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

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.

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

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

Re:mantolives

Manto, did Jinnah ever put forth a formal power sharing request to the Congress or the British? I know he supported the Cabinet Mission Plan but that was a Brit idea. On his own, did he come up with a formal list of demands?

If Jinnah never came up with any formal request, then your arguments fall flat. What would be his motivation to separate from India, if he was never denied anything that he was asking for? Then it would boil down to just sectrian intolerance i.e. unwillingness to live with hindus just because they are hindus and are in a majority. Later on saying that all muslims should live together and forget religious differences ring hollow and hypocritical since the foundation of his ideology was sectrian intolerance. Hence if other people take it one step further and then divide along shia-sunni, ahmedi-non-ahmedi etc. basis, they can say that they are simply extrapolating Jinnah`s politics further.

That is exactly what has happened in Pakistan - it is not a negation of Jinnah`s politics but a further extension.

From the official Ahmadi Website...


Outstanding role of Ahmadis in Making and Consolidation of Pakistan


Pakistan like India celebrates Golden Jubilee of her Independence. Pakistan became independent on August 14,1947 and India on August 15, 1947.

New Canada, in this special number, outlines outstanding role played by Ahmadis in making and consolidation of Pakistan.

It is generally known that Mr Mohammed Ali Jinnah (George Washington of Pakistan) single handedly founded Pakistan. While the Indian leaders notably Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Nehru and a host of Congress leaders spent many years in Jail and launched several civil disobedience Movements - but this thin and slim outstanding lawyer called Jinnah carved out an Independent Islamic state called Pakistan in seven years from nowhere.

From Lahore Resolution of March 23, 1940 to crucial talks in June 1946, battles were won by this remarkable statesman, Mr M. A. Jinnah. This astounded the India`s Princely Viceroy Lord Mountbatten. He was amazed at the remarkable the skills of this sharp and tactful statesman at negotiations. His determination stronger than the rock of Gibraltar and his unquestionable integrity were the sterling qualities that landed Muslims of India a homeland of their own.

Pakistan owes its existence to an Ahmadi Divine

Few know this fact that Mr M. A. Jinnah had quit the Indian political scene and out of the frustration left Indian politics. He retreated to London (U.K.) after attending the second Round Table Conference in 1932, where he established a remarkable legal practice.

It was a great loss to Muslims in India. It provided immense relief to Indian Congress, as their main adversary left the field.

He was persuaded back to India by no other person than Hadhrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, the Head of Ahmadiyya Movement. This divine figure surveyed the Indian political horizon and found no honest and outstanding Muslim figure to lead the Muslims of India, the Muslims who lost their empire in India after five centuries of Moghal rule.

Hadhrat Sahib asked the then Ahmadiyya Missionary in London (UK) Mr Abdur Raheem Dard to get in touch with Mr M. A. Jinnah who initially turned down all overtures. It took Mr Dard in three hours face to face talk successfully persuaded him to return to India. Mr Jinnah was most reluctant, but he eventually changed his mind.

The Sunday Times London (April 9,1933) carried a report of a reception that was held by the Imam of London Mosque Mr Dard, where Mr Jinnah frankly acknowledged the fact that:

“The eloquent persuasion of Imam left me no way of escape”

Sardar Shaukat Hayat in his book “The Nation that lost its soul” (page 147) mentions the following event:

“One day, I got a message from Quaid e Azam saying ‘Shaukat, I believe you are going to Batala, which I understand is about five miles from Qadian, please go to Qadian and meet Hadhrat Sahib and request him on my behalf for his blessings and support for Pakistan`s cause.’ After the meeting (in Batala) I reached Qadian about midnight, I sent a word that I had brought a message from Quaid e Azam. He came down immediately and enquired what were Quaid`s wishes. I conveyed his message for prayer and for his support for Pakistan. He said: ‘Please convey to the Quaid e Azam that we have been praying for his mission from the very beginning.’ Where the help of his followers is concerned, no Ahmadi will stand against any Muslim Leaguer.”

The second feat, during that crucial period after elections, was achieved, when Ch Zafrulla Khan who prevailed upon Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana to resign at a time when Mr Tiwana enjoyed complete confidence of the Panjab Assembly, paving the way for the Muslim League to appear on the horizon.

Crucial Contribution of Ahamdi Divine in Making of Pakistan


Hadhrat Mirza Bashir ud Din Mahmud Ahmad was watching with dismay the unholy alliance between the Viceroy and the Congress Party, as an Interim Indian Government was formed in 1946 without Muslim participation. Mr Jinnah threatened to launch a protest movement.

On September 23, 1946, this divine figure arrived in Delhi along with a team of advisors and remained in Delhi at the residence of Ch Zafrulla Khan for three weeks.

He held high level discussions with top Indian leaders, Mr M. A. Jinnah, Mahtama Gandhi, Pandit Nehru, Nawab of Bhopal, Khawja Nazimuddin, Sardar Niashtar and Nawab Chattari. Hadhrat Sahib also wrote a letter to Lord Wavell indicating to him that the Muslim League enjoyed the total support of the Indian Muslims.

A day before his departure for Qadian, Lord Wavell invited the Muslim League to join the Interim Cabinet of India.The daily Nawa i waqt in its issue of October 14,1946 quoted Hindu Daily Milap:

“This act tantmounts to torpedeoing of the Indian Independence Movement. Hadhrat Sahib in a policy lecture forcefully supported the concept of Pakistan.” (Al Fazal May 21,1947)


Treacherous Ulema


In the crucial stages of delicate negotiations that Mr Jinnah conducted with the British Government, the whole gang of Ulema led by Ahrars (the Muslim clergy) abetted, instigated and funded by the Indian Congress, opposed Mr Jinnah at every step.

The Indian Congress party had dozens of powerful leaders, they had a powerful machinery and unlimited cash was available to defeat the single handed effort of a lone figure Mr Jinnah - fondly called as Quaid e Azam (the great leader).

Despite heavy odds, despite heavy opposition by the Muslims priesthood led by Ahrars, Mr Jinnah won and won convincingly because he enjoyed the prayers of this divine figure who called him to India.

Muslim League captured solid power in Panjab, NWFP and Bengal in 1946 elections. The real tragedy of Pakistan is that this very pack of ulema who opposed the Making of Pakistan overnight became the lovers of Pakistan.

“The monopoly” of this gang of priesthood was threatened by this divine figure (the Head of Ahmadiyya Movement) who was presenting the true face of Islam.

This corrupt priesthood never accepted the creation of a Muslim state. They thought in order to weaken Pakistan, the best way is to strike at the Ahmadiyya Movement and foment an agitation unparalleled in the history of the subcontinent.

First it was in 1953, when the Muslim clergy mounted an onslaught against the Ahmadiyya Movement demanding they be declared as non Muslims and it was skilfully engineered by the Premier of Panjab, Mian Mumtaz Daultana, who wanted to topple the Government of Pakistan. The Muslim clergy was headed by Jamat Islami and funded by Saudi Arabia. It failed.

Then a crook of the century, commonly known as Mr Z. A. Bhutto appeared on the scene in 1969. Posing as a socialist and secularist, he gained the sympathy of Ahmadiyya Jamat who was targeted by the fundamentalist Muslims.

Generally Ahmadiyya Movement keeps aloof from politics, but out of all the crooked and corrupt politicians, Mr Bhutto appeared to be a lesser devil. Once he won a majority in West Pakistan with the support of Ahmadis, like Machiavelli, he changed his colours.

Having being instrumental in the break up of Pakistan, East Pakistan becoming Bangla Desh, he desperately sought a political handle. And he found one, when he sided with priests and thought by declaring Ahmadis as non Muslims and he would gain another term, he did but soon he was kicked out by another bigger crook, commonly known as Gen Zia ul Haq. This so-called general who became a general without seeing “any action” did show some action by hanging his benefactor, Mr Bhutto. By 1984, his General saw his popularity going down the tube.

To flag his dwindling popularity he resorted to the same old political gimmick and this time he brought an ordinance under the cover of the Martial Law to declare that Ahmadis are non Muslims, and they would be put in jail if they call themselves Muslims.

This crook however unwittingly or wittingly entered into a prayer duel in 1988 with the son of that divine figure - Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the current head of Ahmadiyya Movement and disappeared in the fireball of plane crash in 1988 taking with him the USA Ambassador who was travelling with him.

What Keeps Pakistan Intact — Prayers of a Prince of Islam


Pakistan came into being in the name of Islam - but now that rasion d`etre is gone. It is now a linguistic state populated by people who speak Punjabi, Sindhi, Pushto, Baluchi and Urdu speaking refugees.

It would have become Bosnia or Zaire but for the prayers of that Prince of Islam, Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the illustrious son of the Hadhrat Mirza Bashir ud Din Mahmud Ahmad. It is his prayers that is sustaining Pakistan.

Despite persecution of his followers and the fact he is living in another country (UK), that Prince of Islam still prays for the integrity and solidarity of Pakistan.

--

PPS: While I thank you for condemning Wali Khan`s derogatory reference to Ahmadis so as to buttress his weak argument against the Pakistan movement, you`ve produced a series of similar weak arguments that need to be taken to task. Hope you don`t take any of this personally...

PS:

Oh yes.. your statement in response to my point about Pakistani patriots who are non-Muslims...

``Why?? Why would you do that? It is a very healthy development but do remember that it came at a time when the country is run by the men in Khaki. Like I said you need uniforms to implement the original idea of Mr. Jinnah. The democratic developments would seem a “mystery” to you.``

I am sorry- I think Pakistanis are as able as any people to work out a democratic framework....All of Pakistan`s ills start and finish with military intervention and consistent derailing of the democratic process... If democracy is allowed to function.. people will learn the process and will become smarter... Jinnah`s original idea was always one of evolution through democracy ... if you need the Khakis to implement his vision of Pakistan then it is not his vision of Pakistan.

Is this another excuse for Wali Khan and his family`s support of dictators?

Adam Khan,

Ah... very clever... you`ve ignored by latest post as usual because you have no answer and gone back to Aitzaz and Sherry Rahman. 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. As for Zulfikar Ali Bhutto... he called his support to Ayub the biggest mistake of his life and PPP never repeated this mistake. 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... again the problem here is that ANP`s interests can never coincide with Pakistan`s interests - as your posts have shown clearly. You are trying your best to give a justification for why we, the Pakistanis, should give our country to the very same forces that opposed the creation of the country in the first place.

So far you have not proved a single point that I have put up wrong. Instead you are speaking from both sides of your mouth...

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.

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.

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?

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 ?

5. Huh? Please produce a single 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.

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.


7. The incidents you mention are completely irrelevant to the debate at hand even if we accept your version of them. Therefore I don`t see any point in arguing with you about it. I haven`t researched them nor do I feel the need to do so. Even if Ghaffar Khan was Jesus Christ-incarnate... it goes without saying that he sided with Fakir of Ipi in the quest for Sharia and later his brother joined the establishment and his son was one of Zia`s principal backers in his coup against Pakistan`s democracy.

8. The common fact was the liberal and constitutional appeal of these leaders... The fact that both Bhutto and Mujeeb had worked for the Pakistan Movement... that Mujeeb and Bengalis were willing supporters of Fatima Jinnah`s movement and were ready to remain within the fold of Pakistan even in 1970 tells me another story. Besides Mujeeb based his demands and movement on the Lahore Resolution, which is the basis of Pakistan. Even the creation of an independent Bangladesh is not a negation of the Lahore resolution. So I don`t see any negation of the two nation theory... but it goes without saying that Jinnah`s 11th August Speech and his vision of Pakistan itself retires the Two Nation Theory as being irrelevant for one of the FUNDAMENTAL CORNERSTONES of minoritarian nature of the Muslim position.

So on both counts you don`t have a point.


Anything else?

I felt it odd when I saw Hadrat Khilafatul Masih VI on TV on their channel coz they were focussing on an individual as if he`s a god-incarnate. This is against the very tenet of Islam. Isn`t it?

By appearcne they are well fed, well organised, well indoctrinated into the fold. It happens from childhood with Huzur meetings, Jalsa and social and sports events.

My landord gave a copy of Ahmadiyya Bulletin May 2006 and told something about it. I have gone thru it. Why on earth they call themselves Ahmadiyyas? The bulletin contains all good things about the religion, then why they are call themselves as Ahmadiyyas i/o Muslims? Why they cosider themselves as different from other Muslims?

Also... the largest place of worship in Model Town built in the poshest area of the locality... built in the 1980s... is the Ahmaddiya Bait-ul-Noor mosque in C block, five times the size of Dr Israr Ahmad`s mosque ... the next biggest place of worship is actually a Hindu temple smack in the centre of D block... and interestingly the temple still has a sizeable congregation ...

When I spoke about my Sunni Muslim profession and being viewed with suspicion... it was wholely and solely within the context of this website alone.

But then these facts would always upset hatemongers.

Dear Mantolives

I am sorry to say this, but you have no shame. I did not resort to any personal insults, all I said was that you can not claim to be speaking for the Ahmedi community while you say yourself that you have become a sunni muslim. The Ahmedi community is “Ahmedi” because it believes in a certain interpretation of Islam. Once you say that you don’t believe in that interpretation “you cease to be an Ahmedi”. I even apologized to you earlier if my remarks hurt your feelings, but then you did not deserve that apology because you are not an Ahmedi.

It is you who keeps referencing to the past and keep repeating your same prejudiced divisions,

In #56 you said

Pakistan`s national assembly today is divided between those who care about the country, where it is going and how it should be run .... and those who don`t or have other more pressing agendas.

The former - the caring Pakistanis- are those patriots (Aitzaz Ahsan, Sherry Rahman, Syed Kabir Ali Wasti, Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri, Farooq Sitar, Kashmala Tariq etc) and sons and daughters of the soil whose antecedents had toiled for the creation of the country, who had toiled for democracy and who fought against martial laws of Ayub and Zia.

The antecede of Sherry Rahman and Aitzaz Ahsan was one of Ayubs most loyal servants. So this argument of yours with all the patriotic bull crap about sons, daughters, and soil falls flat on its face. In fact it was Wali Khan who supported Fatima Jinnah against Ayub, another fact that you would conveniently ignore.

And you show your ignorance again

yes the same constitutional democratic process ANP and the Khan family have always had a big role in derailing...

Go read up on Wali Khan’s jail terms and you will get an idea of his moral stature.

why is it that the Ahmadi global center ``Islamabad`` in London continues to take this line without any duress?

Don’t be that naïve, you know it better than me that if the Islamabad (London) said anything against Pakistan. Rabwah will be sacked by proud Pakistanis and the less fortunate and middle class Ahmedis would be slaughtered like lambs.

I find it rather funny and ridiculous at the same time, that you a supporter of Wali Khan who in his book ``Lies are sacred`` says using the word ``Qadiani`` that it was because a Qadiani wrote the Lahore resolution, Pakistan was the product of british policy.

Wali Khan is not infallible, his use of the word “Qadiani” as a derogatory term was totally wrong.

Didn`t Jinnah unite the Muslims by keeping doctrinal issues out ? Islam can only be a unifying force if it is kept general and not made specific. There is no consensus on most things and this is why narrowminded Islamisation that seeks to divide and not unite is the anti-thesis of the Pakistan Movement.

Jinnah united the Muslims by pointing at the Hindu demon, he didn’t need to quote the Quran while doing that. What the two nation theory did was that it divided the population of the subcontinent on the basis of religious identities. Any further divisions (within Pakistan) wont be any different from that initial spirit, the Quran is needed for further divisions and it is liberally used by every long beard and now even the clean shaven ones (and THAT my friend is what I am talking about).

Also if we use your logic... pray tell should we throw out Justice Rana Bhagwandas, the senior most justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court and its acting Chief Justice for not being a Muslim...

Why?? Why would you do that? It is a very healthy development but do remember that it came at a time when the country is run by the men in Khaki. Like I said you need uniforms to implement the original idea of Mr. Jinnah. The democratic developments would seem a “mystery” to you.

when religion and Pushtunwelle is shoved down your throat, you are not liable to understand this logic.

Tsk tsk tsk….. if anything Ghaffar Khan totally ignored the rule of “revenge” which is at the core of Pukhtoonwali when it came to the Qissa Khwani Bazzar massacre and the Barbara Massacre. This is the umpteenth time that I am mentioning these incidents and not even once did you have the courage or the decency to say anything about it.

The bottomline is that whenever the masses of Muslims of South Asia and the Pakistani and Bangladeshi people have gotten a fair vote ....they have chosen these leaders to represent them

The series of pictures following these lines were pretty funny, you lumped bhutto and mujeeb together and topped it off with Jinnah. So the people who proved the two nation theory wrong are the actual heirs of Jinnah???

Regards

Salim Bhai,

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 to enforce his presidential constitution which in any event was based on Jinnah`s 11th August speech and was completely secular.

I must also point out that Jamaat-Ahmaddiya does not for a minute regret its support for the creation of Pakistan (a concept distinct from partition in any event) or its support for Jinnah... It goes without saying that I am where I am because of my family, which regardless of its religion and religious affiliation, has been a beneficiary of the creation of Pakistan... after all, it was the same Lahore where business and commerce was once completely dominated by our Hindu friends... I shudder to think where I would be, had my father not been a successful businessman in Pakistan.

While Manto romances Ms Gupta, Pakistan burns ...

Yes, where is our promised Messiah? As the sole Paki Punjabi ``Pisser-e-Zameen,`` who has any credibility left among the persecuted minorities of Pakistan, Manto Bhai needs to accelerate his plans to save Pakistan.

Persecuted Punjabis of the Ahmedi persuasion, Massacred Mohajirs of Karachi and Hyderabad, Pulverized Pathans of FATA and NWFP, bombed Baluchis of Baluchistan, aggrieved Azad Kashmiris, besieged Baltis, horrified Hindus, shackled Shias, insecure Ismailis, and various other minorities have lost all hope in those who are sworn to protect the country.

We have met the enemy and he wears a uniform, salutes the star & crescent, murmurs the Kalima, and then commits rape, looting, torture, and murder against those he should be protecting.

Yes, YAHAN KE CHOR HEN CHOWKIDAR. Manto Bhai, Jaldi Aao aur desh bachao

Dear Adam Khan,

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. You need a lot of support alright, given the untenable nature of your arguments- if one could call your unfortunate extrapolations and petty attempts to distort the truth that.

1. At the outset I want to make it clear that you`ve not responded to a single point I have raised but have repeated your rhetoric and ANP/Congress propaganda that is so simplistic that it would never stand the test of facts. I invite you to open your mind a little and respond to my comments fairly.

2. You say 1974`s excommunication was a natural outcome of 1947 ... but then you say what Jinnah said didn`t matter. The acid test should be... were Ahmadis part of the Muslim League or the Pakistan Movement and were considered Muslims or not by Jinnah and the Muslim League. Ahmadis were, as you`ve admitted several times, considered Muslims. Meanwhile those in the frontranks of demanding Ahmadis` excommunication were THOSE who HAD opposed the creation of Pakistan and later asked for Sharia in Pakistan. Using your logic one could also say that 1974 was the direct result of tolerating the motley crew of Fazlurrahmans, Muftis, Maudoodis and Ghaffar khans (especially his role in sharia honking fakir`s rebellion). By the same token the Khilafat Movement, where Gandhi and other encouraged Mullahs to come into politics and overthrow secular leaders could also be blamed... heck we could keep going back in history.

3. Then you declare that had the Ahmadis known what was to come they would have never supported the Pakistan movement... to be fair many have said the same thing about Jinnah but I disagree with this whole pessimistic line of thought. For one thing I would like to know who died and made you the spokesman of Ahmadis? Jamaat-Ahmaddiya to this day continues to proudly proclaim its great and historic role in the aid of Jinnah and the Muslim League. If what you are saying is true, why is it that the Ahmadi global center ``Islamabad`` in London continues to take this line without any duress?

4. I find it rather funny and ridiculous at the same time, that you a supporter of Wali Khan who in his book ``Lies are sacred`` says using the word ``Qadiani`` that it was because a Qadiani wrote the Lahore resolution, Pakistan was the product of british policy. And now you have the ``spine`` (to use your wonderful vocabulary) to speak for the Ahmadis? I find this whole charade most amusing.

5. Then you declare (and rightly so) that perpetual hatred of Hindus is not enough to make a nation, concluding that Islam is what brings together a Pathan and a Sindhi. First of all, only the constitutional democratic process can keep a nation together... and nothing else. What holds India together if it is not the constitutional democratic process.... yes the same constitutional democratic process ANP and the Khan family have always had a big role in derailing... but even if we accept your logic that it is Islam that binds Pathans and Sindhis...
how does that make a case for enforcing sharia and declaring sects non-muslims a logical outcome? Didn`t Jinnah unite the Muslims by keeping doctrinal issues out ? Islam can only be a unifying force if it is kept general and not made specific. There is no consensus on most things and this is why narrowminded Islamisation that seeks to divide and not unite is the anti-thesis of the Pakistan Movement. The only reason Jinnah succeeded where the motley crew that you support failed was that Jinnah looked too neutral and non-sectarian to most Muslims.. because Jinnah refused to quote verses after verses of the Quran and instead spoke of their political rights as a people united by common history and experience.
It must be recalled that there is still Jinnah`s famous oath of office of governor general on the record... where he struck off any mention of God... not because he was godless... but because he did not want to close the door to atheists who might be elected to the top ...

6. I don`t hold the brief for Bhutto, Benazir or the PPP so why do you keep bringing them up... truth be told... Bhutto during the 1970 election campaign had declared that Ahmadis would never be declared Non-muslim. The people voted for him. Bhutto`s decision to accede to Jamaat-e-Islami demand OF Ahmadi excommunication is a mystery to me frankly... but I also know that Bhutto saw the entire arrangement as a temporary one. He wanted to win a 2/3rds majority in 1977 to enforce a new Secular constitution of presidential... the author of this constitution was Leslie Wolf Philips of London School of Economics and Political Science... this constitution, based on Jinnah`s 11th August pronouncement, would make the whole issue of religion a personal matter.

Also if we use your logic... pray tell should we throw out Justice Rana Bhagwandas, the senior most justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court and its acting Chief Justice for not being a Muslim... should we forget the contributions of Parsis, Christians and Hindus to Pakistan post-1947 ... who have made their contributions as Pakistani patriots?

7. Stop putting words in my mouth. If you have any shame you will produce exactly where I have declared ANP to b a religious party... I have called ANP a shamelessly opportunistic party which at best is not interested in pakistan`s well being and at worst is willing to collaborate with Zia and other dictators to bring down the federation. Similarly you can`t produce where I have called PPP anti-Establishment... I have called PPP a patriotic Pakistani party ... nothing else. It has been part of the establishment and it has been against it.

8. I am not calling Sharia a fanatical ideology. I am calling the Fazlurrahman/Mufti and Maududi spin on the sharia a fanatical ideology. That they were all opponents of the Pakistan movement ... adds to my argument. I consider the 1974 amendment wrong and in contravention to the ideals on which Pakistan was founded... but I am willing to work with it to let the constitutional process continue... Also the 1974 amendment excommunicated Ahmadis for the purpose of the constitution ... but it was General Zia ul Haq`s ordinances that opened the floodgates of discrimination ... the discrimination against Ahmadis and their persecution in Zia`s regime was in contravention to the Article 20 of the Pakistani constitution. Non-Muslim status did not affect their equal citizen status.. Zia did ... and Zia was brought to power by the same motley crew that had supported the Congress party against the Muslim League.

I hope you will stop resorting to personal attacks simply because you can`t come up with an argument worth the typewriter its typed on. Also... my personal decision to adopt a sect of Islam other than my father does not automatically sever my ties with my community - the Ahmadis. Ofcourse... when religion and Pushtunwelle is shoved down your throat, you are not liable to understand this logic.

The bottomline is that whenever the masses of Muslims of South Asia and the Pakistani and Bangladeshi people have gotten a fair vote ....they have chosen these leaders to represent them:














over this motley crew of funky-looking fakirs (naked and otherwise) who used their appearance and apparent piety to win votes:

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.

#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!

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?

(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

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.

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.

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.

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

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. :)

Re: # 77

Saleem Bhai,

Couldn`t agree more.

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. :)

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.

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 ban