It should be called Stupid Ordinance, not Hudood!

Making Pakistan Safe for Rapists
-By Khalid Baig
http://albalagh.net/women/0096.shtml

more interesting links on hudood ordinance.

Lies & Distortions By The Media About Hudood Ordinance
http://jsmawais.googlepages.com/Lies.htm
- imp!!!
Hudood ordinance and women protection bill:Comparitive analysis
http://deeneislam.com/ur/main.php?CID=86

-Expose Deception: Zara Bachieye!
http://jsmawais.googlepages.com/

-An interview that was NEVER aired!
http://deeneislam.com/ur/main.php?CID=87

-Media against Hudood ordinance, WHY ?
An interview with Human rights activist, ``Amaanullah baloch``
http://www.hudoodordinance.com/aakhir-kyun.htm

- ``The reality of `women protection bill` ``
http://www.hudoodordinance.com/taqi-usmani-article-english.htm

- Hudood ordinance
http://www.hudoodordinance.com/taqiusmani-article-p1.htm

-Vote:
Do you agree that the Musharraf Government intends to make changes in the ``Blasphemy Act``

now ?
http://www.hudoodordinance.com/

-War against HudoodUllah (Brilliant article)
http://tarjumanulquran.org/2006/december/isharat001/1.htm

-Women protection bill, in light of Quran and Sunnah
http://www.hudoodordinance.com/mufti_muneeb_ur_rehman_article.htm

-Women protection bill: The real target is the ``family``
http://www.hudoodordinance.com/dr-syed-aziz-ur-rehman-article.htm

-FAQs on hudood rodinance:
http://www.hudoodordinance.com/faqs.htm

-Khalid Masood caught red handed in presenting false statistics!
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/6991/khalidmasudcartoonyr5.gif
(zoom for clear view)

-Does the Protection of Women Act, 2006 provide relief to women?
http://jsmawais.googlepages.com/FAQ3.htm

-A critique of the Women Protection Act
http://jsmawais.googlepages.com/Critique_WPB.htm

Re: # 110

Adamkhan

You are wonderful dear. I lack words to praise your writeup. As I point out again and again Pakistan`s Constitution is nothing but that `Takfiri` fatwa declaring Ahmadies as non-Muslims and abusing their founder as an `imposter`. This much stands even when the `Islamic Constitution` remains suspended or even abrogated. In private they would condemn the Fatwa but they dare not say anything in the public against it. It is the ZAB who is responsible for this subversion directly or indirectly. In fact in Pakistan one can be accepted as a Muslim officially only when one submits an affidavit in accodance with the said fatwa. What a pity! When anybody out of this citadel of Islam can call himself a Muslim in his own right the pakyones cannot do so.

rgds

teshah

people roaming around with islamic badges on thr chins, welcome the Return of Mullah aka Musketeers

dope

On another note... if you live in Pakistan I would be very happy to receive your email at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com ... and may be we can understand each other better in a different place at a different time... and you can tell me why Ghaffar Khan was a great man and I`ll tell you why the creation of Pakistan was a good idea...

Agreed. Lets hope that thirty years from now you would be the one saying ``I told you so.``

regards.

Mantolives #92 {``It is clear that those people, Jamaat-e-Islami who demanded the ex-communication of Ahmadis were the same people who opposed the creation of Pakistan, called Jinnah Kafir-e-Azam and sided with Gandhi... As for Bhutto- not that I would defend someone like him... but he was, naively, waiting for a 2/3rds Majority ``}

Manto Bhai,
Regardless of the well-established loyalty and contributions of the Ahmedis, their expulsion by any party in Pakistan, justifies the expulsion of the party demanding that expulsion. When the Jamaat-e-Islami resorts to such childish yet pernicious games, it is displaying its own insecurity, and more importantly, its obvious insincerity. ZAB was just an opportunist who had no principles other than his own greatness. That is another reason why I shudder at the prospect of a return to ``democracy.`` Our luck with such ``democracy`` has been even worse than our sad experience with military dictatorships.

Dear Adam Khan,

Ok some more clarifications once more...

I don`t for a minute consider Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as an infallible creature. I accept that his ex-communication and other exploits were against Jinnah`s vision... and coming that he considered himself an heir of Jinnah... his exploits were criminal unlike those of Wali Khan (whose support of Zia I have expected was natural given his persecution). I am also willing to accept Khudai Khidmatgars were the only organised body of Pakistanis who in 1947 actually did what Jinnah was asking his followers to do ... which is why - may I remind you- Jinnah had donated to the Khudai Khidmatgars and had met Ghaffar Khan in Karachi to reconcile... I am also willing to accept that the real reason both men could not agree was Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan... none of this changes the mainbody of my argument.


As for your comments about Ahmadis.. in real life the situation is quite different- atleast where I live. While this discriminatory legislation (90% of which is based on Zia`s Martial Law regime) is the direct result of military intervention. This is my point.

I am not for a minute optimistic that overnight Pakistan will change into a secular nation... but I don`t share your view that the nation is heading towards sharia. Common ethnicity can be conjured by common experience and national symbols. For example isn`t Pakistani cricket team cheered in all four provinces? For Islam? or being Pakistani? Is you suggestion that a Muslim majority country with nothing to bind them but Islam will necessarily head towards sharia exclusive to Islam... because countries bound by no ethnicity but a majority faith have in the past headed towards secular democracy on the basis of democracy and constitution.

My submission is that if democracy is allowed to take its course - without military intervention (and you have to admit that most of Pakistan`s ``ghuttan`` comes from Zia`s regime)... maybe there will be some Islamic legislation at first... but ultimately constitutional democracy has its own logic... and that logic is inherently secular and will ultimately make Pakistani identity a secular identity, state religion, name etc notwithstanding.

On another note... if you live in Pakistan I would be very happy to receive your email at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com ... and may be we can understand each other better in a different place at a different time... and you can tell me why Ghaffar Khan was a great man and I`ll tell you why the creation of Pakistan was a good idea...

-YLH

I agree with the ``realistic`` wisdom and ground realities shown by Adamkhan.

We cannot deceive ourselves by flowery words and dreams only as future of Pakistan is so obviously lying in front of us.

No body wants ``rule of law`` in Pakisan, every body wants to grab and complete control and complete hegemony over uneducated and simple people of Pakistan.

Uneducated simple people of this country are like an orphan girl,...Ahmadis want complete hegemony, Mullahs want complete hegemony, Army wants complete hegemony , feudals want complete hegemony, civil babus want complete hegemony,..but no body wants humble ways or ways of truth or rule of law.

Pakistan is a society of bullies ,jugglers, acrobats and ``patari-men`` and every body has to sell different ``chooran`` , ``phaki`` , a potent herbel mixture and we never know which kind of snake or lizard, these clever ``patari-men`` will take out from their boxes to amuse retarded and uneducated public of this unfortunate land.

Britishers are the one who have to be made responsible for all this drama, and creating all this show of ``madarees`` or acrobats.

System in pakistan has become rotten, corrupt and hypocrit to the core.

When I taked to a filthy rich chief conservator of forests of NWFP about rules and his duties and responsibilities, then he wanted to act superior and told me that as he listens to ``biyans`` of ``tablighi people`` hence instead of worrying too much about this ``dunyia`` I should also join them.

The same reply I heard from a ultra rich Superintending Engineer of Hazara works department, and he told me that he saw all the filth of USA society, when he spent 10 continous years in USA, then he came back , got his governemnt job and seniority back , and now he was retiring with full perks and pensions and free plots etc.Alhamdolillah...``rind kay rind rahay aur hath say janaat na gahi``.

He belonged to eternal rulers of Pakistan.

It is interesting to note that I heard this kind of response from almost majority of ruling people and officers of Pakistan, that their sons were driving government owned landcruisers and they were flirting with female servants of their dad`s palaces, but on the surface ultra rich but ``pious`` dads had a mask of ``pakistaniat`` and ``islamiat`` to show off.

Such officers also told me that I should worry more about my ``akhrat`` and my dooms day rather than heritage buildings or mature old trees of ferangi raj.

So I tell you brothers and sisters that we are completely trapped.

To get raped and to get humiliated is our destiny, and right now I don`t see any sign of enough self esteem or enough self respect in masses of Pakistan to throw away all this drama, and to establish rule of law.

Hanooz deli dur ast, but keep on trying to solve this puzzle of acrobats.

One last thing I want to say that each one of us, who can think and who has sense of fairness and justice,.... please stay safe,.... journey is long and we have to adopt safe strategies,..... and we have to avoid open encounters with bullies and beasts.

Thank you.

Dear Mantolives,

My friend, regurgitation begets regurgitation. The thing is that I don’t share your optimism about the destiny of Pakistan, of it being a secular nation. My belief is that this country because of its overwhelmingly muslim population and its lack of a common ethnicity, has no option but to lean towards the Islamic. The current state of affairs, e.g. the law against Ahmedis, the hudood ordinance, the name Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the state religion etc all prove the point that Sharia is the destiny of this nation.

You counter me by first quoting Mr. Jinnah and his vision, and then you say that the failure of Jinnah’s Pakistan to emerge is because of the Mullah, the Nationalist and the establishment whom you consider the enemies of Pakistan. To further elaborate your point you give the example of Nizam-a-Mustapha and Wali Khan’s support of Zia and the Mullah, because you think that these forces want to bring Pakistan down. It is to counter your argument that I state the exploits of Bhutto (which are against Jinnahs vision as well), whom you consider a force of patriotism.

Pakistan is an evolving nation state which is home not just to Muslims but many Non-Muslims as well... which is why Jinnah`s 11th August 1947 speech should be the only basis for citizenship and every citizen of Pakistan should be a citizen of Pakistan regardless....

On 11th august 1947, Mr. Jinnah went back on his two nation theory argument. You state that speech of his as if the “soon to be” Pakistani Muslim embraced his words in every respect. The test for the 11th August speech of Jinnah was the post-partition chaos. Yes Muslims were slaughtered in Indian Punjab, but the Pakistani muslims of 1947 took it all out on the Pakistani Sikhs as well as the Pakistani Hindus. Jinnah was unable to rescue the Hindus and Sikhs of Pakistan, while those who rallied around him, those who helped in the creation of Pakistan refused to obey him, it was as if he was of no use anymore. The irony is that apart from Mr. Jinnah (on his own) the Khudai Khidmatgaars were I guess the only organization who did what Mr. Jinnah expected all Pakistanis to do. Pakistanis had made it clear that if you are a non-muslim then you are on the wrong side of the border. The treatment doled out to the Christian and Hindu communities within Pakistan is a continuation of that attitude. So is the demotion of Ahmedis.

Then you accept that their ideas, ideology and their politics has nothing to do with the creation of Pakistan good or bad? This is all I am saying... Pakistan`s creation or any distortion thereof cannot be claimed for any subsequent actions good or bad...


It is the creation of Pakistan that made the Sunnis a majority in Pakistan. This overwhelmingly Muslim majority has set the parameters of discourse within the political framework of this country. Where “shadi ka khana” is discussed ad nauseum in the assembly and things like the repulsive blasphemy laws are taken as a norm. This is where I stand, and I base my belief on the history of Pakistan. I sincerely hope that you are right in the long run but the way I see things right now I don’t see that happening.

5. The reason why Ahmadis don`t complain per se .. is because at the very highest level you will always find a community member politically strong and calling the shots. The strongest civilian in Pakistan today is Tariq Aziz, the principal political secretary of Musharraf...

All you have to do is to replace the word Ahmedi with Qadiani and then it would be the end of this discussion. You are making the Ahmedi sound like the Zionist of Pakistan. If Ahmedis were “calling the shots” then at least the media would have been sympathetic to their cause. At least people would have been convinced to let go of the word Qadiani which I understand is a slur.

Here are the shots that the Ahmedis are calling, and I mean literally.

http://thepersecution.org/facts/martyred.html

http://thepersecution.org/archive/pl_xsum.html

And another FYI- Every Ahmadi I know of says Assalamualaikum ... the reason why it is not an issue is because this ridiculous piece of legislation (WHICH has to do with Wali Khan`s benefactor Zia and not Bhutto per se) is hardly implemented

Well how about going to a thaana and saying “Asalam o Alaikum Bhai jan, I am an Ahmedi.”? The SHO will be implicated of negligence if he did not nab you there and then. Whether Mr. Tariq Aziz calls the SHO up or not is another thing, but you would have broken the law by merely “greeting” someone.

Kya baat kur rahay ho Manto Bhai? One Tariq Aziz or a few successful businessmen won’t make a difference.

http://thepersecution.org/news/2006/dtp0319.html

{{ LAHORE: The Imam of the Ahmadiyya community, Mirza Masroor Ahmad and four workers at a monthly Ahmadi magazine for women have been charged with blasphemy for referring to quotes from the Quran and Hadith, Daily Times has learnt. }}


I find this attitude of ANP wallahs (recall Wali Khan`s derogatory reference) rather funny because generally all of them falsely believe that Ahmadis/Qadianis are western agents but then turn around and act all self righteous.

Yaar why this malice? You find it THAT hard to believe that some one who is not an Ahmedi might have a soft corner for them? If so then being a Sunni shouldn’t you too start hating them? I am just saying what I feel is right.

The ANP does not favor Ahmadis in anyway, it’s the same as the PPP and every other political party in this regard. I have told you earlier I do not belong to the ANP.

Regards.

To continue that last thought...... ``that is ultimately god`s decision and Ahmadis are not too bothered by any man made redefinition... the priority should be to ensure religious freedom.. it is said that Ahmadis did not fight the decision because they felt that once excommunicated, they would be left alone by the Sunni majority which will turn on itself``

Dear Adamkhan,

I apologise for not referring to you as ``dear``. I have made that correction. You haven`t caused me any heart or headaches for there is nothing in your posts that I haven`t heard before. It is quite sad that you choose to attribute to yourself too much credit - of which you are thoroughly undeserving.

As much of your post is repetitive in nature and a mere regurgitation... allow me to re-state in the simplest terms- my comments once again.

1. I don`t hold the brief for Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Like Ghaffar Khan, Wali Khan and yes Jinnah, Bhutto too was a mortal who could and did make mistakes.

2. I haven`t called Wali Khan a traitor for condemning Pakistan Army. Please make a note of that.

3. I haven`t called ANP a religious party. I have called it an opportunist party. There is a big difference. I don`t think Ghaffar Khan and his ilk had any ideology... so their use of faith to cut the head of Muslims as is, is to be taken with a pinch of salt.

4. Nobody is asking you deny the injustice. I think it was against the very genesis of Pakistan to declare Ahmadis non-Muslim. But to then extrapolate that they may regret supporting Jinnah and the Pakistan Movement for this reason, when I, being born to an Ahmadi, know very well that Jamaat- Ahmaddiya doesn`t for a minute regret its decision ... this is where you don`t have a Locus Standi... hence I must ask you to stand down.

5. The reason why Ahmadis don`t complain per se .. is because at the very highest level you will always find a community member politically strong and calling the shots. The strongest civilian in Pakistan today is Tariq Aziz, the principal political secretary of Musharraf... and he is an Ahmadi.. but these are hidden issues. Pakistan has been built by and fought for by Ahmadis.

FYI Ahmaddiya Movement in London is a vocal critic of Pakistani establishment and the Mullahs (which puts to rest your argument that they don`t say anything because of their community back home)... what I said was that it still considers itself the vanguard of the Pakistan Movement and has never regretted supporting Jinnah and the Pakistan Movement.

And another FYI- Every Ahmadi I know of says Assalamualaikum ... the reason why it is not an issue is because this ridiculous piece of legislation (WHICH has to do with Wali Khan`s benefactor Zia and not Bhutto per se) is hardly implemented. I find this attitude of ANP wallahs (recall Wali Khan`s derogatory reference) rather funny because generally all of them falsely believe that Ahmadis/Qadianis are western agents but then turn around and act all self righteous.



Now on to the mainbody of our argument:


1. Do you deny that Wali Khan took part in the Nizam-e-Mustafa Movement which was a foreign funded movement to destablise the country in the name of Islam by the same people who had opposed the creation of Pakistan? I ask this question again and again because this is the extent of my claim. If you see, I have NOT condemned Mr Wali Khan beyond these few claims. I have not accused him of anything or his father of anything but this. If I have please produce it. If you accept this statement then there is no point of arguing anymore...

2. Do you deny that Ghaffar Khan was part of the Fakir of Ipi rebellion that sought to raise people against the new state in the name of Sharia?

3. Do you deny that Khan Abdul Jabbar Khan aka Dr. Khan Sahab was part and parcel of the establishment ``Republican Party``...

4. Do you deny that ANP hailed Zia-ul-Haq`s coup against Bhutto?


5. Constantly going back to Bhutto did this ... so it is justified is not good enough. When you extrapolate that all ills of Pakistan are because Pakistan was created on the basis of Two Nation Theory ... then I have the right to point out that all the ills you refer to were directly caused by those people, originally hostile to the creation of Pakistan, who, like you, distorted the meaning of the Pakistan Movement and used it against Pakistanis , for political gain.


6. You write ``Most of the current leaders of the MMA were born here in the present day Pakistan. They don’t have to FOLLOW Jinnah’s ideology to be called Pakistani. Their Pakistani identity is a consequence of the conception of Pakistan, and also of their hometowns being part of Pakistan. No one can deny them their identity to be called a Pakistani. `` Then you accept that their ideas, ideology and their politics has nothing to do with the creation of Pakistan good or bad? This is all I am saying... Pakistan`s creation or any distortion thereof cannot be claimed for any subsequent actions good or bad... Pakistan is an evolving nation state which is home not just to Muslims but many Non-Muslims as well... which is why Jinnah`s 11th August 1947 speech should be the only basis for citizenship and every citizen of Pakistan should be a citizen of Pakistan regardless... nor does Pakistan need Islam or anything else to keep united.. All it needs is DEMOCRACY. Had there been a constitutional democracy in place in 1970 ... Bangladesh would not have gone its way...

7. You are right that a democratic Pakistan is not necessarily a secular Pakistan... but a democratic Pakistan leaves the door open for evolution and it is the experience of European and other nation states that democracy has the power to evolve more exclusive nation states than ours.... This is all my submission is... this and that certain ethnonationaolists ought to stop siding with dictators for their own good.

8. ``Declaring the Ahmedi a kafir was one such disagreement with Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan. This disagreement was expressed in a very democratic manner, and it still is backed by almost every political leader in this country. While staunch followers of Jinnah can only “respectfully” disagree with it and at the same time call its perpetrator a “Patriotic Pakistani.”

AGREED on something finally. However... Bhutto however was not a willing perpetrator. As long as Ahmadis have their constitutional right of religious freedom (which taken from them by Zia), the state can go on calling them Non-Muslims ... that is ultimately the god`s decision ...


-YLH

Even i`m suspended to re-think again the role of the Army. But democracy is not fairing well either.

Dear Mantolives,

I have noticed that you have stopped addressing me as “Dear”, this is a worrying development. Kindly don’t take things personally; I apologize for any heart aches (or head aches) that I might have caused.

Now pray tell how Aitzaz Ahsan`s antecedents were with Ayub Khan ... his family was anti-Ayub and was part and parcel of the very same Fatima Jinnah camp that you try and enlist to prove Wali Khan`s democratic credentials.

By antecedents I meant political antecedents, families dont count when you are discussing ideologies. The idea that “patriot genes” would be passed on to the next generation is racist in nature. Bhutto was a loyal servant to Ayub and Yahya, and the ones who hold him in high regard should be reminded of this fact.

Look at ANP and its antecedents - they`ve been siding with the Military and Mullahs for their own interests again and again in Pakistan`s history

Dr Khan was part of Sikander Mirza’s establishment, but so was your true Pakistani patriot Akbar Bugti, does that go against Bugti as well? not to forget Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto? My objection to your replies is that you twist facts to prove a point. Dr. Khan wasn’t the only supporter of Sikander Mirza, there are others like Bugti and ZAB whom you speak highly off. So what you say about Dr. Khan must also be said about the others.

During Ayubs era. Did the ANP side with the military? No as you have agreed (finally) that the ANP was on the democratic side of the line. While Bhutto was making the “biggest mistake” in his life.

Then came Yahya. Again Wali Khan was called a traitor for speaking against the atrocities of the Pakistan Army in Bangladesh. It wasn’t until the Hamood Ur Rehman commission’s report that the Pakistani patriots realized that there were atrocities committed in Bangladesh. In the mean time Bhutto, after lacking the graciousness to accept defeat (udhar tum idhar hum) was appointed the “civilian Martial law administrator”, maybe his second biggest mistake?

And then came the turmoil of the Bhutto era where almost every member of the opposition was in fear of his life. The ghundas of FSF and their tactics were not democratic in anyway. The villain of Barbara (the massacre that you deem irrelevant) Abdul Qayum Khan was appointed the minister for interior and allowed to incite violence in Baluchistan. In such an atmosphere Wali Khan’s support for Nizam a Mustapha was a mean to get rid of the menace of ZAB. His later opposition of the Afghan war and the total decimation of his electoral base by the Mullah (during the 80s) provide ample evidence of his anti Zia stance. His alliance with the PPP in 1988-89 and later over the Kalabagh dam issue proves your theory of the ANP, Mullah alliance wrong.

1. It is you who has no shame because you`ve still not shown me where I said ANP was a religious party or that PPP was anti-establishment. Your own failure to understand my argument is no excuse for you to distort what I am saying.

Do I have to post exact sentences?? You have blamed the military and its intervention as the main cause of Pakistan’s strife. In the face of these interventions you term the PPP as “a patriotic party”, now since the establishment is causing all the strife, can then a patriotic party be pro establishment? (I await your gymnastics around this one) Whenever you mention Ghaffar khan you chip in his khilafat connection and his secret alliance with the Fakir of Ipi for sharia. When you mention his son it’s always in the context of nizam a Mustapha. Am I distorting things?

? 2. I will speak for the Ahmadis because my father is an Ahmadi. I am afraid Ahmadis have a different view of community that your pathan-based idea of it. I don`t cease to be part of the community simply because I am not a believer. This is a simple thing you don`t understand. Atleast I have a locus standi... who made you the spokesman... you never bothered to answer this.

At this very moment if I want, I can become an Ahmadi. Ahmadi is NOT an ethnic identity, it is a religious identity. The Ahmadi community comprises of “Ahmadis”, a sunni can have friends and family who are Ahmadi but would not be included when the Ahmedis are being referred to as a “community”. On another thread you were lamenting the fact that most Pakistanis judge you by the religion of your father (i.e. still consider you an Ahmadi). I believe you. You are not an Ahmedi, if you SAY that you are not. Why are you arguing with me on this one?

As for me being the “spokesman”, well I am just speaking my mind. I see what is wrong with the constitution and I point it out. In no way do I “respect” the decision of a majority, to take away from a minority its right to exercise its own religious identity. You are no thaikadaar of the Ahmedis, I will speak against this injustice whether most Pakistanis like it or not. I won’t change my views just to fit in with the majority. I hope this answers your question.

3. I`ve read enough about Wali Khan to know his ``moral stature`` and I am not liking what I am reading. Tell us simply... did he not join up with the foreign funded Nizam-e-Mustafa movement to establish Sharia in Pakistan? Was it not a conspiracy designed to disrupt and destroy the democratic process in Pakistan?

I think I answered this one, but still I would like to add that siding with the Mullah has become a norm among all the secular parties in Pakistan. Bhutto did it when he offered Mufti Mahmood a ministry in his cabinet (which mahmood rejected), his daughter did the same thing with Mahmood’s son (which fazlo accepted). So stop whining about nizam e mustapha, the former civilian martial law administrator had suspended the constitution when he was taken down by the army.

4. I have acknowledged Wali Khan`s support for Fatima Jinnah several times ... so did Maududi and others. It was indeed a uniquely brilliant opportunity for Pakistanis to come together secular religious or otherwise for democracy. Is that enough to excuse Wali Khan`s support for Zia later ?

lol, why are you asking the same question again and again? Wali had many excuses to initially support Zia.

1. The liaquat Bagh massacre. (this one irrelevant too?)
2. The banning of NAP
3. Asfandyar’s capture and torture
4. Wali Khan’s imprisonment (solitary confinement) and the subsequent farce Hyderabad tribunal.
5. Four assassination attempts on Wali Khan.
6. Ghaffar Khan’s exile

The likes of Sherry Rehman and Aitzaan Ehsan were jumping up and down for far less when Musharaf took over.

5. Huh? Please produce a singler statement from Jamaat-Ahmaddiya and its Islamabad London headquarters where they have expressed regret over supporting Jinnah and the Muslim League? You can`t and hence you don`t have an argument. Infact... anyone who has gone to the annual Jalsa/congregation knows that Ahmaddiya Movement does it part to try and clarify what Pakistan is supposed to be and why it ought to be supported internationally.

The fact that Pakistan is a complete opposite of what it’s supposed to be (for the Ahmedi atleast) is a proof of its failure as a state. Most Ahmedis I guess are way too optimistic about the future, as they present the “supposed to” argument. But the fact is that 32 years after the imposition of that hateful law, no political party in Pakistan is willing to take up the Ahmedi cause. Why? because it would be tantamount to committing political suicide. And to make things worse ex-Ahmedis like your self are “respectfully” disagreeing with it.

I doubt that its only economic benefits that are the main reason behind this tacit acceptance by the Ahmedi of his second class status. I think its fear that is keeping most Ahmedis mumb about their identities and stoping them from speaking openly. Even the ones in London have to care for their community in Pakistan.

In this current debate on the hudood ordinance and on the difference between “Zina” and “Zina-bil-jabbar”, no one is even mentioning the ban on Ahmedis to say “Asalam o Alaikum”, and I assure you no one will.

6. Why is it that the Mullahs who hated Hindus more than anyone else never followed Jinnah but sided with Gandhi instead? Your logic is neither here or there. Jinnah managed to keep Muslims united by keeping doctrinal issues out of the equation. The point is simple that Even if we accept your Muslim and Islam basis theory of Pakistan, Islamisation and narrowminded Islamisation at that does not follow... Your point is thus merely a regurgitation of the propaganda which you are so adept at disseminating.

Most of the current leaders of the MMA were born here in the present day Pakistan. They don’t have to FOLLOW Jinnah’s ideology to be called Pakistani. Their Pakistani identity is a consequence of the conception of Pakistan, and also of their hometowns being part of Pakistan. No one can deny them their identity to be called a Pakistani.

You have suggested that the “two nation theory” that was the backbone of Jinnah’s struggle became irrelevant in 1947. So if you are giving Jinnah a clean slate post 1947 then the same goes for the Mullah. You can’t blame them for disagreeing with Jinnah (pre partition) and then at the same time exonerate Jinnah for advocating the two nation theory.

The Mullah is as much a Pakistani as you are, you two might disagree with what Pakistan is SUPPOSED to be, but that doesn’t make any of you a lesser Pakistani. Jinnah must have foreseen this. That in his democratic Pakistan there would be people who would oppose his view of things. And I think that it is the democratic right of every Pakistani to disagree with Jinnah’s vision about Pakistan. So there always was a possibility that a majority of Pakistanis would disagree with Jinnah, and enact this disagreement in the constitution.

Declaring the Ahmedi a kafir was one such disagreement with Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan. This disagreement was expressed in a very democratic manner, and it still is backed by almost every political leader in this country. While staunch followers of Jinnah can only “respectfully” disagree with it and at the same time call its perpetrator a “Patriotic Pakistani.”

So a democratic Pakistan can not “necessarily” be a Secular Pakistan.

The Sunni Mullahs have to be thankful to Jinnah for leading a movement that gave them a country where their sect has an overwhelming majority (ever increasing I might add).

Regards.

Harish,

As I have explained to my emotional Ghaffar Khan supporter friend... I do not ascribe any sin to Wali Khan. All actions he took (as with his father) were in the best interest of his political point of view. These actions however were neither secular, nor democratic nor in the interest of the federation (of which he admittedly hostile to). To give an excuse for the actions of men hostile to Pakistan`s creation who later advertently or inadvertently supported Islamisation by suggesting that Pakistan was formed in the name of Islam is without much force.

My position however was to point out the nuances of Pakistani politics, where Zia ul Haq, the author of the Hudood Ordinance and other discriminatory legislation via ordinance, was himself from an anti-Pakistan Ahrari family and was supported in main by three major figures all opposed to the creation of Pakistan. So Zia`s Islamisation should be seen as an aberration or a distortion at best...

BTW in another discussion I accepted Adam Khan`s plea for me to look at Ghaffar Khan as the Quaid-e-Azam of the Pushtoons ... essentially doing or trying to do for Pushtuns what Jinnah did for the Muslims and I do not deny that out of Fazlurahman (also historically anti-Pakistan) and Ghaffar Khan`s progeny, I would choose the latter.


Teshah,

Why must we accept Indian definition of concepts that are essentially ours?
Two Nation theory did not imply hatred for the Hindus or the Majority nor did it necessarily place partition as necessary... The Two Nation Theory said that Indian muslims had a distinct political identity and any future constitution of India take that into account... Similarly ... the Lahore Resolution never suggested that Hindus and Muslims could not co-exist... but rather that Muslims, having a distinct political identity, formed national homelands which should be given autonomous status ... separate and sovereign state being just one of the possible consequences.


Ranjit,

An Indian, a biased one at that, declaring what our ideology should be is hardly going to cut it.

First of all Jinnah was not requesting... he had the representative status of Muslims having defeated the Congress and its Islamist allies. As for formal terms... here goes:


Terms of the offer made to the Congress by the Muslim League as a basis of agreements 12 May 1946.

1.The six Muslim Provinces(Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Baluchistan, Sind, Bengal and Assam) shall be grouped together as one group and will deal with all other subjects and matters except Foreign Affairs, Defence and Communications necessary for Defence, which may be dealt with by the constitution-making bodies of the two groups of Provinces-Muslim Provinces(hereinafter named Pakistan Group) and Hindu Provinces-sitting together.

2. There shall be a separate constitution-making body for the six Muslim Provinces named above, which will frame Constitutions for the group and the Provinces in the group and will determine the list of subjects that shall be Provincial and Central(of the Pakistan Federation) with residuary sovereign powers vesting in the Provinces.

3. The method of election of the representatives to the constitution-making body will be such as would secure proper representation to the various communities in proportion to their population in each Province of the Pakistan Group.

4. After the constitutions of the Pakistan Federal Government and the Provinces are finally framed by the constitution-making body it will be open to any Province of the Group to decide to opt out of its group, provided the wishes of the people of that Province are ascertained by a referendum to opt out or not.

5. It must be open to discussion in the joint constitution-making body as to whether the Union will have a Legislature or not. The method of providing the Union with finance should also be left for decision of the joint meeting of the two constitution-making bodies, but in no event shall it be by means of taxation.

6. There should be parity of representation between the two groups of Provinces in the Union Executive and the Legislature, if any.

7. No major point in the Union Constitution which affects the communal issue shall be deemed to be passed in the joint constitution-making body, unless the majority of the members of the constitution-making body of the Hindu provinces and the majority of the members of the constitution-making group of the Pakistan Group, present and voting, are separately in its favour.

8. No decision, legislative, executive or administrative, shall be taken by the Union in regard to any matter of controversial nature, except by a majority of three-fourths.

9. In Group and Provincial Constitutions fundamental rights and safeguards concerning religion, culture and other matters affecting the different communities will be provided for.

10. The Constitution of the Union shall have a provision whereby any Province can, by a majority vote of its Legislative Assembly, call for reconsideration of the terms of the Constitution, and will have the liberty to secede from the Union at any time after an initial period of ten years.

These are the principles of our offer for a peaceful and amicable settlement and this offer stands in its entirety and all matters mentioned herein are interdependent.

`Speeches and Documents on the Indian Constitution 1921-1947` by A. Appadorai 1957 Vol. II.



... As for your other point... the sectarian and religious intolerance that has occured in Pakistan has been by the same groups that were HOSTILE to the creation of Pakistan ... as I have proved earlier.

Similarly the Two Nation Theory did not ever suggest that Muslims or Hindus could not co-exist ... nor a partition per se. It was, as I explained to Teshah, a statement that Indian Muslims constituted an independent political identity and that this should be taken into account while framing the future constitution of India.

#96 by Mantolives

I have acknowledged Wali Khan`s support for Fatima Jinnah several times ... so did Maududi and others. It was indeed a uniquely brilliant opportunity for Pakistanis to come together secular religious or otherwise for democracy. Is that enough to excuse Wali Khan`s support for Zia later ?

Ummm...if Jinnah`s earlier track record ``being the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity`` could be touted as an excuse to wash away his sins of communalism, why can`t Wali Khan be excused for his later support to Zia?

#90 by Mantolives

It seems to me that since you didn`t have any arguments you had to resort to personal attacks and insulting comments... no wonder Harish Hyd, the old incurable hatemonger, found it necessary to prop you up out of the hole you`ve dug yourself into.

Bhai Yasser, it is exactly this hatred of the ``other`` that led Jinnah`s demand for Pakistan. You are following in the footsteps of the great ``Quaid-e-Azam`` and are well on the way to demanding another partition in Pakistan, so congtaulations!!!! I merely complimented Adam for a well-argued post and you had to jump in like a monkey and label me a hatemonger. Not that I need a certificate from you, but reading through your posts (an example of which is #90 in which you call Adam names), one gets an ample idea of what a hatemonger would really look like.

Manto,

(While Manto romances Ms Gupta, Pakistan burns ... )

Who is this Ms. Gupta, indulging in brahmacharya with her?

Regards