It should be called Stupid Ordinance, not Hudood!
Ahmer Muzammil August 24, 2006
#89 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on August 28, 2006 6:58:30 am
adamkhan #75 {``MY POINT is that this declaration of Ahmedis being converted into Kafirs is a natural consequence of partition. This land was won in the name of MUSLIMS, Islam was bound to come up. If you take Islam out of the Pakistani identity, then what exactly does a Sindhi and a Pathan have in common?
A perpetual “Hate for Hindus” cannot be the basis for a national identity. If you take ISLAM out then the term Pakistani seems meaningless.
Makes me wonder, weren’t we better off before partition??? ``}
Khan Sahib,
I agree that we (Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs of united India) would have been better off without partition. Yes, partition was enforced on the poor unsuspecting masses by using Islam as a tool, much like the Soodis impose their will upon their oppressed citizens by using Islam as the sledge hammer.
The irony of the cruel, unjustified injustice against the Ahmedis is that they were welcomed as Muslims in `47 to favor Pakistan in the distribution of Punjabi territory, yet in `74 in a strange fit of dyslexia, they were turned into kafirs by the notorious momin, ZAB.
While I do not agree with basing a nation on Islam (or any other religion, such as Judaism in Israel), I also do not agree with using Islam as the justification to hate, persecute, loot, expel, murder, and rape people deemed as ``kafirs`` by the will of the majority. This is a bastardization of democracy and a mutation of Islamic behavior.
A perpetual “Hate for Hindus” cannot be the basis for a national identity. If you take ISLAM out then the term Pakistani seems meaningless.
Makes me wonder, weren’t we better off before partition??? ``}
Khan Sahib,
I agree that we (Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs of united India) would have been better off without partition. Yes, partition was enforced on the poor unsuspecting masses by using Islam as a tool, much like the Soodis impose their will upon their oppressed citizens by using Islam as the sledge hammer.
The irony of the cruel, unjustified injustice against the Ahmedis is that they were welcomed as Muslims in `47 to favor Pakistan in the distribution of Punjabi territory, yet in `74 in a strange fit of dyslexia, they were turned into kafirs by the notorious momin, ZAB.
While I do not agree with basing a nation on Islam (or any other religion, such as Judaism in Israel), I also do not agree with using Islam as the justification to hate, persecute, loot, expel, murder, and rape people deemed as ``kafirs`` by the will of the majority. This is a bastardization of democracy and a mutation of Islamic behavior.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#88 Posted by harish_hyd on August 28, 2006 1:43:12 am
#75 by adamkhan
MY POINT is that this declaration of Ahmedis being converted into Kafirs is a natural consequence of partition. This land was won in the name of MUSLIMS, Islam was bound to come up. If you take Islam out of the Pakistani identity, then what exactly does a Sindhi and a Pathan have in common?
A perpetual “Hate for Hindus” cannot be the basis for a national identity. If you take ISLAM out then the term Pakistani seems meaningless.
Very well said Adam!
MY POINT is that this declaration of Ahmedis being converted into Kafirs is a natural consequence of partition. This land was won in the name of MUSLIMS, Islam was bound to come up. If you take Islam out of the Pakistani identity, then what exactly does a Sindhi and a Pathan have in common?
A perpetual “Hate for Hindus” cannot be the basis for a national identity. If you take ISLAM out then the term Pakistani seems meaningless.
Very well said Adam!
#87 Posted by adamkhan on August 28, 2006 1:14:46 am
Okay here is your logic
The ANP is a pro-establishment party because
• Wali Khan’s uncle was part of the Sikandar Mirza crowd, and Wali Khan himself welcomed Zia with arms wide open.
The PPP is an anti-establishment party EVEN THOUGH
• Bhutto was trained by Sikander Mirza and served under both Ayub and Yahya. And his followers were amongst the first one welcoming Musharaf.
The ANP is a religious party and carries on the legacy of Zia because,
• Wali Khan struck alliances with Mufti Mahmood and then Nawaz Sharif.
The PPP is a secular party and is against Zia’s progeny EVEN THOUGH
• BB struck an alliance with Fazal ur Rehman, and has recently become a staunch ally of Nawaz Sharif
And yet you have the spine to call me a hypocrite?
Even If we accept that Islamic identity is still required, why should it be the Islamic identity of those religious fanatics who had opposed the creation of Pakistan?
Are you saying that sharia is a “fanatical” ideology?
I don`t wish to defend Bhutto on the Ahmadi issue, but it is a well known fact that he did so against his own manifesto... and under pressure of the Jamaat-e-Islami- another enemy of Pakistan movement
Acha jee and what are your views about this decision?
but it was the parliament`s sovereign right and I respect it while disagreeing with it.``
So the parliament’s sovereign right supercedes Jinnah’s edicts??? THIS IS THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE. The pre partition Ahmedi was not aware of the future or he would have opposed Pakistan. A cage is a cage even if it is made of gold, for any one with a conscience, no level of economic prosperity can compensate for a lack of religious freedom.
The Ahmedis were persecuted mercilessly after this one decision, Heh, and all you do is “respect” the mullah and the majority that agrees with him.
So I suggest you stop wondering on behalf of my community.
Your community?? What community bhai??
#62 by Mantolives on August 29, 2003 12:57pm PT
….Today I reveal to all why I am so `secular`... it is because despite my professions as a Sunni Muslim in Pakistan, I am still viewed with suspicion, I am still considered a Minority….
Hmmm, so you are trying to be secular because the majority sunni crowd wont accept you? In this promised land of yours you have to ACT like a sunni to become part of the socially accept crowd?
#153 by Mantolives on April 8, 2006 8:55am PT
..I am already an Khoja Ismaili Shiite. Converted last year...
You are hardly the person to speak on behalf of the Ahmedis. Heh. What more can I say?
The ANP is a pro-establishment party because
• Wali Khan’s uncle was part of the Sikandar Mirza crowd, and Wali Khan himself welcomed Zia with arms wide open.
The PPP is an anti-establishment party EVEN THOUGH
• Bhutto was trained by Sikander Mirza and served under both Ayub and Yahya. And his followers were amongst the first one welcoming Musharaf.
The ANP is a religious party and carries on the legacy of Zia because,
• Wali Khan struck alliances with Mufti Mahmood and then Nawaz Sharif.
The PPP is a secular party and is against Zia’s progeny EVEN THOUGH
• BB struck an alliance with Fazal ur Rehman, and has recently become a staunch ally of Nawaz Sharif
And yet you have the spine to call me a hypocrite?
Even If we accept that Islamic identity is still required, why should it be the Islamic identity of those religious fanatics who had opposed the creation of Pakistan?
Are you saying that sharia is a “fanatical” ideology?
I don`t wish to defend Bhutto on the Ahmadi issue, but it is a well known fact that he did so against his own manifesto... and under pressure of the Jamaat-e-Islami- another enemy of Pakistan movement
Acha jee and what are your views about this decision?
but it was the parliament`s sovereign right and I respect it while disagreeing with it.``
So the parliament’s sovereign right supercedes Jinnah’s edicts??? THIS IS THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE. The pre partition Ahmedi was not aware of the future or he would have opposed Pakistan. A cage is a cage even if it is made of gold, for any one with a conscience, no level of economic prosperity can compensate for a lack of religious freedom.
The Ahmedis were persecuted mercilessly after this one decision, Heh, and all you do is “respect” the mullah and the majority that agrees with him.
So I suggest you stop wondering on behalf of my community.
Your community?? What community bhai??
#62 by Mantolives on August 29, 2003 12:57pm PT
….Today I reveal to all why I am so `secular`... it is because despite my professions as a Sunni Muslim in Pakistan, I am still viewed with suspicion, I am still considered a Minority….
Hmmm, so you are trying to be secular because the majority sunni crowd wont accept you? In this promised land of yours you have to ACT like a sunni to become part of the socially accept crowd?
#153 by Mantolives on April 8, 2006 8:55am PT
..I am already an Khoja Ismaili Shiite. Converted last year...
You are hardly the person to speak on behalf of the Ahmedis. Heh. What more can I say?
#86 Posted by majumdar on August 28, 2006 12:43:50 am
(If the constitution and democracy are allowed to function uninterrupted, the republic will itself take of the anti-Pakistan forces, the mullahs, the ethno-nationalists)
I dont know about anti-Pak, mullahs etc. but ethno-natioanlists would possibly be moderated and become a part of the national mainstream as they have in India.
Regards
I dont know about anti-Pak, mullahs etc. but ethno-natioanlists would possibly be moderated and become a part of the national mainstream as they have in India.
Regards
#85 Posted by MantoLives on August 28, 2006 12:33:26 am
Also I don`t want any secularism in uniform... the age for that has passed.
Pakistan was created through a democratic constitutional process... all I want is that democratic constitutional process - which is the only basis for any modern country that I am willing to accept- to continue... If the constitution and democracy are allowed to function uninterrupted, the republic will itself take of the anti-Pakistan forces, the mullahs, the ethno-nationalists and those who side with dictators and of constitutional excommunication.
#84 Posted by MantoLives on August 28, 2006 12:03:26 am
J A Rahim, the Bengali Nietzchian Philosopher, was the real founder of and the brains behind the Pakistan People`s Party... later he was sidelined and thrown away by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto... who not even half the man that J A Rahim was.
In what was to become the founding document of the Pakistan People`s Party, J A Rahim identified those historically anti-Pakistan elements that were now trying to take over Pakistan in its very name ...
Read the part in bold. This is especially true of Mufti Mahmood`s son, Jamaat-e-Islami and Ghaffar Khan`s progeny.
The general will of the Muslims of this Asian sub-continent founded the State of Pakistan, which stands today as a monument to their unfulfilled hopes and aspirations. They wanted its citizens to live in freedom, a nation progressive and prosperous, powerful and pledged to shield from oppression Muslims in the other part. The new State so resplendent with noble purpose, as it seemed in the beginning, has fallen prey to internal weaknesses, grown forgetful of its own people`s welfare, not to speak of its neglected duty towards the Muslims of India.
There is no need to delve into the past history of Pakistan`s origin to determine the future shape of the country`s society, its economy, its politics, its obligations. It is a sovereign nation, a national state; governing themselves democratically, its people will decide what their society`s character should be. No people in their right senses can desire the aim of the state`s policy to be the increase of poverty, general misery of the masses, rampant corruption, demoralization of all classes. The people must have desired the opposite of the condition to which they have been reduced; they must have desired rapid economic progress, education, good health, social justice, the equitable distribution of wealth, in short, a better way of life than the ancient one of servitude and degradation.
Before going further, we must first understand exactly what Pakistan’s condition is, and how Pakistan is situated in the world. She is one of the poorest among nations. Not only poverty but all the attendant consequences of poverty afflict her people to the maximum degree-ignorance, intellectual sterility, ill-health, dishonesty, crime, corruption, superstitions. All the forms of oppression by authority and by those who exercise power on account of their riches are to be found here.
The average life expectation of a Pakistani is only 33 years, a figure which compares unfavourably even with the 45 years for an Indian and is less than half the 70 for a Briton. While poverty may be the indirect cause of high mortality, the health needs of the masses have `been grossly neglected because every government of this country has followed the policy of concentrating expenditure in the domains that benefit the privileged classes. `To this same policy must be attributed the very high illiteracy rate-among the highest in the world and not decreasing either-and the steady deterioration of educational standards. If we were to probe deeper into the causes of the iniquitous taxation, the inefficiency of governmental administration when it is not corrupt also, the prevalence of dishonesty in business, and the other evils which put their specific stamp on life in our country, we shall find that they are connected with the sort of capitalist structure that has been built upon the theory that the concentration of wealth leads to economic progress.
Those classes who know themselves guilty of wrongs done to the nation and the reactionary political parties whose eyes are forever turned backwards, attempt. Now to divert attention by proclaiming themselves champions of fanciful ideologies which they ascribe to the original purpose of Pakistan.
To make matters worse, these are men, some of whom hostile to the very conception. of Pakistan, who are now condemning all Pakistani Muslims, except themselves and their followers, as unbelievers, if ` they will not subscribe to the sanctity of economic exploitation and social injustice. This appeal to ignorant fanaticism is dangerous not only to the State but to the unity of Muslims as Muslims.
We, on the other hand, appeal to reason, to the accumulated wealth of human knowledge, to the methods and techniques devised by human ingenuity through the centuries, to show the way out of our national misery towards life worthy of a great people. The real problems that confront the nation are political and economic, but not religious, since both exploiters and exploited profess the same faith--both are Muslims.
Many governments have come and gone, but the trend towards the relative impoverishment of the people, the enrichment of privileged classes and the growth of parasitic vested interests, has proceeded without abatement. All the past governments are certainly to blame for their wrong policies; but they could not act otherwise than they did, being the representatives of class and vested interests. They could not be expected to change the system, when their vocation lay in developing it for the profit of the classes on whose behalf they were in power.
In what was to become the founding document of the Pakistan People`s Party, J A Rahim identified those historically anti-Pakistan elements that were now trying to take over Pakistan in its very name ...
Read the part in bold. This is especially true of Mufti Mahmood`s son, Jamaat-e-Islami and Ghaffar Khan`s progeny.
The general will of the Muslims of this Asian sub-continent founded the State of Pakistan, which stands today as a monument to their unfulfilled hopes and aspirations. They wanted its citizens to live in freedom, a nation progressive and prosperous, powerful and pledged to shield from oppression Muslims in the other part. The new State so resplendent with noble purpose, as it seemed in the beginning, has fallen prey to internal weaknesses, grown forgetful of its own people`s welfare, not to speak of its neglected duty towards the Muslims of India.
There is no need to delve into the past history of Pakistan`s origin to determine the future shape of the country`s society, its economy, its politics, its obligations. It is a sovereign nation, a national state; governing themselves democratically, its people will decide what their society`s character should be. No people in their right senses can desire the aim of the state`s policy to be the increase of poverty, general misery of the masses, rampant corruption, demoralization of all classes. The people must have desired the opposite of the condition to which they have been reduced; they must have desired rapid economic progress, education, good health, social justice, the equitable distribution of wealth, in short, a better way of life than the ancient one of servitude and degradation.
Before going further, we must first understand exactly what Pakistan’s condition is, and how Pakistan is situated in the world. She is one of the poorest among nations. Not only poverty but all the attendant consequences of poverty afflict her people to the maximum degree-ignorance, intellectual sterility, ill-health, dishonesty, crime, corruption, superstitions. All the forms of oppression by authority and by those who exercise power on account of their riches are to be found here.
The average life expectation of a Pakistani is only 33 years, a figure which compares unfavourably even with the 45 years for an Indian and is less than half the 70 for a Briton. While poverty may be the indirect cause of high mortality, the health needs of the masses have `been grossly neglected because every government of this country has followed the policy of concentrating expenditure in the domains that benefit the privileged classes. `To this same policy must be attributed the very high illiteracy rate-among the highest in the world and not decreasing either-and the steady deterioration of educational standards. If we were to probe deeper into the causes of the iniquitous taxation, the inefficiency of governmental administration when it is not corrupt also, the prevalence of dishonesty in business, and the other evils which put their specific stamp on life in our country, we shall find that they are connected with the sort of capitalist structure that has been built upon the theory that the concentration of wealth leads to economic progress.
Those classes who know themselves guilty of wrongs done to the nation and the reactionary political parties whose eyes are forever turned backwards, attempt. Now to divert attention by proclaiming themselves champions of fanciful ideologies which they ascribe to the original purpose of Pakistan.
To make matters worse, these are men, some of whom hostile to the very conception. of Pakistan, who are now condemning all Pakistani Muslims, except themselves and their followers, as unbelievers, if ` they will not subscribe to the sanctity of economic exploitation and social injustice. This appeal to ignorant fanaticism is dangerous not only to the State but to the unity of Muslims as Muslims.
We, on the other hand, appeal to reason, to the accumulated wealth of human knowledge, to the methods and techniques devised by human ingenuity through the centuries, to show the way out of our national misery towards life worthy of a great people. The real problems that confront the nation are political and economic, but not religious, since both exploiters and exploited profess the same faith--both are Muslims.
Many governments have come and gone, but the trend towards the relative impoverishment of the people, the enrichment of privileged classes and the growth of parasitic vested interests, has proceeded without abatement. All the past governments are certainly to blame for their wrong policies; but they could not act otherwise than they did, being the representatives of class and vested interests. They could not be expected to change the system, when their vocation lay in developing it for the profit of the classes on whose behalf they were in power.
#83 Posted by MantoLives on August 27, 2006 11:42:40 pm
Adam Khan,
1. Excuse me ... who are these MMA fellows? Do they not consist of Fazlurrahman, the son of Mufti Mahmood, and Jamaat-e-Islami... were they not the Congress Party`s BIGGEST supporters alongside Ghaffar Khan and his cronies. I`ve already discussed Ghaffar Khan`s actions and the actions of his cronies. I am afraid I am just not going to agree with your bulldozing of history. You can call me as many names as you want but what you are saying flis in the face of reality.
2. You tie yourself up in knots when you declare that Islamisation should happen in Pakistan because Pakistan was founded for Muslims (the truth be told it was just not as simple as you make it out to be) but then you declare that Ahmadis` (who WERE in the FRONTRANK of PAKISTAN MOVEMENT) apostasisation was a natural outcome of it... how is it the natural outcome when it was a demand put up by the same Mullahs who had opposed the creation of Pakistan ... when the Islamisation of Hudood laws was put up the very same dictator who was supported by the very same elements who had opposed the creation of Pakistan? If you want to trace it back to partition ... how about tracing it back to Khilafat movement... which brought these mullahs to the fore front?
3. Even If we accept that Islamic identity is still required, why should it be the Islamic identity of those religious fanatics who had opposed the creation of Pakistan? How is that a logical outcome.. or are you saying that 1 billion Muslims are necessarily fanatics and Islam is necessarily a fanatical religion? Jinnah`s entire struggle is before us. The fact that he kept Muslims united was by keeping religious doctrine out of the struggle... by refusing to allow ``Ba-jamaat namaz`` ... by refusing to declare Ahmadis non-muslims... these were the key points of his struggle... and you may read the basis of Pakistani nationhood, as he expressed it on 11th August 1947 and several other times during that first important year in the history of Pakistan. How could that idea be based on hostility towards the Hindus, when the first author of the Pakistani national anthem commissioned by Jinnah was a Hindu and a Hindu was chosen to be the LAW MINISTER. Could you tell us if an Sharia-based Islamic state could have a Hindu as a LAW minister? Then you say that Islamisation is the natural consequence of partition but then you tell us that Jinnah and the details of the Pakistan movement doesn`t matter. This is what I call double speak and Khudai-Khidmatgar/ANP/Ghaffar Khan style hypocrisy.
4. This is the same hypocrisy that translated into making political mileage out of Jinnah`s supposed irreligiousity, political mileage by siding with Fakir of Ipi, joining up with Iskandar Mirza`s ``Republican`` Party, and supporting Genera Zia ul Haq and Nawaz Sharif... this the reality of Ghaffar Khan`s politics...
5. I don`t wish to defend Bhutto on the Ahmadi issue, but it is a well known fact that he did so against his own manifesto... and under pressure of the Jamaat-e-Islami- another enemy of Pakistan movement... This again had nothing to do with the creation of Pakistan.
I am just not going to accept your view that Pakistan`s creation, Islamic identity or the common Pakistani`s affiliation to Islam should lead to Islamisation carried out by those very Islamic fanatics (and their ``secular`` allies aka Khan family) who had opposed the creation of Pakistan... you can go on arguing on theselines but feel free to read my #70.
You are part of a typical mindset. `
6. You can wonder all you want... but it goes without saying that most Ahmadis, including my family, has prospered economically and socially because of Pakistan, regardless of 1974.... and besides.. my father who could hardly be described as an emotional man says ``I`d rather be a NON-MUSLIM in Pakistan than being a MUSLIM in India``... that should answer your question as to whether the Ahmadis think they were better off without Pakistan. I have interviewed many Ahmadis directly related and/or family friends.. and while they hate Bhutto for his actions and Zia for his bigotry... none of them have ever questioned the wisdom of being in the frontrank of the Muslim League and Jinnah`s most committed supporters.
So I suggest you stop wondering on behalf of my community.
1. Excuse me ... who are these MMA fellows? Do they not consist of Fazlurrahman, the son of Mufti Mahmood, and Jamaat-e-Islami... were they not the Congress Party`s BIGGEST supporters alongside Ghaffar Khan and his cronies. I`ve already discussed Ghaffar Khan`s actions and the actions of his cronies. I am afraid I am just not going to agree with your bulldozing of history. You can call me as many names as you want but what you are saying flis in the face of reality.
2. You tie yourself up in knots when you declare that Islamisation should happen in Pakistan because Pakistan was founded for Muslims (the truth be told it was just not as simple as you make it out to be) but then you declare that Ahmadis` (who WERE in the FRONTRANK of PAKISTAN MOVEMENT) apostasisation was a natural outcome of it... how is it the natural outcome when it was a demand put up by the same Mullahs who had opposed the creation of Pakistan ... when the Islamisation of Hudood laws was put up the very same dictator who was supported by the very same elements who had opposed the creation of Pakistan? If you want to trace it back to partition ... how about tracing it back to Khilafat movement... which brought these mullahs to the fore front?
3. Even If we accept that Islamic identity is still required, why should it be the Islamic identity of those religious fanatics who had opposed the creation of Pakistan? How is that a logical outcome.. or are you saying that 1 billion Muslims are necessarily fanatics and Islam is necessarily a fanatical religion? Jinnah`s entire struggle is before us. The fact that he kept Muslims united was by keeping religious doctrine out of the struggle... by refusing to allow ``Ba-jamaat namaz`` ... by refusing to declare Ahmadis non-muslims... these were the key points of his struggle... and you may read the basis of Pakistani nationhood, as he expressed it on 11th August 1947 and several other times during that first important year in the history of Pakistan. How could that idea be based on hostility towards the Hindus, when the first author of the Pakistani national anthem commissioned by Jinnah was a Hindu and a Hindu was chosen to be the LAW MINISTER. Could you tell us if an Sharia-based Islamic state could have a Hindu as a LAW minister? Then you say that Islamisation is the natural consequence of partition but then you tell us that Jinnah and the details of the Pakistan movement doesn`t matter. This is what I call double speak and Khudai-Khidmatgar/ANP/Ghaffar Khan style hypocrisy.
4. This is the same hypocrisy that translated into making political mileage out of Jinnah`s supposed irreligiousity, political mileage by siding with Fakir of Ipi, joining up with Iskandar Mirza`s ``Republican`` Party, and supporting Genera Zia ul Haq and Nawaz Sharif... this the reality of Ghaffar Khan`s politics...
5. I don`t wish to defend Bhutto on the Ahmadi issue, but it is a well known fact that he did so against his own manifesto... and under pressure of the Jamaat-e-Islami- another enemy of Pakistan movement... This again had nothing to do with the creation of Pakistan.
I am just not going to accept your view that Pakistan`s creation, Islamic identity or the common Pakistani`s affiliation to Islam should lead to Islamisation carried out by those very Islamic fanatics (and their ``secular`` allies aka Khan family) who had opposed the creation of Pakistan... you can go on arguing on theselines but feel free to read my #70.
You are part of a typical mindset. `
6. You can wonder all you want... but it goes without saying that most Ahmadis, including my family, has prospered economically and socially because of Pakistan, regardless of 1974.... and besides.. my father who could hardly be described as an emotional man says ``I`d rather be a NON-MUSLIM in Pakistan than being a MUSLIM in India``... that should answer your question as to whether the Ahmadis think they were better off without Pakistan. I have interviewed many Ahmadis directly related and/or family friends.. and while they hate Bhutto for his actions and Zia for his bigotry... none of them have ever questioned the wisdom of being in the frontrank of the Muslim League and Jinnah`s most committed supporters.
So I suggest you stop wondering on behalf of my community.
#82 Posted by ahmer23 on August 27, 2006 11:02:41 pm
Re: # 79
Shah Sahib:
Ayk too aap guftugoo saari angrayzi mein farmatay hein, or phir aaqir mein ayk hii sorat ka tarjuma joo pata naheen kahan say aapkayy haathh lag gaya hayy suboot kayy torr paarr daag daytayy hein..Maroon ghutna photayy aankh. Pehlayy faysala yeah karlijyayy kayy guftugoo kii zaban angrayzii pasand farmayein gayy qibla yeah urdu? Agar angrayzii say shauq karna hayy too barahayy meharbanii ayk to quran ka tarjuma bhii anrayzii mein hii farmadein orr khuda ka qauf karkayy koii aysii soratt naqal kardein jiska is behas sayy koii taluq hoo.
Jiss sawal parr aapp taysh mein aagayeyy uskay doo pehloo hein. Pehla to yeah hay kayy Qadiyaniyoon koo kafir qara dayna (1)Jamohhori lihaz say theek hay yeah nahi? (2)Kya qadiyaniyoon ko kafir qara daykarr hamaryy aayimma karam jinn mein tamam makatibe-fikar kay ulema or AWAM shamill hein, kya unhoon nay Allah SWT kay kissii haq parr dakka dala hay?
Hazrat pehlay sawall ka jawab yeah hay kay bilkul theek hayy haq hay. Jamhooriyat ka pehla ussool hii yeahii hayy kay aksarayatii raeyy koo foqiyat dee jayey, ayk shart haan zaroor muhazab qaumoon ki jamhooriyat mein yeah laga dii jaatii hayy kayy baatt aksariyatt kii hii manii jayegii magarr kuch ussool-0-zawabit kayy dairayy mein, uss dairayy ka naam ``Dastoor (Constitution)`` hotta hayy. Abb aapkoo agar dastoor sayy koii takleef pohanch rahii hayy too uska ayk tareeqa hay, doo-tehai aksaryatt layy aayayy orr badal daliyayy dastoor ko, tamam mohazab aqwam mein yeahi tareeqa rayij hay, hamarayy yahan koi anhonnii baat nahii hay.
aap farmatayy hein ``Will you allow Indian Parliament to make a similar amendment to declare all Muslims as Maleechhas or terrorist, etc. Only God can decide about one`s faith.``
Janab hamm kaun hotayy hein ijazatt daynay walayy, jaysa kayy arz karchuka hoon jamhooriyatt mein dastoor kay andarr rehtayy hoayy jiss cheez kii ijazatt hay woh aksaryat ka haq hay wohh buhat khushi say hindustan kay logg karsaktayy hein..aapkoo mujhkoo pasand aayeyy naa aayyey, issay kya farq parta hay?
(2)Kya qadiyaniyoon ko kafir qara daykarr hamaryy aayimma karam jinn mein tamam makatibe-fikar kay ulema or AWAM shamill hein, kya unhoon nay Allah SWT kay kissii haq parr dakka dala hay?
Iska jawab yeah hayy buzargwar kay, badqismati sayy Allah swt arsh say utarr karr tashreef nahii latayy hein masayil hal karnay kay liyayy , insanoon koo bahar hal apnayy roz mara kayy mamlat koo chalanayy kay liyayy, Allah swt ki batayii hooi battoon say maqasid-e-wahi aqaz karnayy partayy hein..
Abb aap farmayein gayy kay nahii qadyani kafir naheen hein, farmatayy rhyayy, kal koo aapp keh dijyayy gaa kayy bhaii Ghulam ahmed sahab aayeyy thayy kall mayaryy khoab mein orr unhoon nayy farmaya hayy kay abb naboowat kay aglayy haqdar shah sahab hein. To phir naoz-0-billah aapkoo bhii nabii maan liya jayeyy? Hazratt musalman Allah ko aykk manayy sayy or nabi-e-kareem Muhammad (SAW) ko Allah ka AAQRi Rassool manayy sayy bana jata hay, iss parr tamam ummmat orr makatib-e-fikar ka ijmaa hayy. Allah kii nazarr mein kaun musalman hayy or kaun nahii iskayy liyayy Roz-e-aaqirat ka intayzar farma lijyayy.
Mein bazat-e-khud iss nazaryay ko haq samajhta hoon kayy murtid ka mamla , Allah kay supard hay usko jismani takleef naheen pohchanii chahyayy uskayy saath insaaf ka mamla bhii hona chayayy, haann usskoo apnayy aqayid ki tableegh karnayy ki ijazatt uss waqat tak nahii dee jasaktii jab takk aapkayy mulk ki aksaryat iss batt parr aamada na hojayeyy kayy harr aeray gheyray natho-khayrayy koo apnay mazhab kii tableegh karnayy dee jayegi. Mulk mein tehreek chala leejyayy orr jamhoori tareqayy say apna yeah haq manwa lijayy, iss mein dushwari kya hay? barayeyy meharbanii abb maghrib ki misal matt dijyayy gaa unkay dastoor mein ijazat hayy har mazhab ko tableegh ki azadii hay, iska mamla unki awam ki aksariyiti rayeyy sayy hay, aap apnayy yahan bhii rayeyy aama hamwar kijayy. Hamarayy buhat sayy aayima bhii isii nazaryayy kayy qayill bhii rahayy hein. Dunya kay mamlaat kayy liyayy bahar haal aksaryat kii rayeyy koo hii fauqiyat orr taujeeh dee jayegii yeahi insaaf ka taqaza hayy orr yeahi jamooriyatt ki assaas bhii hay.
Shah Sahib:
Ayk too aap guftugoo saari angrayzi mein farmatay hein, or phir aaqir mein ayk hii sorat ka tarjuma joo pata naheen kahan say aapkayy haathh lag gaya hayy suboot kayy torr paarr daag daytayy hein..Maroon ghutna photayy aankh. Pehlayy faysala yeah karlijyayy kayy guftugoo kii zaban angrayzii pasand farmayein gayy qibla yeah urdu? Agar angrayzii say shauq karna hayy too barahayy meharbanii ayk to quran ka tarjuma bhii anrayzii mein hii farmadein orr khuda ka qauf karkayy koii aysii soratt naqal kardein jiska is behas sayy koii taluq hoo.
Jiss sawal parr aapp taysh mein aagayeyy uskay doo pehloo hein. Pehla to yeah hay kayy Qadiyaniyoon koo kafir qara dayna (1)Jamohhori lihaz say theek hay yeah nahi? (2)Kya qadiyaniyoon ko kafir qara daykarr hamaryy aayimma karam jinn mein tamam makatibe-fikar kay ulema or AWAM shamill hein, kya unhoon nay Allah SWT kay kissii haq parr dakka dala hay?
Hazrat pehlay sawall ka jawab yeah hay kay bilkul theek hayy haq hay. Jamhooriyat ka pehla ussool hii yeahii hayy kay aksarayatii raeyy koo foqiyat dee jayey, ayk shart haan zaroor muhazab qaumoon ki jamhooriyat mein yeah laga dii jaatii hayy kayy baatt aksariyatt kii hii manii jayegii magarr kuch ussool-0-zawabit kayy dairayy mein, uss dairayy ka naam ``Dastoor (Constitution)`` hotta hayy. Abb aapkoo agar dastoor sayy koii takleef pohanch rahii hayy too uska ayk tareeqa hay, doo-tehai aksaryatt layy aayayy orr badal daliyayy dastoor ko, tamam mohazab aqwam mein yeahi tareeqa rayij hay, hamarayy yahan koi anhonnii baat nahii hay.
aap farmatayy hein ``Will you allow Indian Parliament to make a similar amendment to declare all Muslims as Maleechhas or terrorist, etc. Only God can decide about one`s faith.``
Janab hamm kaun hotayy hein ijazatt daynay walayy, jaysa kayy arz karchuka hoon jamhooriyatt mein dastoor kay andarr rehtayy hoayy jiss cheez kii ijazatt hay woh aksaryat ka haq hay wohh buhat khushi say hindustan kay logg karsaktayy hein..aapkoo mujhkoo pasand aayeyy naa aayyey, issay kya farq parta hay?
(2)Kya qadiyaniyoon ko kafir qara daykarr hamaryy aayimma karam jinn mein tamam makatibe-fikar kay ulema or AWAM shamill hein, kya unhoon nay Allah SWT kay kissii haq parr dakka dala hay?
Iska jawab yeah hayy buzargwar kay, badqismati sayy Allah swt arsh say utarr karr tashreef nahii latayy hein masayil hal karnay kay liyayy , insanoon koo bahar hal apnayy roz mara kayy mamlat koo chalanayy kay liyayy, Allah swt ki batayii hooi battoon say maqasid-e-wahi aqaz karnayy partayy hein..
Abb aap farmayein gayy kay nahii qadyani kafir naheen hein, farmatayy rhyayy, kal koo aapp keh dijyayy gaa kayy bhaii Ghulam ahmed sahab aayeyy thayy kall mayaryy khoab mein orr unhoon nayy farmaya hayy kay abb naboowat kay aglayy haqdar shah sahab hein. To phir naoz-0-billah aapkoo bhii nabii maan liya jayeyy? Hazratt musalman Allah ko aykk manayy sayy or nabi-e-kareem Muhammad (SAW) ko Allah ka AAQRi Rassool manayy sayy bana jata hay, iss parr tamam ummmat orr makatib-e-fikar ka ijmaa hayy. Allah kii nazarr mein kaun musalman hayy or kaun nahii iskayy liyayy Roz-e-aaqirat ka intayzar farma lijyayy.
Mein bazat-e-khud iss nazaryay ko haq samajhta hoon kayy murtid ka mamla , Allah kay supard hay usko jismani takleef naheen pohchanii chahyayy uskayy saath insaaf ka mamla bhii hona chayayy, haann usskoo apnayy aqayid ki tableegh karnayy ki ijazatt uss waqat tak nahii dee jasaktii jab takk aapkayy mulk ki aksaryat iss batt parr aamada na hojayeyy kayy harr aeray gheyray natho-khayrayy koo apnay mazhab kii tableegh karnayy dee jayegi. Mulk mein tehreek chala leejyayy orr jamhoori tareqayy say apna yeah haq manwa lijayy, iss mein dushwari kya hay? barayeyy meharbanii abb maghrib ki misal matt dijyayy gaa unkay dastoor mein ijazat hayy har mazhab ko tableegh ki azadii hay, iska mamla unki awam ki aksariyiti rayeyy sayy hay, aap apnayy yahan bhii rayeyy aama hamwar kijayy. Hamarayy buhat sayy aayima bhii isii nazaryayy kayy qayill bhii rahayy hein. Dunya kay mamlaat kayy liyayy bahar haal aksaryat kii rayeyy koo hii fauqiyat orr taujeeh dee jayegii yeahi insaaf ka taqaza hayy orr yeahi jamooriyatt ki assaas bhii hay.
#81 Posted by majumdar on August 27, 2006 10:02:37 pm
Manto mian,
If you are opposed to ANP just on the ground that because it is a provincial party it is bound to be anti-national you are wrong. Regional parties may represent regional demands and often start out with a strong anti- Centre stand (DMK for eg) but if allowed to function properly over a period of time become responsible ( or at least no more irresponsible than so called National parties) entities on both regional and national issues. in India, almost all the regional parties which started out with a strong anti-Centre agenda and were often suspected of having secessionistic tendencies (DMK/ADMK, TDP, AGP, Akali Dal) are now part of one or other national alliances and rarely resort to anti-Hindi or anti-Delhi rhetoric and often take strong stand on national issues which do not necessarily have a bearing on regional issues- for instance Jaya`a AIADMK was a strong votary of the anti-terrorist act called POTA, which wasn`t really a regional issue at all.
Regards
If you are opposed to ANP just on the ground that because it is a provincial party it is bound to be anti-national you are wrong. Regional parties may represent regional demands and often start out with a strong anti- Centre stand (DMK for eg) but if allowed to function properly over a period of time become responsible ( or at least no more irresponsible than so called National parties) entities on both regional and national issues. in India, almost all the regional parties which started out with a strong anti-Centre agenda and were often suspected of having secessionistic tendencies (DMK/ADMK, TDP, AGP, Akali Dal) are now part of one or other national alliances and rarely resort to anti-Hindi or anti-Delhi rhetoric and often take strong stand on national issues which do not necessarily have a bearing on regional issues- for instance Jaya`a AIADMK was a strong votary of the anti-terrorist act called POTA, which wasn`t really a regional issue at all.
Regards
#80 Posted by Behram1 on August 27, 2006 8:05:16 pm
Re: # 69 by Salim_Chauhan on August 27, 2006 10:06am PT
At-a-boy, now you are talking.
{....... I urge Manto Bhai to get his movement started and discard any lingering effects of ethnicity, provincialism, linguistic chauvinism, sectarian strife, and right-wing whacko fundo Sunni Wahabbist terroristic tendencies. ....}
I second that motion. Yasser is the one who can lead this nation to enlightenment.
At-a-boy, now you are talking.
{....... I urge Manto Bhai to get his movement started and discard any lingering effects of ethnicity, provincialism, linguistic chauvinism, sectarian strife, and right-wing whacko fundo Sunni Wahabbist terroristic tendencies. ....}
I second that motion. Yasser is the one who can lead this nation to enlightenment.
#79 Posted by teshah on August 27, 2006 7:06:47 pm
Re: # 50
Mantolies
``Bhutto threw the question to the assembly and it decided to declare Ahmadis outside the fold of Islam. As the son of an Ahmadi, I might disagree with Ahmadis being outside the fold of Islam... but it was the parliament`s sovereign right and I respect it while disagreeing with it.``
How can you say that a constitution can issue a `Fatwa` (Religious edict) on the faith of the citizens. Horrible! Will you allow Indian Parliament to make a similar amendment to declare all Muslims as Maleechhas or terrorist, etc. Only God can decide about one`s faith. See the following verse of the Quran:
``Aayat 14, soorae hujraat (49) mein Allah farmata he:
``Kaha ganwaron (Arab Awam) ne kih imaan laae ham. Keh nah iman laae tum lekin kaho `Musalman` yehni maghloob hue ham aur abhi nahin daakhil hua iman biich tumhare dilonN meiN aur agar farmanbardari karo allah aur rasool uske ki nahin kam dega tumhaare amloN se kuchh. Tehqiq allah bakhshne wala mehrban he.``
Mantolies
``Bhutto threw the question to the assembly and it decided to declare Ahmadis outside the fold of Islam. As the son of an Ahmadi, I might disagree with Ahmadis being outside the fold of Islam... but it was the parliament`s sovereign right and I respect it while disagreeing with it.``
How can you say that a constitution can issue a `Fatwa` (Religious edict) on the faith of the citizens. Horrible! Will you allow Indian Parliament to make a similar amendment to declare all Muslims as Maleechhas or terrorist, etc. Only God can decide about one`s faith. See the following verse of the Quran:
``Aayat 14, soorae hujraat (49) mein Allah farmata he:
``Kaha ganwaron (Arab Awam) ne kih imaan laae ham. Keh nah iman laae tum lekin kaho `Musalman` yehni maghloob hue ham aur abhi nahin daakhil hua iman biich tumhare dilonN meiN aur agar farmanbardari karo allah aur rasool uske ki nahin kam dega tumhaare amloN se kuchh. Tehqiq allah bakhshne wala mehrban he.``
#77 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on August 27, 2006 2:23:05 pm
Ahmer #72, {``We should see if we can lure George Galloway to pakistan in the mean time What about Imran Khan? I am always enamoured when he speaks, always get a feeling that he is genuine and honest. ``}
Ahmer Bhai,
I have always admired Imran Khan - whether he is winning, as in Melbourne or losing, as in his divorce. However, I am tired of our people putting all their faith in ONE great leader. We need institutions, traditions, principles, and a firm commitment to intolerance, freedom, respect for individual rights, and a culture of acceptance and laissez-faire. That is why I am supporting Manto Bhai, albeit with my fingers crossed, and all the while looking for an ever more suitable leader. Good leadership is an iterative process. :)
Ahmer Bhai,
I have always admired Imran Khan - whether he is winning, as in Melbourne or losing, as in his divorce. However, I am tired of our people putting all their faith in ONE great leader. We need institutions, traditions, principles, and a firm commitment to intolerance, freedom, respect for individual rights, and a culture of acceptance and laissez-faire. That is why I am supporting Manto Bhai, albeit with my fingers crossed, and all the while looking for an ever more suitable leader. Good leadership is an iterative process. :)
#76 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on August 27, 2006 2:22:49 pm
Ahmer #72, {``We should see if we can lure George Galloway to pakistan in the mean time What about Imran Khan? I am always enamoured when he speaks, always get a feeling that he is genuine and honest. ``}
Ahmer Bhai,
I have always admired Imran Khan - whether he is winning, as in Melbourne or losing, as in his divorce. However, I am tired of our people putting all their faith in ONE great leader. We need institutions, traditions, principles, and a firm commitment to intolerance, freedom, respect for individual rights, and a culture of acceptance and laissez-faire. That is why I am supporting Manto Bhai, albeit with my fingers crossed, and all the while looking for an ever more suitable leader. Good leadership is an iterative process. :)
Ahmer Bhai,
I have always admired Imran Khan - whether he is winning, as in Melbourne or losing, as in his divorce. However, I am tired of our people putting all their faith in ONE great leader. We need institutions, traditions, principles, and a firm commitment to intolerance, freedom, respect for individual rights, and a culture of acceptance and laissez-faire. That is why I am supporting Manto Bhai, albeit with my fingers crossed, and all the while looking for an ever more suitable leader. Good leadership is an iterative process. :)
#75 Posted by adamkhan on August 27, 2006 1:59:44 pm
Mantolives:
NWFP`s MMA government was elected in a dubious manner under a dubious election
Were you here in NWFP when the elections were held? Did you talk to people before the election?? As far as my observation goes, people did vote for the MMA and that too in droves. You might not take my word for it, but I was shocked to see the sort of people who voted for them, their symbol “The Book” had a lot to do with it. How can you vote against the Quran? Was the question they asked.
This also speaks volumes about the general mindset of the people here. Non-violence is gone and Pro-violence is here. Gone are the days of the forgiving Pukhtoon, today the Pukhtoon is exported to Lahore and Islamabad to mess up marathons and peace symposiums. Incidently this is a time when the speaking of Ghaffar Khan is considered “Indian Influence” even by the ordinary Pukhtoons. only a blind man will refuse to see the connection.
It is amazing how you tie yourself up in knots when on the one hand you hark back to 1947 saying that the land was liberated for ``Muslims`` who believed in ``Islam`` but you refuse to accept that ``Islam`` of 1947 and ``Muslims`` of 1947 who supported Jinnah included Ahmadis as Muslims for example.
When EXACTLY did I say that? Why would I even say that? Listen, Ahmedis were muslims before Pakistan. It was the Pakistani parliament that took away their right to perform hajj. Why are you blaming me for something that the most popular prime minister of Pakistan did? It was this act that started this obsession with the pure muslim identity.
MY POINT is that this declaration of Ahmedis being converted into Kafirs is a natural consequence of partition. This land was won in the name of MUSLIMS, Islam was bound to come up. If you take Islam out of the Pakistani identity, then what exactly does a Sindhi and a Pathan have in common?
A perpetual “Hate for Hindus” cannot be the basis for a national identity. If you take ISLAM out then the term Pakistani seems meaningless.
Makes me wonder, weren’t we better off before partition???
My apologies to you if you thought I meant that all Ahmedis were Kafir, or that they didn’t have anything to do with the pre-partition freedom struggle. If an Ahmedi wants to call himself a Muslim, then so be it. Who is a sunni or a shia to stop him from doing so? But then most Pakistanis would disagree with me, and I definetly will not blame any dictatorship for that.
As for the secular Pakistan issue, well these past few weeks have shown that the liberals are stooping to the same level as the Mullah. Sher Afgan, and Mr. Alim online had given their views and the MQM wants to punish the desecrators of the “bill”. Take Mushraf away and you have a political spectrum that on secular standards would be right, and far right.
So my friend if you want secularism, it will come to you in a uniform. Even Bhutto couldnt pull it off tu phir Ameen Fahim kiss bagh key moooli hay?
P.S. Kindly do not call me an ANP supporter; nobody with a conscience would ever defend Azam Hoti, Farid Tofan or Naseem Wali.
NWFP`s MMA government was elected in a dubious manner under a dubious election
Were you here in NWFP when the elections were held? Did you talk to people before the election?? As far as my observation goes, people did vote for the MMA and that too in droves. You might not take my word for it, but I was shocked to see the sort of people who voted for them, their symbol “The Book” had a lot to do with it. How can you vote against the Quran? Was the question they asked.
This also speaks volumes about the general mindset of the people here. Non-violence is gone and Pro-violence is here. Gone are the days of the forgiving Pukhtoon, today the Pukhtoon is exported to Lahore and Islamabad to mess up marathons and peace symposiums. Incidently this is a time when the speaking of Ghaffar Khan is considered “Indian Influence” even by the ordinary Pukhtoons. only a blind man will refuse to see the connection.
It is amazing how you tie yourself up in knots when on the one hand you hark back to 1947 saying that the land was liberated for ``Muslims`` who believed in ``Islam`` but you refuse to accept that ``Islam`` of 1947 and ``Muslims`` of 1947 who supported Jinnah included Ahmadis as Muslims for example.
When EXACTLY did I say that? Why would I even say that? Listen, Ahmedis were muslims before Pakistan. It was the Pakistani parliament that took away their right to perform hajj. Why are you blaming me for something that the most popular prime minister of Pakistan did? It was this act that started this obsession with the pure muslim identity.
MY POINT is that this declaration of Ahmedis being converted into Kafirs is a natural consequence of partition. This land was won in the name of MUSLIMS, Islam was bound to come up. If you take Islam out of the Pakistani identity, then what exactly does a Sindhi and a Pathan have in common?
A perpetual “Hate for Hindus” cannot be the basis for a national identity. If you take ISLAM out then the term Pakistani seems meaningless.
Makes me wonder, weren’t we better off before partition???
My apologies to you if you thought I meant that all Ahmedis were Kafir, or that they didn’t have anything to do with the pre-partition freedom struggle. If an Ahmedi wants to call himself a Muslim, then so be it. Who is a sunni or a shia to stop him from doing so? But then most Pakistanis would disagree with me, and I definetly will not blame any dictatorship for that.
As for the secular Pakistan issue, well these past few weeks have shown that the liberals are stooping to the same level as the Mullah. Sher Afgan, and Mr. Alim online had given their views and the MQM wants to punish the desecrators of the “bill”. Take Mushraf away and you have a political spectrum that on secular standards would be right, and far right.
So my friend if you want secularism, it will come to you in a uniform. Even Bhutto couldnt pull it off tu phir Ameen Fahim kiss bagh key moooli hay?
P.S. Kindly do not call me an ANP supporter; nobody with a conscience would ever defend Azam Hoti, Farid Tofan or Naseem Wali.
#74 Posted by adamkhan on August 27, 2006 1:36:15 pm
Mantolives:
Why are you so bent upon declaring Wali Khan as a supporter of Zia? You are stating this particular incident out of context. Bhutto had taken his rivalry with Wali Khan to the next level; he had started an enmity with Wali. Wali Khan was WRONGLY implicated in the murder of Hayat Sherpao, and that was not the only reason that he welcomed Zia there were many other reasons. For instance, The liaqat bagh massacre, the banning of NAP, Asfandyar’s capture and torture, his own imprisonment in Hyderabad and Ghaffar Khan`s exile to Afghanistan.
Now you tell me, with all of this done was he wrong in welcoming Zia? As you in your innocence thought that Musharaf was the deliverer, Wali Khan thought the same about Zia and ZAB had given him enough reason to do so.
Does this make Wali Khan the supporter of Zia!!? NO it doesn’t; why? Because neither Wali Khan NOR any one from the ANP ever took a position in any Zia backed cabinet. Through out the Afghan Jihad the ANP was at daggers drawn with the government, and was pro-Najib. When Ajmal Khattak was forced into exile he used to speak against the war from Kabul Radio, ANP was also part of the MRD which was not pro-zia as I remember it.
Infact it was Zia who took the red flag out of the hand of the Pukhtoon and handed him a lota and miswak. And yet you have the audacity to say that Wali Khan was serving Zia???
Another snippet from history for you, the PPP and ANP were alies in the 1988 election, that too against Nawaz Sharif’s IJI. surprised??? Don’t be, in the recent local body elections Haroon Bilour (ANP) was supported by the PPP here in Peshawar. So it seems the good at heart party is siding with the enemy after all.
Besides didn’t BB take Fazal Ur Rehman as one of her ministers?? How exactly would that be different from Wali Khan siding with Mufti Mahmood? would love to hear your logic.
``Ungli kaat kay shaheedon main shamil``.
If any party has Shaheeds then it’s the party of Ghaffar Khan,
Here is a list of Massacres
Qissa Khwani Massacre (conducted by the British, 1930, 400 dead)
Babara Massacre (Conducted by Mr Jinnah`s very own Qayyum Khan, August 12th 1948, 500-600 dead)
Liaqat Bagh Massacre (Conducted by the FSF of Bhutto, March 23 1973, 12 dead.)
And guess what all these massacres have in common? THEY WERE NEVER AVENGED. And we are talking about a people who are armed to the teeth, and would never forgive murder. Yet it was the charisma of Ghaffar Khan that stopped them from taking any such action. Today if one worker of JI dies after police’s havai firing, his name is written on every wall, “flaanay teray khoon say inqilaab aa yay ga” and yet it was Ghaffar Khan who forgive the slaughter of his workers, who were shot in their chests and I might add in the HUNDREDS. He could have opened a front here in the north and that too in 1948 but he CHOSE not to, he CHOSE to not take up arms. Does it sound like someone who would be in complete agreement with the Fakir of Ipi? And my friend if they had a strong relationship then you wouldn’t be quoting a “secret document” to bind the two together; you would be mentioning surprise attacks on Pakistani Garrisons or the slaughter of innocent civilians. But then Ghaffar Khan never had it in him to order slaughter unlike the orchestrators of all the massacres I mentioned above. But then hey you might know about it and yet I am sure you wont even comment on any of the above, cause the people who died werent Pakistani enough for you.
Why are you so bent upon declaring Wali Khan as a supporter of Zia? You are stating this particular incident out of context. Bhutto had taken his rivalry with Wali Khan to the next level; he had started an enmity with Wali. Wali Khan was WRONGLY implicated in the murder of Hayat Sherpao, and that was not the only reason that he welcomed Zia there were many other reasons. For instance, The liaqat bagh massacre, the banning of NAP, Asfandyar’s capture and torture, his own imprisonment in Hyderabad and Ghaffar Khan`s exile to Afghanistan.
Now you tell me, with all of this done was he wrong in welcoming Zia? As you in your innocence thought that Musharaf was the deliverer, Wali Khan thought the same about Zia and ZAB had given him enough reason to do so.
Does this make Wali Khan the supporter of Zia!!? NO it doesn’t; why? Because neither Wali Khan NOR any one from the ANP ever took a position in any Zia backed cabinet. Through out the Afghan Jihad the ANP was at daggers drawn with the government, and was pro-Najib. When Ajmal Khattak was forced into exile he used to speak against the war from Kabul Radio, ANP was also part of the MRD which was not pro-zia as I remember it.
Infact it was Zia who took the red flag out of the hand of the Pukhtoon and handed him a lota and miswak. And yet you have the audacity to say that Wali Khan was serving Zia???
Another snippet from history for you, the PPP and ANP were alies in the 1988 election, that too against Nawaz Sharif’s IJI. surprised??? Don’t be, in the recent local body elections Haroon Bilour (ANP) was supported by the PPP here in Peshawar. So it seems the good at heart party is siding with the enemy after all.
Besides didn’t BB take Fazal Ur Rehman as one of her ministers?? How exactly would that be different from Wali Khan siding with Mufti Mahmood? would love to hear your logic.
``Ungli kaat kay shaheedon main shamil``.
If any party has Shaheeds then it’s the party of Ghaffar Khan,
Here is a list of Massacres
Qissa Khwani Massacre (conducted by the British, 1930, 400 dead)
Babara Massacre (Conducted by Mr Jinnah`s very own Qayyum Khan, August 12th 1948, 500-600 dead)
Liaqat Bagh Massacre (Conducted by the FSF of Bhutto, March 23 1973, 12 dead.)
And guess what all these massacres have in common? THEY WERE NEVER AVENGED. And we are talking about a people who are armed to the teeth, and would never forgive murder. Yet it was the charisma of Ghaffar Khan that stopped them from taking any such action. Today if one worker of JI dies after police’s havai firing, his name is written on every wall, “flaanay teray khoon say inqilaab aa yay ga” and yet it was Ghaffar Khan who forgive the slaughter of his workers, who were shot in their chests and I might add in the HUNDREDS. He could have opened a front here in the north and that too in 1948 but he CHOSE not to, he CHOSE to not take up arms. Does it sound like someone who would be in complete agreement with the Fakir of Ipi? And my friend if they had a strong relationship then you wouldn’t be quoting a “secret document” to bind the two together; you would be mentioning surprise attacks on Pakistani Garrisons or the slaughter of innocent civilians. But then Ghaffar Khan never had it in him to order slaughter unlike the orchestrators of all the massacres I mentioned above. But then hey you might know about it and yet I am sure you wont even comment on any of the above, cause the people who died werent Pakistani enough for you.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- _arjun9: so muslims are the... Muslim Ghettoisation
- Eklavya: hamidm2 wow! So Islam-ridden people... Muslim Ghettoisation
- _arjun9: #115 Posted by... Muslim Ghettoisation
- tahir: Re: # 250 Untruth Thanks... Muslims in America
- tahir: Re: # 129 Ham-damn-thank-you-ma'am Check... Muslim Ghettoisation
- tahir: Re: # 126 Untruth "They... Muslim Ghettoisation
- _arjun9: #110 Posted by aslam644... Muslim Ghettoisation
- tahir: Re: # 120 "since he... Muslim Ghettoisation
