It should be called Stupid Ordinance, not Hudood!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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

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?

#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!

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.

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:

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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?