Rest in Peace Pakistan (1947-1974)

Thats where you are ignorant. Pakistan was not founded as an Islamic state.

An ISLAMIC state by definition is undemocratic - regardless of whether the Islamic state is cooked up by ``the Quaid``, ``the Fonz`` or anyone else - the minorities are forced to live in an ``Islamic`` state where they would much rather live in a secular state. Pakistan was doomed for failure at its inception. As is ANY Islamic state.

#1060 by zeemax on July 7, 2007 1:46am PT

but all your mullas in the world are screaming at the top of their voices that islam is in danger. are u claiming to be more enlightened than them only because u drive a proverbial merc?????

#1055 by sattar2,

Islam is not and has never been in danger. Muslims are in danger. Can you detect the difference? :)

#1054 by Naqshbandi,

Imam Hussain alayhisalam ... decided to fight rather than do bayah with Yazid ... imam hussain WAS the rightful caliph ...had the RIGHT to declare jihad if he saw fit. Thirdly it was defensive.

So where`s the difference from what I`m saying? Imam Hussain rebelled against a sitting ruler (whether legitimate or illegitimate) and declared Jihad as he saw fit, right?

Salahuddin also was the RULER of the state where he declared jihad.

No he was not. Nuruddin Zangi (officially) was though Salahuddin had most control. He took the step without either Zangi`s or the Baghdad Caliph`s sanction. Pls check your facts :)

Editorial
Thu. February 02, 2006
POST EDITORIAL

Targeting Ahmadiyas
It’s sheer injustice

DR. ABDULLA AL-MADANI

Founder of Pakistan Mr Mohammad Ali Jinnah, at a press conference in Kashmir in 1944, said that Ahmadiyas were Muslim, adding “Who am I to declare a person non-Muslim, who calls himself a Muslim?”. On another occasion in 1947, Mr Jinnah was quoted as telling the Ahmadiya followers: “You are free. You may belong to any religion, caste, or creed. That has nothing to do with the business of the State”.

In recent months, the Ahmadiyya community in Indonesia, where the great majority of the population are Sunni Muslims, has been subjected to repeated assaults. This unprecedented anti-Ahmadiyya wave is believed to be triggered by a fatwa issued in July by the official Council of Indonesian Ulamas, which describes Ahmadiyya, as well as liberalism and secularism, as anti-Islam. The fatwa and consequent events were viewed by many Indonesians, including President Susilo Yudhoyono, as a threat to the country’s doctrine of ‘unity in diversity’ or Bhinneka Tunggal Ika. Abdurrahman Wahid, the former president and head of Indonesia’s largest Muslim organization, Nahdhatul Ulama, and many other moderate politician and activists accused the government of doing little to protect Indonesia’s tolerant, multi-cultural image and of being hesitant and scared of extremist forces. They also claimed that elements within the state’s apparatus have been supporting and protecting radical Muslims.

The Ahmadiyya community in Indonesia, estimated at 200,000 members, was established in 1926 but formally recognised in 1953. The sect’s strong hold, however, has always been in North India and Pakistan with a presence in 160 other countries. It claims of having 200 million followers worldwide. While they enjoy the right of self-identification and other freedoms in India, Ahmadiyas in Pakistan are denied such rights.

Jinnah, in a press conference in Kashmir in 1944, said that Ahmadis were Muslim, adding “Who am I to declare a person, who calls himself a Muslim, as non-Muslim ?”.

Pakistani fundamentalist parties and groups hold the view that Ahmadiyas are not Muslim and accordingly they have tried since the 1950s to target them, pressing the government to ban the sect and its activity. Interestingly, the government, during the era of the country’s founding father Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his immediate successor, showed no interest in imposing any restriction on Ahmadiyas, and went to the extent of appointing one of its prominent followers, Zafarullah Khan, as Pakistan’s first foreign minister.

Some attributed this to opposition expressed by officials then representing East Pakistan, who were against turning Pakistan into a theocratic state. Others attributed it to Jinnah’s view of Ahmadiyya and the latter’s staunch support to the idea of partition and creation of Pakistan.

Jinnah, in a press conference in Kashmir in 1944, said that Ahmadis were Muslim, adding “Who am I to declare a person, who calls himself a Muslim, as non-Muslim ?”. On another occasion in 1947, Jinnah was quoted as telling the Ahmadiyya’s followers: “You are free. You may belong to any religion, caste, or creed. That has nothing to do with the business of the State”.

Such an official view, however, changed with Islamist forces becoming more influential in the country, especially after the independence of East Pakistan (Bangladesh) . The beginning was with the constitutional amendment of 1974 placing the Ahmadiyya community among non-Muslim minorities. This was followed by other restrictions, particularly during the rule of President Zia-ul-Haq, all of which harassed Ahmadis and created an atmosphere of religious intolerance that contributed to violence.

In Bangladesh, where they number 100,000, the government has not officially declared them as non-Muslims. But in recent years, there have been several attacks in Dhaka and other cities on the community by Muslim extremist organizations, such as Khatme Nabuwat and Jaish-e-Mustafa. In a development reflecting the hardliners’ growing influence, the government last year banned the publication and sale of all books on Islam published by the community, saying they might hurt the sentiments of the country’s majority Muslim population.

But what is the Ahmadiyya? And why is it rejected by mainstream Muslims? The Ahmadiyya was established in Pakistan in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmed, from Qadian in Punjab, who claimed that he was the recipient of divine revelation in the manner of the Prophet Muhammad and that he had been sent into the world in the power and sprit of Jesus. Upon his death in 1908, he was succeeded by Maulana Hakeem Nooruddin whose death in 1914 marked the split of Ahmadiyya into two groups: the Qadianis and the Lahorites.

Ahmadis accept all the principal Islamic beliefs, including the oneness of Allah. But by claiming that Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet, they repudiate one of the fundamental tenets of Islam, namely the finality of the Prophet Muhammad. This is viewed by mainstream Islam as blasphemous and, therefore, has been used as a justification to declare them as non-Muslims.

Other controversies include the sect’s belief that Jesus was crucified but then was revived, left Palestine to preach among the lost tribes of Israel, and eventually arrived in Kashmir, where he died at the age of 120. Ahmadis also reject jihad, saying it can only be used in the case of extreme religious persecution of one’s faith. SAN-feature Service.

Dr. Abdulla Al-Madani, academic researcher and professor on Asian affairs, is based in Bahrain.

It goes without saying all these Mullahs are the greatest enemies of Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah`s Pakistan and Pakistan`s own aspirations as a progressive and liberal welfare state which provides equal opportunities ... These are the same Mullahs who called Jinnah ``Kafir-e-Azam`` and opposed the Pakistan Movement and called it ``Kafiristan Movement``....

sattar mian,

With all due respect I think you`ve so far done the most damage to the point I was trying to make... by opening your mouth and showing that Ahmadis are as intolerant as Sunnis or Shias... a conclusion which I reached very early on in life.

It pains me to see my brothers going at each other’s throats. But gentlemen, don’t let me get in the way; may the best Musalmaan win.

zee, you forgot to mention Osama with Imam Hussain and Salahuddin. And don’t mind this sufi goon here. I think we Wahabis should hang a few of them every now and then and teach them Ahle-sunnah Imam Malik Barelvi Ahle-ba`it traditional Hanafi bastards a lesson ...

Naqsh, what proverbial backside are you referring to that zeemax is talking from? I am not sure if I follow; care to elaborate? And I am sure zee means well. Pakistan is the “Qila of Islam” … and is being attacked on all fronts by pimps, capitalists, and corrupt army generals. Isn’t it duty of all of us to kill as many infidels as possible? Islam is in danger, you know …

zeemax,
you are talking out of your proverbial backside in post number 1053.

individual muslims most definitely do not have the right, under classical Sunni law at least (Wahabis are a different thing), to declare a jihad. That is only the caliph`s job.

Imam Hussain alayhisalam did not declare jihad against yazid`s army. He decided to fight rather than do bayah with Yazid once he was given no other choice when he was surrounded by the army; secondly imam hussain WAS the rightful caliph and therefore had the RIGHT to declare jihad if he saw fit. Thirdly it was defensive.

Salahuddin also was the RULER of the state where he declared jihad.
If you are talking about individuals having the right to defend their land when it is invaded
by an occupation army then that is a totally different matter.

you wahabis love to twist islam to suit your own twisted ends but when the going gets tough
you put on a burkha and run away. please NEVER mention imam e hussain with your filthy nasibi mouth as that grandson of the Beloved Prophet fought like a brave lion and sacrificed himself and his loved ones for the sake of truth.

#1052 by PM,

Yes I saw that but didn`t feel necessary to comment.

It is true many scholars try to do that, but it`s not Islam which is why it has failed every time. In Islam, individual Muslims have the right to go around declaring Jihad regardless of whether they`re the head of State or not. There are many precedents of that, most notable being Imam Hussain and Salahuddin Ayubi. Can you do better than that?

zeemax: I was kinda hoping you`d agree with this bit of article too, but then, maybe it doesn`t fit into your scheme of thing:

A handful of scholars from the Middle East has tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion. In other words, individual Muslims don`t have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.

Re: # 1041

Well, you have a pedophile mass murderer as your god... so what`s the difference?

philo (#961),

Dealing with arguments is one thing, but I don’t know what to do with your paranoia. Prozac may be the answer here …

Look, after endlessly dancing around the issue, even tahmed has conceded on “last prophet” issue. Why was this so difficult for our armchair scholar, I wonder. BTW, apparently Quran is only for Arabs (grin). So this Muslim/non-Muslim debate is a moot issue: only Arabs can claim to be Muslims … the label does not apply to the rest of us! Neither do the injunctions prohibiting pork and alcohol!

… and all along zeemax has been working on updating the kalima. Urstruly continues to silently struggle with meaning of “last” … while Naqsh is holding out for Issa to descend from above the clouds on wings of two angels. And you have a problem with my post …!?

… no wonder ummah is going to the dogs …

Burka-mulla and pakistan

Burka-mulla is a true pakistan hero and there is nothing shameful about what he has done.Look at the option he had;

He could have come out as a digambar jain sadhoo, that is without any clothes which would have been against the islamic law of showing the willy
He could have come out dressed as a santa clause, that would be a haram of wearing the clothes of another religious idol
He could have come out wearing a dhoti, that would have been the clothes of indians, banned per TNT.

A man wearing a burkha is not banned in islam, and he did the right thing.

Courage and fighting to the end is not a Pakistani value, the great Niazi who surrendered 90,000 troops is hailed as the ``Tiger of Pakistan``. I recently met a new graduate officer of pak army and he said that Niazi`s heroism is still taught in the pak army schools.

In conclusion, he was a most courageous mulla in the true pak tradition, and he followed the islamic dictum right to the hand cuffs, For a very long time, the heriosm of the burka - mulla will told in the madrasa of pakistan, just like the Niazi story in the pak army schools.

long live the burka-mulla

laikinbilkul writes <<< let us assume you are right. If tomorrow the US stops occupying pakistan, what will you suggest as a way to improve the lot of the people in pakistan? >>>

Exactly what led to US/European development, and what is tolerated in those countries that the US is occupying and wants to develop for strategic reasons (i.e. the anomaly Japan and South Korea etc) maximum protection of indigeneous industry, self-need fulfillment, and alliances on equal terms with those having similar needs, i.e. the rest of the developing world, and total exit from the hypocritical, US dominated global economy...