A Muslim Pope?

Ahmedzai #195,
Ahmedzai Sahib,
What a polite and effective rebuttal. You, sir, are a worthy and competent interactor, whether we are in agreement or not. I admire your ability to debate and your refusal to avoid embarassing questions. If I had a hat, I would tip it in your honor. This is Chowk at its finest. Now there are at least two solid people of intellect in Pakistan. My sincere apologies for any unwarranted emotion that I may have demonstrated. I can`t help it. I regret the tragedy of partition almost as much as any Jew detests the holocaust. I know it`s spilt milk, but it was the best and could have made the most delicious ras gulley. :(

Let`s continue. :)

Your bit: Some Hindus and Muslims were kicked out in response to Muslims being kicked out in India. Mass migration took place in both the directions.

My tidbit: Ahmadzai bhai, you make it sound like a wilderbeast migration in the African plains. Sir, many millions were butchered in the most horrible massacres that India has ever seen. Whether the mass killings and migrations were initiated by Hindus, Muslims, or Sikhs, the point is that they were directly caused by the partition. Not one of the selfish leaders of Congress or Muslim League had prepared the populace for what was coming. I mean drawing boundaries, creating doubts of ownership, citizenship, kinship, and every other kind of ship. What kind of senseless, heartless, selfish predators were these so-called politicians?

Your bit: I thought we all agreed that Pakistan was created by Indian Muslims. Also, we left Indian Muslims in the hands of secular leadership, didn`t we?

My 25 cents - I agree with what you said. These Indian Muslims, especially the nawabs of UP, Bihar, and CP (now MP) were afraid of losing their lands due to land reform pushed by Congress in Hindu majority provinces, but not in Muslim majority ones. Does it really make sense to discard the secular environment of undivided India, partition the country, sow hatred of Hindus among Muslims, and then depend on the injured leadership of India as an understanding, unbiased secular entity?

Your bits: (1) Bengali Muslims were already alienated. The word Bangla Desh was coined earlier in 1910s (perhaps 1916). (2) The founder of that nation was murdered with bullets for the corruption he unleashed on his new found country. (3) However, after all those killings and rapes, Bangla Deshies are closer to Pakistan than to their liberators India. The resistance against Indian hegemony started in the reign of most pro-Indian Bangladeshi leader i.e. Haseena Wajid when Bangla Deshi army fired on Indian army personnel and killed few of them. (4) I agree with you on why we left many Pakistanis stranded in EP.

My pleas: 1. If Bengali Muslims were already alienated then why agree to a Pakistan that depended so heavily on Bengali Muslim participation? Why create a Bengali majority Pakistan? Again, for someone who believed in democracy, as in one man one vote, Mr. Jinnah was wrong and deluded himself into creating an unstable Pakistan. 2. Mujibur Rahman got what he deserved - as did Bhutto, Indira, and Zia. Maybe there is a God ... 3. If Bangladeshis are closer to Pakistan today than India it may be because there are a thousand miles between the two former compadres. We all remember the most recent rash from yesterday and forget distant memories of major wounds from days gone by. 4. I am glad that you agree that stranding genuine Pakis in BD is a gross ethical, moral, and judicial violation of the worst degree. My question is not whether you agree or not, but when is Pakistan going to correct this injustice? When? 34 years have gone by and everybody agrees that something should be done, but nobody does it. Sure sounds like lame excuses on the part of Pakistan.

Your bits: (1) We only moan for giving Kashmiris their right to self-determination i.e. let Kashmiris speak. Kindly compare the statements coming out of the two sides. It is always ``right of self-determination for Kashmiris through a plebecite`` versus `` Kashmir is atoot ang (i.e. the land is referred here) of India``. (2) Kashmiris have been blown up by extremists and we all know that extremists are unwanted. Pakistanis have criticised them more than the Indians.

My points - 1. I understand your point about self-determination, even Mr. Nehru promised that. But a lot of time has gone by and many events have overtaken the original situation. Not even the US will back that resolution anymore. If Kashmiris vote for Pakistan, they would do so after a thoroughly Islamic campaign of ``Vote for union with Pakistan, unless you want to be a kaffir and go to hell.`` Now, is that any rationale for inviting people to join you in common citizenship. Look what we have in Pakistan today. Bengalis, among the most practicing Muslims in the world (if consumption of alcohol is a criterion ), could not live together with Punjabi Muslims that were a thousand miles away. Even in Pakistan today, the three provinces are sick of Punjabi hegemony. Muslims are killing Muslims for the flimsiest of excuses. BTW, Muradabad and several districts in western UP have solid Muslim majorities. Shouldn`t they be asked whether they want to join Pakistan? What makes the Kashmiris so special or so Islamic? Don`t forget that some areas of eastern Sind have solid Hindu majorities. Maybe they should be given the right to express their self-determination. 2. I am glad that Pakistanis are against extremists and terrorists. As in the case of the stranded Pakis in BD, may I ask, what is happening to stop this terrorism and when will it cease to be supported by the Paki government? We need commitment not positions, we need action not slogans. We need timetables not promises.

Posted with great admiration for a great participant :-)

Ahmedzi Sahib, my dear brother, the feeling is mutual. You are a polished and polite person and very intelligent in addition. I always look forward to discussing these important issues with you. Thanks,

#208, Behram1 {``Would you add an ailing Jinnah? As you are probably aware Jinnah knew that he had tuberculosis way back in 1946. ``}

Behram Brader-e-man,
Khaili khoob,
You are so right. Mr. Jinnah was dying from tuberculosis and his Hindu doctor knew about this and kept the information confidential. Had Congress known this, they may have had the brains to last it out. Too bad. :(

Re: # 210

Azzeezum Salim:

I thought that he was some Parsee doctor. But, I could be wrong.

Respectfully submitted,

#207 by behram1 P``Dear Salim:
Pakistan was an exemplary country right up till 1955. . And yet, you blame Jinnah for what happened after 1955. That is not fair. Yes, and the results of Pakistan were awesome considering what Pakistan had to start with.

Behram bhai,
I am not at all questioning the miraculous patriotism and tremendeous nation-building that took place right after partition. A lot of the credit needs to go to not only Mr. Jinnah, but great wise and honest leaders such as Mr. Nazimuddin, the Bengali Governor General of Pakistan. Even Mr. Jinnah could have made his mistake work had he lived longer. My point is that partition, post-parition mayhem, and today`s rivalry were all unnecessary. It`s like two brothers fighting and making things work separately just to prove that they can live without each other. I think it`s kind of stupid.

#211, You could be right. I am not all that sure. I just remember reading the dichotomy that the doctor who diagnosed his tuberculosis was a Hindu. Those Cravens got to the great man.

#205, Ahmadzai {``Pakistan is working with Turkey very closely on issues like Israel and China has effectively its first foreign naval base in Balochistan.``}

Ahmadzai Sahib,
Yes, Pakistan and Turkey are working together to diffuse the Middle East powderkeg. Turkey has been trying its best to counsel Iran. I think that Turkey wants a peaceful, stable, and prosperous area to its east as an alternative to EU membership. In the long term, Turkey will be better off by forging an economic alliance with Iran, Pakistan, India, Central Asian ``stan`` republics, and Israel.

#205, Ahmadzai

Ahmedzai Sahib,
Is this your first trip to Turkey or have you been in Turkey before? I hope you agree that we have the most beautiful mosques in the world. I just love Istanbul`s skyline at night when the major mosques on the hill are well lighted. Hosh Gildiniz, kardesh. :)

Re: # 212

Jaan-e-mun Salim Bhai:

Just because Hindoos and Muslims lived together for so long did not make them brothers. And that has been the fallacy all along. Hindoos have never accepted the Muslims or vice versa. Hence, we see two different nations as Jinnah so eloquently points out, and the validity of two-nation theory.

{My point is that partition, post-parition mayhem, and today`s rivalry were all unnecessary.} Yes, maybe. However, we see Pakistan mistreating its minorities (actually Pakistan is busy creating more minorities as we speak) and of course India mistreating its own minorities.

We rightfully rail against Pakistan and its treatment of minorities. But India, with its secular democracy has not been very kind towards its Muslim minority either.

{It`s like two brothers fighting and making things work separately just to prove that they can live without each other. I think it`s kind of stupid.} Nothing wrong if they learn to grow up, which I am afraid that they have not. And most probably they never will.

Respectfully submitted,

ahmadzai #204, {``manto and rsridhar: You suggested that Salim is Indian Muslim.
There are two types of Muslims found in the younger generation of India. Both of them have seen their parents suffer for living in India but trying to support Pakistan. ``}

Ahmadzai Bhai,
I am not an Indian Muslim. I am definitely a Paki in origin although of mixed parentage as I mentioned earlier. While you and Manto are very logical and rational about differing viewpoints, there are many Pakis who immediately characterize anyone with an opinion that is different than their ``normal`` perception as a heretic, an Indian, or worse. Note Mr. Faisaluno`s vicious personal attacks just on this board. Here is the typical Paki reaction to my independent viewpoints``

I have been known to be an ardent supporter of repartriation of Pakis stranded in BD - therefore I have been called a Bihari - not that I don`t like Lalloo, he is one of my favorite politicians. :)

I have been known to consider the Indian point of view of democracy and secularism - therefore I must be an Indian and because my name is Salim, I must be an Indian Muslim. A few Pakis have found it humorous to call me ``Chuhan`` to express their amusement at my Hindu name and its supposed similarity to rodents. Now, if someone turned it around and made fun of a Muslim holy cow (that is an oxymoron!) then the ointment will hit the fan.

I have been known to be against feminazism and blatant lesbian behavior - therefore I am called a female abuser and someone advocating rape of women and so forth. All this doesn`t take into account the one-sided vulgarity, filth, and obscenity initiated by so-called she-males.

I support the right of Ahmedis to full Muslims status, therefore I must be a Qadiani or infidel. I am a Shia Muslim happily married to a devout Turkish Sunni girl, who also happens to be my cousin. I would be happy to be an Ahmedi, but I am not one. I would be happy to be a Bihari, but I am not one. I would be happy to be an Indian, Muslim or otherwise, but I am not one. Yes, I am an anti-feminazi and will remain one.

Intolerance and quick judgement are rapidly combined with sworn allegations of mass association to suit the Paki sense of how the world should be seen. I am very disappointed with most Pakis and their notorious intolerance - and I am a Paki. :)

#216, Behram1 {``Jaan-e-mun Salim Bhai:

Just because Hindoos and Muslims lived together for so long did not make them brothers. And that has been the fallacy all along. Hindoos have never accepted the Muslims or vice versa. ..We rightfully rail against Pakistan and its treatment of minorities. But India, with its secular democracy has not been very kind towards its Muslim minority either.``}

Behram Brader-e-Azeem-e-Mun,
Thank you for your response. Hindus may have never accepted Muslims or vice versa, but my ancestors accepted Islam over three centuries ago. To this day, our Hindu relatives in our braderi accept us and welcome us in Rajasthan. I have been to India several times and find the people there very brotherly and welcoming (I admit that I have never been to Gujarat, though). All over India, from Bombay to Delhi and from Lucknow to Jaipur, I have found friendship, warm welcome, and very polite behavior. I cannot accept that Hindus don`t accept me. Yes, the treatment of Muslims in post-partition India, especially during communal violence (Bombay, Gujarat, Jabalpur, and a few other places) has been a shameful aberration that India does not deserve. I know that India will overcome this senseless self-defeating disease. To be honest with you, while people don`t actually see each other on Chowk, I find Pakis here to be much more hateful than Indians. Thanks for being so polite and civilized. I enjoy interacting with you. Please save the sugarcanes.

Re: # 218

Qurboon-et-shavam azeezum Salim Bhai:

I learn so much from interacting with you, and I thank you for that.

A society like India is huge and has many issues to resolve internally. One major issue is its treatment of its muslim population. Muslims must be provided easy access to education, jobs and upward mobility. And of course muslims are not getting equal opportunity to any of these basic human rights.

{I know that India will overcome this senseless self-defeating disease.} Well, I hope that you are right.

{To be honest with you, while people don`t actually see each other on Chowk, I find Pakis here to be much more hateful than Indians.} I am sorry but I have a totally opposite view and hence we had to resort to the sugarcane therapy.

{Please save the sugarcanes.} Yes, of course.

Respectfully submitted,

Here is the problem with pan-Islamism. Many Muslims vigorously believe all all Muslims and their lands belong under a common Islamic authority, e.g. the illusive ``Caliphate.`` Once they actually get together, Muslims find out how much they really hate each other. Then all they want is to expel or kill those they hate, but they want to hold on to the lands of the hated ones.

Some examples:

In Pakistan:
Sunni Bengalis hated the mostly Sunni Punjabis
Mostly Sunni Mohajirs never cared for the mostly Sunni Punjabis
Sunni Pathans hated the mostly Sunni Mohajirs, but not as much as they hated the Shia ``Pathans.``
Shia or Sunni Balchis hate the mostly Sunni Punjabis
Mostly Sunni Punjabis hate the Ahmadis who are mostly Punjabis
Mostly Shia Baltistanis and Gilgitis hate the mosty Sunni Punjabis and Pathans persecuting them

In Iraq:
Sunni Arabs don`t like Shia Arabs who are allied with Sunni Kurds who don`t care for the Sunni Arabs.

In Syria:
Mostly Sunni Syrians are ruled by the hated Shiite Alawites who dislike the Sunnis but hate the Christians even more

In Palestine:
Sunni Arab Palestinians are allied with the Christian Arabs against Jewish Israelis who have Druze Muslims in sizable numbers in the IDF. Druzes are Shiite ex-Muslims who don`t like other Muslims, but hate the Christians even more.

In Lebanon:
The majority Shia Muslim Lebanese are hated by both Sunni Muslim Lebanese and Christian Maronite Lebanese. The Sunni Muslim and Christian Maronite Lebanese fought a long civil war that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, just in the 20th century. This is in a country of a few million. Sunni Muslims still prefer Christian Maronites to Shia Muslims, and both the Sunnis and Maronites hate the Syrians who back the Shiites. The Druze hate all Muslims but they hate the Christians even more, preferring Jews to the others.

In Turkey:

Mostly Muslim Turks don`t care for Shiite Muslims who in Turkey happen to be mostly Arabs in the South. But the Sunni Turks dislike the Sunni Kurds more than they dislike the Shiite Arabs. But the Sunni Turks dislike the Sunni Arabs more than they dislike anyone except the Christian Greeks and Serbs. The mostly Sunni Muslim Turks of Turkey support the mostly Shiite Muslim Turks of Azerbaijan against both the Sunni Muslim Kurds of Turkey, Iraq, and Syria and the Sunni Muslim Arabs of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Mostly Sunni Muslim Turks prefer mostly Shiite Muslim Iranians over the mostly Sunni Muslim Arabs.

Afghanistan:
We all know what happened there. Mostly Sunni Muslim Uzbeks and mostly Sunni Muslim Tajiks don`t like the mostly Sunni Muslim Pakhtoons who hate the Shia Muslim Pakhtoons and Hazaras and the Wahabbi Sunni Muslim Tally Ban hate everyone, especially the Shia Muslim Hazaras and all mostly Sunni Muslim and even some Shia Muslim Afghans, even the Tally Ban, hate the mostly Sunni Muslim Pakis.

Now, do we all understand the intricacies of Pan-Islamism and how dangerous it is to wade into that quicksand?

Re: # 220

Interesting..... What about Indian Muslims? There don`t seem to be that much fatricidal divisions among Indian Muslims.... I mean - once in a while, we hear some shia-sunni tensions in Meerat[or some other god-forsaken town in UP] but apart from that - IMs seem to get along well among themselves - no?

#219, Behram1 {``Muslims must be provided easy access to education, jobs and upward mobility. And of course muslims are not getting equal opportunity to any of these basic human rights.
I am sorry but I have a totally opposite view and hence we had to resort to the sugarcane therapy. ``}

Behram braderum va Ganna-e-Azam mohtarram (almost sounds Sanskritish)

Yes, Muslims need to advance in India educationally, socially, economically, and every other ly. Part of the problem is the bias of right-wing Hindus and those in power. The other part of the problem is the Muslim tendency to gather in ghettos - but then who can blame them, considering the savage mobs in Gujarat. But honestly, Muslim tendency to circle the wagons, set up islands of Muslim society, abstaining from the norm of Indian life, and clinging on to ancient and absurd Muslim customs (burkah, lack of female education, polygamy, social taboos against females working, etc) is holding them back also.

Your approach to using sugarcanes to sweeten your opponents is a humane and thoughtful consideration. I think that you should leave some of the sturdiest canes for domestic consumption. Belive me, Behram Bhai, I am no advocate of Pakistan first, but in this case there are far more deserving Pakis than Indians. So, save the gannas for the home boys and girls.

#220 HP ..
good couplet. i looked-up the pictures of mazar of pir jinnah-sharif. very stylish, looks almost kind of moroccan/moorish.

gandhis memorial is a drab black granite slab. people dont flock to it on any holiday, becuase its kinds out of the way..

#221 mohar11 {``What about Indian Muslims? There don`t seem to be that much fatricidal divisions among Indian Muslims.... I mean - once in a while, we hear some shia-sunni tensions in Meerat[or some other god-forsaken town in UP] but apart from that - IMs seem to get along well among themselves - no?``}

Mohar Bhai,
Indian Muslims are in deep kimchee. The two main categories of Shia and Sunni fight it out, especially in Lucknow and some other parts of UP, where there is virtually no persecution from Hindus, who seem to be the more civilized of the two religious communities. In fact, it was the right-wing BJP that mediated the truce during a very violent altercation between Lucknow`s warring sects of Islam. Elsewhere, especially Gujarat and Mumbai, Muslims are so preoccupied with survival that they don`t have the time, luxury, or resources to invest in sectarianism. Just give them some security and full bellies, and they will be back at the favorite Muslim pastime of sectarian violence. I will bet money on this one.
The same Indian Muslims` relatives in Pakistan, mostly in Karachi, relfect that hatred in a very civilized way. Basically the mostly Sunni Muslim Mohajirs detest the Shia Muslim minority among them and vice versa. There is no outright mob violence, so they have imported suicide bombers from the NWFP to reconfigure each others` mosques. Then they issue joint statements condemning sectarian violence. Now that is what I call civilized barbarism.