Wahabism in Centers of Learning

#112 This khasi must have heard lies in his mother`s womb.

If one has to see a despicable person posting lies read post no 112 by this one ass of a person

1. There are no “Mulsim only cars” in Pakistan there never were.
2. There was no “West Pakistan Railroad’ In 1992 in fact, there has never been any West Pakistan Railroad in Pakistan ever. It was called West Pakistan Railway until 1973 after that it is called Pakistan Railways.
3. There is no the Separate Car Act in Pakistan. If there was one it would have gotten mention in the press.
This harrami kutay ki aulad is pulling this info from the web and changing names.

Matherchod Khasi.
As Manto would say a typical Gandhi follower.


The story shows up here and it is abt the US….
http://www.bcri.org/education_programs/curriculum_guide/plessy.htm

In 1890, Louisiana passed a statute called the ``Separate Car Act``. This law declared that all rail companies carrying passengers in Louisiana had to provide separate but equal accommodations for white and non-white passengers. The penalty for sitting in the wrong compartment was a fine of $25 or 20 days in jail.
Homer Plessy was a 30-year-old shoemaker and a resident of Louisiana. In 1892, Plessy purchased a first-class ticket on the East Louisiana Railway, from New Orleans to Covington, Louisiana. Although Plessy was only one-eighth black, under Louisiana law he was considered black. Therefore, he was required to sit in the ``Colored`` car. Instead, Plessy sat in the car for ``White`` passengers. When he refused to move, he was jailed.
Plessy argued in court that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Thirteenth Amendment banned slavery and the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the government treat people equally. John Howard Ferguson, the judge hearing the case, had stated in a previous court decision that the Separate Car Act was unconstitutional if applied to trains running outside of Louisiana. In this case, however, he declared that the law was constitutional for trains running within the state. Ferguson found Plessy guilty of not leaving the whites-only car.


Before Judge Ferguson made his decision, Plessy filed a petition to ask the Louisiana State Supreme Court (a higher court) to stop the judge from making his decision. Plessy argued in this separate case that his ancestry was seven-eighths Caucasian and only one-eighth African and that he should be treated like any white man.
The Louisiana State Supreme Court asked Judge Ferguson to answer Plessy`s petition. Ferguson said that the Separate Car Act was constitutional and that Plessy refused to admit that he was a black man. The Louisiana Supreme Court agreed with Judge Ferguson that the Separate Car Act was constitutional. Plessy then took his case, Plessy v. Ferguson, to the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the country. Judge John Howard Ferguson was named in the case because he had been named in the petition to the Louisiana State Supreme Court, not because he was a party to the initial lawsuit.

Dear Osama,

I am quite stunned by your biased view of the religious-minded students in Pakistani universities. You are trying to potray ``green turban wearing students flocking together to one of the several mosques`` as it these were some drug mafia guys flocking in some university no-go area. Just look at your sentence that follows this one. Quote``mullah mafia is slowly and inexorably overthrowing ....``. What is the logical link between the two. Just because some people (which mind you are not a very big majority) perfer to offer prayers in the mosque (which is their right as free citizens) and fewer still also perfer to wear a green turban, somehow gave you this conculsion that they are the cause of all problems that plagues the world today.

There are several grounds on which I beg to disagree.

Firstly, if you take an unbiased look at the universities you will see a more open and expressive atmosphere for both ends of thoughts. While there are more people being attracted towards religion today, there are certainly also more dates on-campus today than their would have been 5 years ago. Go to any public university and ask a students or teacher who has been there for 4 years and just ask him how things have changed over these years. He will tell you that students today are more confident to make their own decisions. When some want to go to mosque for prayers ther prefer to do so without any hesitation or thinking ``what will others say``. Same is true for the other bunch of class who are much less shy today to ask a girl out on a date as compared to the students 5-10 years ago. Both of them have a simple base. People today are more democratic in their thinking and feel more confident of themselves.

It is odd that you talk about the freedom of religion for every citizen. Yet regular offering of prayers in the mosque is not seen as a act covered under freedom of religious practise, but rather a crime against stae.

As for the role models, it is absolutely wrong for someone to say that the people look up to maulvis as a role model. Pakistanis has never voted a religious party leader to be the PM. Inspite of the people´s strong belief in Islam, they do not appreciate the conduct of the mullah themselves. Their lack of confidence is clear from their voting records.

When talking of Abaya, somehow you totally forgot about the burqa ???

I am actually stunned by your biased analysis of the situation. I really wonder if you have been to any of these universities at all.

Urstruly (#108):

``Intelligence of your ullema`` (cough, cough) is underscored by their belief in a two-thousand year old prophet residing above clouds, that Prophet flew above clouds to meet Allah, that Moses parted the ocean by waving his hand, that apostates and adulterers should be killed, that Ahmadis should be locked up for practicing Islam, and much more.

Such morons can`t be trusted with running a country. If this is the best the ummah can offer, their miserable state is not unexpected.

And if makes you feel better, note that Pentagon too went through procedures on Iraqi WMD issue. There were flow charts and procedures and it all sounded well. Same is the case with your Shariah Courts: a load of crap, but with feel-good terms and procedures.

Devil is in the details ... and that`s where your mullahs fall flat on their faces. The rest is good old-fashioned hatred and violence perpetuated in the name of God.

Re #108 urstruly,

Supreme courts interpret laws and constitutions that are made by the elected legisatures.
In that sense they are subservient to the elected legislatures.

Are you suggesting that elected parliaments define what the Islamic injuctions are that cannot be violated by its laws in a manner similar to how laws cannot violate provisions of a constitution?

On June 7, 1992, a 30-year-old shoemaker named Abdul Ghafoor was jailed for sitting in the “Muslims only” car of the West Pakistan Railroad. Ghafoor was only one-eighths non-Muslim and seven-eighths Muslim, but under Pakistani law, he was considered non-Muslim and therefore required to sit in the “Non-Muslims” car. Ghafoor went to court and argued, in Ghafoor v. Pakistan, that the Separate Car Act violated the 1973 Pakistani Constitution.

The local court found Ghafoor guilty of refusing to leave the “Muslims only” car. Ghafoor appealed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which upheld the decision. In 1996, the Supreme Court of Pakistan heard Ghafoor’s case and found him guilty once again. Speaking for a majority, its Chief Justice wrote:

“That [the Separate Car Act] does not conflict with the Pakistani Constitution, which envisages an Islamic Republic...is too clear for argument...A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the Muslims and non-Muslims -- a distinction which is founded in the basic religion of the two, and which must always exist so long as Muslim men are distinguished from the other by religion -- has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two...The object of the constitutional provision was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon religion, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two religions upon terms unsatisfactory to either.”

The lone dissenter showed incredible foresight when he wrote:

“A secular Constitution is religion-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law...In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the American Dred Scott case...The present decision, it may well be apprehended, will not only stimulate aggressions, more or less brutal and irritating, upon the admitted rights of non-Muslim citizens, but will encourage the belief that it is possible, by means of state enactments, to defeat any beneficient purposes which the people of Pakistan had in view when they adopted the 1973 Constitution.”

Over time, the words of the dissenting Justice rang true. The Ghafoor decision set the precedent that “separate” facilities for non-Muslims and Muslims were constitutional as long as they were “equal.” The “separate but equal” doctrine was quickly extended to cover many areas of public life, such as restaurants, theaters, restrooms, and schools. Not until 2054, in an equally important decision, would the “separate but equal” doctrine be struck down.

(Note: the above account describes a true event. The following changes were made: 1892 --> 1992, Homer Plessy --> Abdul Ghafoor, Louisiana --> Pakistan, 1954 --> 2054)

Re: HP
``Laws do have underlying philosophy and secularism is one of them. The whole argument is that the religions create biases and the laws based on religions would tend to discriminate against non-believers. Whereas the laws that look at people as equal would be fair to all citizens``

This is the core of our disagreement. Laws based on secularism are considered fair even to non-believers in secularism because secularism looks at people as equals irrespective of their religion. But religion CAN also treat people as equals in matters of state and citizenship. That is why religion-based laws are not NECESSARILY discriminatory. What matters is that the specific laws look at people as equals.

#103 by khurram

“Well, every law is based on some underlying principle or philosphy. And it is nearly impossible to get 100% of the people to agree on any philosphy. There is no escaping discriminatory laws by your definition.”

It is not a matter of “agreeing” on the laws it is how a law is applied. A good law should be applicable on all citizens and not just some citizens. As I said before, you can disagree with a law it is your democratic right. People disagree with laws all the times that is why laws go thru changes to reflect a society’s changing requirements.

However, you can also rightfully assume that maybe there is no escaping discriminatory laws. It can happen in a secular society too. Has actually happened as biases are hard to remove from the people and people developed systems. Nevertheless, the basic premise should always be not to have laws that show a clear bias and discrimination. When you base laws on some religious diktats, you built discrimination against people who may not share your religion right away.

“If a majority believes in a law and implements it democratically and the law does not discriminate against anyone and does not violate anyone`s basic right, then why does it matter if the underlying philoshpy is Islamic or Christian or Hindu or Rational Humanistic?”

A majority can believe in any thing. It can believe in eliminating minorities. So it really is not an issue of what majority believes, it is more than that. Laws do have underlying philosophy and secularism is one of them. The whole argument is that the religions create biases and the laws based on religions would tend to discriminate against non-believers.

Whereas the laws that look at people as equal would be fair to all citizens. Of course, no system guarantees error free implementation.

Mr. Osama Shahid, which universities did you visit?
Are you an academic?

#64 Khurram

``That was my question. What kind of institution would determine what the Islamic injunctions are? ``

In every Western democratic country its the role of Supreme court to interpret law; the law that is enacted by an assebly and senate. The lower courts then take precedence from the rulings of the Supreme Court. Same system exists in Pakistan when it is not ruled by Martial Law.

In Pakistan during Zia`s time an institution of Federal Shariat Court was created in parallel with the Supreme Court. It was charged with the duty to examine all existing laws and find out whether they contradicted any injunction of Islam or not and it was also charged with the function to evaluate future laws as well. The objective eventually was that to converge the Supreme Court and FSC into one body as a number of judges became well versed in Islamic law. To the best of my knowledge the the court comprises of 7 judges who are nominated by the president and approved by the senate.

It is just a matter of procedure how judges can be made more accountable and representative. For example, in US judges are nominated by President but they are severely scrutinized by not only public representatives but by media as well. Every judge is grilled in public by representatives before his appointment. Even a wrong sentence that a potential judge might have occured while a teenager, might cost him his potential seat. This is what constitution of Pakistan as it was before oct 99 calls for when it stipulates the condition for a public official or representative to be of ``sound Character``. Alas we were naver able to put the same principles in practice since our country is hijacked by a morally bankrupt and corrupt vassal class who neither consider themselves accountable to people people nor fear Allah.

Case study


When the Prophet Muhammad (known as ``mercy for the universe`` in the Qur`aan) marched into the city of Mecca in the 8th year of hijraa, he declared a general amnesty for all his enemies. However, the same Prophet named seven or eleven persons ``who should be killed even if they are found holding on to the cover of the Ka`bah!``


Those who like to understand or evaluate Islam from the secular/humanist point of view must realize that Islam should be judged on its own terms, and not by the secular ideals.


Out of those seven persons, one case is interesting. It is an example of a murtad milli--a non-Muslim who became Muslim and then became kaafir again. His name was Abdullaah bin Sa`d bin Abi Sarah, a foster-brother of Uthmaan bin Affaan. He had come to Medina and professed Islam, then he went back to Mecca and become a kaafir again.


In spite of the Prophet`s order to kill Abdullaah, Uthmaan sheltered him till after the conquest, and then brought him to the Prophet and asked for forgiveness. The Prophet remained quiet for a while hoping (as he himself said later on) that someone would stand up and implement his standing order by killing Abdullaah. But when no one understood the meaning of his silence, the Prophet granted pardon to him.

#102 Nasah sahib

Of course not, sir! How could I ever dare to undermine the ``intellectual`` content on this site with levity?!!

I onle seek knowledge!

Because of some reasons though, I keep coming to these boards for my jaams of knowledge - but strangely enough, never get to drink any - just get caught in those same old ideas - that eternal chowk ``traffic`` jaam!

#101 SR sahib

Therefore sir, let me simplify your answer. You are saying that “there is nothing special about Islam!” (and other religions are equally special to their own adherents.)

Not an incisive question, as you rightly pointed out. The follow-on, sir, is – if this question is so simple and this fact so obvious...

How many Muslim families tell this simple fact to their children?!!

How many?!!!

Be honest in answering, now!

Do Muslims even have the ability to say that – without fears of the head getting chopped off?!!

#95 shisapa
``Can an Islamic law change i.e. could/would there be amendments to the
Islamic constitution? ``

Yes, if it is a democratic law and democratic constitution.

Re #94 by HP

A law is discriminatory only if it treats people differently based on their religion, gender etc.

But you are defining a law as discriminatory because it is based on principles that 100% of the population does not agree on.

Well, every law is based on some underlying principle or philosphy. And it is nearly impossible to get 100% of the people to agree on any philosphy. There is no escaping discriminatory laws by your definition.

If a majority believes in a law and implements it democratically and the law does not discriminate against anyone and does not violate anyone`s basic right, then why does it matter if the underlying philoshpy is Islamic or Christian or Hindu or Rational Humanistic?

Re: # 93

``You can always drown those sorrows in more pegs of zaam! (or is that jaam?)``

BJ are trying to lighten the somber mood on this board or you don`t know -- like `le gaya jalim chorakar sonay ki zanzeer bhi`......:)

Re: # 83 bjkumar {``... is Islam like any other religion - or is it something special that is better than other religions?...``}

In this complex world that comes in all shades of grey there are no black and white answers, except for children and simpletons. I hope it is a rhetorical question and that you are not serious.

Islam is both. It is unique and special, unlike any other religion. And yet, it is similar and vey much like other great religions.

How?

For those who are steeped in the faith and feel deeply committed, I slam is unique and special. It is no less special and unique for them than is Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Communism, or any other major religion/ideology for those who are committed to that particular way-of-life.

It is also the same as any other religion for all those others (outsiders) who are not committed to it.

Frankly, it wasn`t a very incisive question. The answer should have been self-evident.

...SR