of the rituals.
African Americans
African American Muslims consider immigrant inexperienced, often arrogant and insensitive to their history and culture. They think that immigrants are bending backward to become part of a society that was genocidal and barbaric to them. They feel that immigrants do not understand the politics and culture of the country. 
In order to prove their commitment to Islam, and their dedication to the Muslim community the African American Muslims adopt the cultural practices of the Muslim community they usually attend the prayers with. They would immediately start dressing a long dress imitating the Arab culture or shalwar Qamez (trouser and shirt) imitating the Pakistani culture and would equate with piety and sincerity. They would use the Arabic phrases regularly regardless of their relevance. They would occasionally repeat the ahadith in English they may have heard from those who helped them discover Islam. The first question after taking shahadah (an article of faith) that many African Americans ask is "where can I buy the long dress or thob" They would often compare the western society with an imaginary Islamic society where Muslims are dominant. They would often refer to the United States as a country that promoted slavery but would be reluctant to refer to Muslim slave owners in general.
Many African Americans believe that immigrant Muslims have compromised their faith and initiated innovations that were not sanctioned by the faith. Their religious perspective in analyzing Muslims is often influenced by the group that helped them come closer to Islam. In this respect, at one point in time, the Saudi religious teachers were at the forefront. So those African Americans who are influenced by Saudi religious teachers would react to immigrant Muslims in a different manner if they do not happen to be from their school of thought. Those who accepted Islam through MAS or Tablighi or any other group would pursue the official line of that group. Ironically, all of them would have so much apathy towards each other that they would refuse to join each other's religious gatherings.
In both communities, the insecurity has reached to a level where, any time there is a difference of opinions the African American Muslims, in general, would say "you immigrants do not understand America and Islam and immigrants would tell them, "you are biased towards America and you do not understand Islam fully.
The fact that none of the two communities have ever made any effort to develop open communications between the two on each others sensitivities. Their leaders take a sadistic pleasure in criticizing each other in their private gathering and then coming to the stage and talking about unity in an artificial manner that can be discerned easily.
African Americans make up to some 35 percent of Muslim population, but in masajid that number is visible only in areas where African American Muslims re dominated. South Asians are about 35 percent as well. Arabs are 17 percent and the rest are from other ethnic and cultural groups. It is apparent that when the two communities leadership is often seen together, it is more for cosmetic reasons than anything else.
Even among the younger generation, this issue has not been tackled appropriately. Look at the number of interracial marriage among the children of immigrants and African American Muslims and you found not much progress there. Look at the number of emerging Muslim leaders in the Muslim Students Association and you would not find much progress.
Obviously, this issue deserves to be given a priority by Muslim leaders if they really want to have a meaningful presence of Islam and Muslims in the US. If not , the uneasy and insecure relations may reach to a point where the two communities would  have such a wide gap that they would be considered to separate religious communities.

The Meaning of the Martyrdom of Imam Hussein  

Karbala, a town 100 miles away from Baghdad in modern-day Iraq is the killing fields where the grandson of the Prophet and his family was killed by the leader of the Ummayad dynasty and about 15 to 20 percent Muslims all over the world mourn his martyrdom. The incident took place some 61 years after the Hijra of Prophet Muhammad from Makkah to Medina.  They beat their chests, flagellate them, hurt them with swords and walk on burning fire to pay their tribute to him to mention a few of the actions.

But the grandson of the Prophet did not march to Karbala to inspire his followers to do that. He walked into the den of enemies to boldly declare that life is sacred, but there come moments in the life of individuals when the goals of life become more important than life itself.

The followers of Imam Hussain belittle his sacrifice by turning it into a tragedy. Imam Hussain knew that the army of 10,000 would crush him and his family. He knew that the Ummayads were not known to show mercy to those who had challenged them. He knew that if the rulers had no regard for human life they would brutalize anyone they considered their enemy. He knew his end before taking the heroic decision to challenge the despotic regime of Syria. It was not to challenge the Sunnis or to show support to the Shias. It was to stand for the principles of justice, freedom, and human dignity. It was to challenge the notion that Islam cannot be turned into a political dynasty. It was to stand for the equality of all before the divine law. It was for accountability and decency in public life.

The Ummayads had usurped the political power through force by playing Machiavelli politics. They had the resources to enlist the support of hundreds of people claiming to be scholars supporting their claim to power in the name of God and his messenger. They had turned the ahadith or the sayings of the Prophet into a political tool to justify each their political action. They had used the state treasury to win over people to their side by offering them money and in many cases, intimidating others who were not falling in line with them.

It was against this tyrannical rule, that Imam Hussain had challenged. 

The message of Karbala was to change the status quo, to challenge despotism and dictatorship and all those deviations that diminished the dignity of human beings.

It was not to inspire people to mourn and walk on burning fire in his memory. It was to stand for the neglected and the poor and political marginalized. It was not to curse but to win over the people to the cause of justice and dignity. His sacrifice was not to glorify Shia or Sunnis. It was to glorify the eternal divine emphasis on justice and freedom.

If Muslims really want to pay tribute to Imam Hussain, they should stand for the values he stood for. Let Aashoora be a day known as an International Day of Justice where Muslims, Shias, and Sunnis together make their stand against all forms of injustices known to the world, not a day of mourning. Because it is a day when Imam Hussein walked to the killing fields bravely knowing fully well his end with the determination to prove that there come moments when the goals of life become more important than life.

Hijra: An Event that changed the course of human history

by Dr, Aslam Abdullah

Madinah was still a city with non-Muslims in the majority. The total number of Muslims in Medina some 1437 years ago was not more than 75. Yet, at the command of God, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his companion Abdu Bakr (RTA) traveled to this city to implement the divine guidance for a better society.

Why did Allah choose Madinah to be the city to establish a society based on divine ideals? Why was this not done in Makkah, the city where the House of Allah was built by the patriarch of monotheism Ibrahim )PBUH). 

A simple answer that is often given by many is that the Prophet was persecuted in Makkah and the political climate there was not ripe to live Islam, hence the prophet moved to the city that was more open to his ideals.

Well, the messengers and prophets never turn their back upon people they are sent to and run away from persecution. They endure and stay their ground. So it was not the persecution that led the Prophet to Medinah. It was primarily to prove that divine guidance is not limited to a particular place or a particular town. It can be lived anywhere in the world regardless of the number of people who adhere to the message.

In fact, the migration demolished several practices and myths that the world had entertained for ages and has been entertaining even today. It demolished the false division between the house of peace (Darul Amn) and the house of war (Dar ul Harb). It demolished the division between the Land of Islam and the land of Kufr. It proved the idea that everything that exists was created by God and He is in control of everything. He is the owner of everything that is out there in our universe. It also proved the point that regardless of the number, the divine guidance needs to be shared with everyone.

Medinah promoted the idea of a plural society with respect to all.

What happened in Medina after the arrival of the Prophet was something unique and unheard of in the society that was divided into tribal lines. 

The prophet upon his arrival in Medina invited the major tribes to come together and sign a covenant to ensure the interests of all. The covenant also known as the constitution of Medina promoted the idea of common citizenship for the people living in Medinah, regardless of their ethnic or religious backgrounds. All were referred to as one umma or nation.

The prophet made the security of the people of Medinah a top priority and the signatories were asked to participate in the defense of the city as one people. Moreover, they were assured that if one of them is killed while defending the city, the entire population would take care of the family of the fallen slider. This is what one calls insurance in modern terminology.

The covenant also ensured that each religious community is given autonomy in dealing with its affairs according to its religious ideals and traditions. Each was guaranteed its religious family and personal law provided it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

The prophet also ensured that the rights of women and weaker sections of the society are secured. Additionally, he accepted the right to dissent with the covenant when four tribes of Awas refused to sign the treaty.

The process of formulating the covenant was lengthy, The tribes would discuss it among them and then all tribes would have discourse on its salient feature. It was democracy in action at the grassroots level.

So what are the lessons of hijra?

1. The distinction between Darul Islam and Darul Kufr is false. Every land belongs to the creator.

2. The divine guidance can be lived anywhere.

3, Muslims must not isolate them from the society they live in.

4, Muslims should get involved in societies they live in.

5. Muslims must ensure the safety and security of all citizens and should join the system to protect all.

7. Muslims should respect the personal and family laws of others.

8. Muslims must follow a system that secures the participation of each member of the society in the decision making process.

9. Muslims must not be entrapped by the false divisions people create on the basis of ethnicity and religion.

10. The monotheism means that humanity should be treated as one.

It was this society that was created by the Prophet and for this, he was asked to leave his birthplace that was also the center of monotheism and the place where the first house of God was built.

War is Ugly and would Destroy both India and Pakistan

by Dr. Aslam Abdullah

India and Pakistan are engaged in a war of words that in the view of many may turn into an actual war causing millions to suffer. If the countries go to war, they would destroy billions to hurt each other without achieving any purpose other than glorifying their pride. War never solves any problem, it exacerbates it. War is not in the interest of the warring nations. It only helps those who know how to turn human corpses into money. The taxpayers’ money is usually spent in importing arms and ammunition from weapon manufacturers, who do not care about human lives.

The war threats force the nations to spend more on war preparations. Every bullet that is fired to prepare the troops costs 22 cents and the arms industry produce 12 billion rounds of bullets every year, most of which is spent in preparing for wars.

It is in the interests of weapon manufacturers to ensure that wars continue perpetually, otherwise, their factories would be closed down and their source of livelihood would dry out. All they need to do is to buy a few politicians and generals, journalists, academicians and researchers in nations in conflict with each other to convince the power elites that war is in the best interest of their national security who would use every possible means to prepare public opinion for war. They would use religion, scriptures, God, nationalism and what not to promote the war.

Pakistan spends some 23 percent of its national spending on defense compared with 1.3 percent on health and 7.8 percent on education. India is no different in that. Imagine, if the two countries, instead of spending $60 billion on defense spend half of that amount on education and health, their dependence on IMF and world-leading banks would diminish.

It is proven that when nations spend more on health care and education, they achieve higher standards of living and development. When they spend more on defense, they live in perpetual fear and anxiety. Ironically, some of the countries that invest heavily on defense are classified as Muslim majority countries.

The two countries are not unique in spending their vital national resources on defense. Military spending is important to most nations, with each country spending to its own need and ability. But the need and ability are often determined by political circumstances. Canada spends 6.3 percent of its total yearly budget on military spending. The United States spends 19.3 percent of its budget on military expenses. Mexico uses 3.3 percent of its budget for military spending.  Nicaragua spends 3.2 percent of its yearly budget on military expenses. In Columbia, military spending is 11.9 percent of its annual budget. Argentina military spending is 5.9 percent of its yearly budget.

In Scandinavia and Europe, military spending is relatively low. Norway spends 4.8 percent of its budget on military spending, while its neighbor Sweden spends 4.3 percent of its budget on the military. In the U.K., military spending is 6.3 percent of the yearly expenditure. In Germany, military spending is 3.3 percent. In France, military spending is 5.4 percent of France’s yearly budget. Italy uses 4.5 percent of its annual budget for military spending. The annual military spending of Spain is 4.2 percent.

In the Middle East, the level of military spending is generally higher than in Europe. In the United Arab Emirates, military spending makes up 45.7 percent of the country’s annual budget. In Iran, military spending is 21.7 percent of its allocated budget. The military expenditure of Pakistan is 23.1 percent of all its yearly expenditures.  Morocco spends 13.6 percent of its annual budget on military expenditures. The military of South Africa is 4.8 percent of its budget. In India, military spending is 18.6 percent of its total spending. Thailand spends 7 percent of its money on its military. Indonesia sends 6.5 percent of its budget in the military. Australia spends 7.1 percent of its budget on its military. New Zealand military spending is 3.1 percent of the New Zealand yearly budget. In China, 18.2 percent of the annual budget is spent on military expenses. South Korea spends 12 percent of its total yearly expenditures on the military. In Japan, the military spending percentage is 6.4 percent of the country’s annual budget. Russia spends 18.7 percent of its annual budget on the military.

When it comes to health care Canada spends 17.9 percent of its total yearly budget on health care. The United States spends 19.3 percent of its budget on health care expenses. Mexico uses 11.8 percent of its budget for health care. Nicaragua spends 17 percent of its yearly budget on health care. In Columbia, health care spending is 17 percent of its annual budget. Argentina health care spending is 14.2 percent of its yearly budget. Norway spends 17.9 percent of its budget on health care spending, while its neighbor Sweden spends 13.8 percent of its budget on health care. In the U.K., health care spending is 16.3 percent of the yearly expenditure. In Germany, health care spending is 17.9 percent. In France, health care spending is 16.7 percent of France’s yearly budget. Italy uses 14.2 percent of its annual budget for health care spending. The annual health care spending of Spain is 15.5 percent. In the United Arab Emirates, health care spending makes up 8.7 percent of the country’s annual budget. In Iran, health care spending is 11.5 percent of its allocated budget. The health care expenditure of Pakistan is 1.3 percent of all its yearly expenditures. Morocco spends 4.8 percent of its annual budget on health care expenditures. The health care of South Africa is 9.1 percent of its budget. In India, health care spending is 3.4 percent of its total spending. Thailand spends 11.3 percent of its money on its health care. Indonesia sends 6.2 percent of its budget in the health care. Australia spends 17 percent of its budget on its health care New Zealand health care spending is 18.4 percent of the New Zealand yearly budget. In China, 9.9 percent of the annual budget is spent on health care expenses. South Korea spends 11.7 percent of its total yearly expenditures on health care. In Japan, health care spending percentage is 17.9 percent of the country’s annual budget. Russia spends 10.8 percent of its annual budget on health care.

When it comes to spending on education, Canada spends 12.7 percent of its total yearly budget on education. The United States spends 17.1 percent of its budget on education expenses. Mexico uses 24.3 percent of its budget on education spending. Nicaragua spends 15 percent of its yearly budget on education. In Columbia, education spending is 15.6 percent of its annual budget. Argentina education spending is 13.8 percent of its yearly budget. Norway spends 16.2 percent of its budget on education spending, while Sweden spends 12.8 percent of its budget on education. In the U.K., education spending is 11.5 percent of the yearly expenditure. In Germany, education spending is 9.5 percent. In France, education spending is 11.4 percent of France’s yearly budget. Italy uses 10.3 percent of its annual budget for education spending. The annual education spending of Spain is 11.3 percent of its budget. In Tthe United Arab Emirates, education spending makes up 22.5 percent of the country’s annual budget. In Iran, education spending is 17.7 percent of its allocated budget. The education expenditure of Pakistan is 7.8 percent of all its yearly expenditures.  Morocco spends 26.4 percent of its annual budget on education expenditures. The education of South Africa is 18.5 percent of its budget. In India, education spending is 12.7 percent of its total spending. Thailand spends on education. Australia spends 13.3 percent of its budget on education. New Zealand education spending is 15.1 percent of the New Zealand yearly budget. In China, 12.1 percent of the annual budget is spent on education expenses. South Korea spends 15.5 percent of its total yearly expenditures on education. In Japan, the education spending percentage is 10.5 percent of the country’s annual budget. Russia spends 11.5 percent of its annual budget on the education.
Obviously, the money that is being spent on defense from taxpayers pockets who have been convinced that their safety lies only in a strong military. India and Pakistan have created a situation where the power elites fume hatred against each other and ensure that from time to time the slogans of war are raised to frighten their people and earn more of their tax money to buy more weapons.

Look at the following data to understand the amount of money the two countries have spent on strengthening their defense. Imagine if they live in peace without fearing any intervention from each other, how much growth and development they can achieve in a short period of time. War can be initiated any time, but peace requires patience and sustained efforts of visionary leaders who can swallow their pride and ego and work for the welfare and well being of common people.

India’s military budget is $53 Billion. Pakistan’s military budget is $7 Billion  

India has 4.7 million troops. This includes active troops, reserved troops, and paramilitary forces. India’s total troops’ strength is 4th in the world and more than China and the USA

Pakistan has 1.4 million troops. This includes active troops, reserved troops, and paramilitary forces. They are 10th in the list of most number of military troops in the world.

India possesses a total of 2086 Aircraft which is 4th in the world. This includes Fighter Aircraft, Bomber Aircraft Attack Aircraft and many other types.

Pakistan possesses 923 aircraft and is 11th in the world. This includes Fighter Aircraft, Bomber Aircraft, Attack Aircraft and many other types.

India has total 6464 battle tank which is 4th in the world.

Pakistan has a total 2924 battle tank which is 10th in the world

India owns 5 Military Satellites in space Aircraft carriers and is one of the only 18 countries with at least 1 Military Satellite.

Pakistan does not have any Military Satellite.

The total number of Navy Ship India possess is 295. They are 7th in the world in terms of Navy Ship strength.

Total Number of Navy Ship Pakistan possess is 197. Pakistan is 11th in the world in terms of Navy Ship strength.

India owns 13 Sub Marine which is 8th highest in the world.

Whereas Pakistan owns 5 Sub Marines,16th highest in the world.

 India owns a total of 11 Destroyers and is 6th in the list.

Pakistan owns 1 Destroyer and is 19th in the list.

India has 2 nuclear submarines and is one of the only 6 countries who owns a nuclear submarine.

Pakistan does not have any nuclear submarine.

India and Pakistan both have 90-110 Nuclear weapons and are 6th in the world.
Obliviously, it is in the best interests of the weapon industry to ensure that the two countries keep on piling arms and ammunition on a regular basis. This would not be possible without raising the slogans of war. This is precisely what the power elites of India and Pakistan are doing. They have enlisted the services of religious leaders to their cause who are invoking the name of God to prepare masses to get ready for the blood bath of their enemies.