Preventing More Lal Masjids

Zeemax, don't be so dim. Focus on the word "CHILDREN". Many of the parents had children in their teens and even pre-teens. Even assuming those children were filled with the jazba of the oldre ones who wanted to stay on, wouldn't it have been the right thing to force them to leave, given that, unarmed, they'd be in tremendous danger in the event of a storming of the place?

In any case, my original point had to do with the question of consent and consentability of children to lay down their lives for the Ghazi.

#873 Posted by PM,

Yaar PM, I'm seriously having doubts about your powers of comprehension after your last few posts.

Bhai, the Zafar Abbas article is talking about the commitment of the students, and not of their parents.

Now try again....

I'll respond re your other posts a bit later.

Re: # 870

please go here and make your contributions. The more like minded people we have the better it is

the link http://chowk.com/unplugged/t/42340

#870 tell them PM. I have been saying this right from day one.
this threaded format really sucks big time. It a pain in the butt to use. But Chowk Staff have no use for us. Please go to the unplugged section (no not off the wall but chowk related section and put in your peniies worth on the thread I started there).

re. Zafar Abbas article:

"Throughout the crisis the authorities kept giving the impression that most of those inside the Mosque-Madressah complex were hostage to a situation, and if given a chance, would opt to come out and leave the militants alone to fight with the security forces.
All this is fast proving to be wrong. ... Scores of men and women who stayed back with a few dozen armed militants can best be described as highly committed religious extremists."

What about the scores of children whose parents waiting anxiously for them to exit? Were they also in the complex out of a sense of commitment to the cause?

Re: # 867

If I may,I feel this discussion on "total ideological system" is a non-sequitur.

Nothing like is possible - PM in a manner of speaking alludes to this in #867. It was never possible, it will never be possible and in the future might just become impossible. There might be a few special conditions under which this can happen, but given human endeavours of the last few centuries this is well neigh imposs.

here is a description (i have anonamised it) read it and mull it over


In xxx, ABCD began implementing very controversial policies that introduced a new religion. Reportedly, he began referring to himself as a god when meeting with politicians and he was referred to as God on occasion in public documents. A sacred precinct was set apart for his worship and two temples were erected for worship of him. He would appear here on occasions, dressed and and demanding that those in his presence adopt sycophantic methods of acknowledging him.

What would you think of ABCD? He is a real historical character (and nothing to do with the Prophet)

Every total ideological system in this world has failed to live beyond a few centuries. Adaptability and evolvability are two characteristics whichshould nurtured and cherished - for without them the ideological system will become useless and worthless and moribund.

PM Sahib,

Re: # 869

(Both Calivin and masadi see their respective Scriptures as divine and the Final Word.)

I dont know about Calvin but the good thing about Masadi sahib is that even if he believes that his scripture is the final word he does not deem it necessary to slaughter or persecute those who don't agree with him.

Regards

CHOWKSTAFF!!!

Not all of us have DSL/CABLE/Tx connections. This manner of having to reload the entire interact forum each time we submit a post or refresh the page is bloody insane!!

If you don't do something to fix this, I will be forced to quit chowk, which will be a very, very thing, mostly owing to the fact taht I know I won't even be missed. :(

re. Zeemax:
"That is why I call masadi a hypocrite. He considers a petty transitional matter like usurping global resources a crime, which all empires do in their time, while he condones an attack on the entire Islamic faith as personal judgment and advocates looking in the other direction." (emphasis added)

Is this guy for real?? Is he aware of the number of references in the Qur'an to justice and equity in business dealings??

Moreover, isn't it really rich that someone who, not more than two weeks ago, confidently claimed that "Islam does not need protecting by any individual" now finds that an individual, by merely rejecting the Islam he inherited from his parents, poses a threat or engages in "an attack on the entire Islamic faith" !!!

To the interactor who likened masadi to Calvin:

Both Calivin and masadi see their respective Scriptures as divine and the Final Word. The similarity begins and ends there. You do masadi sahib a big injustice in implying that either intellectually or temperamentally his approach is anything like Calvin's nonrational treatment of the Bible.

kaal,

The following post might help clear up my reservations for Philospher's 'total' ideological system. I have no problems with the content, only with the method, so to speak. (and let's no get started with how Method is also part of Content, now, okay! It's too early in the day for that) :-)

re. Philosopher #794:

"The internal structure of ideology will determine what it needs to preserve itself against all other ideologies and systems.At the end of the day its all down to the ''acceptence'' of the basics of that ideology.if you accpet that all your questions are answered."

Yes, the internal structure (obviously) determines what it needs to preserve itself. But preservation, or the requirements for preservation, cannot be seen divorced of externalities, which keep changing. The point I've been trying to make for some time is this: Islam is no longer the nascent, vulnerable socio-political entity of the 7th century. Whether it can ever be a political entity of that kind is quite impossible, in fact, except in pockets of tribal areas and the like. (And thank God for that!) As a social force, it remains a powerful and relevant entity (And thank God for that too!).

What might have been important for its preservation 14 centuries ago will no longer be so. In fact, attempts to follow those prescriptions may result in damage to the ideology, as it gets distorted and distasteful.

In any case, understand this, miaN... attempts to bring about a totalitarian Islamic polity (which is EXACTLY what you seem to be suggesting is a goal of Islamic ideology) will do little more than render you a pariah among even the few progressive, successful, Islamic nations.

Let the first apostate-killing be sanctioned and carried out in Pakistan and then hold your breathe for the fall-out!

In an earlier post, your wrote:

" In this situation Islamic civilization needs a comprehensive ideological system to fight other ideologies which are trying to overcome/penetrate it. If we stick to Masadi's version in this situation we won't be having even this moderate version after a couple of decades."

This need for a comprehensive ideological system to fight other ideologies is not unique to Islam. EVERY IDEOLOGY, by definition, has this need. In the civilized world, even in the less-cvilized world of globalized capitalism, ideologies have to buy their keep through ideas, not coercion. It says something about the sturdiness or vulnerability of your ideology, and the power or powerlessness of the ideas within, if you need to kill the holders of other opinions to preserve your own.

I do not think that Islam is so impoverished and vulnerable in the ideas department that it dissent needs to be put down with harsheness, or that any dissent is to be viewed as a threat to the system itself, a position which you and echoboom seem clearly to hold, though echo in his customary
style is happy to simply foxtrot around the issue.

You write:

"how would we implement islamic family laws if we don't have islamic socio-political system? what if liberaloon muslims like 'irshad manji' start campaigning in support of the lesbian marriages?? how would you stop them? With 'piyaar mohabbat bhaari batain???"

You are muddying the waters here, miaN. Don't put too much on your plate. We're talking about how to handle dissent. How to deal with individuals who try to introduce unIslamic ideas to the political ideology and attempt to stay within the fold is a completely different issue.

Finally, you didn't do justice to my question re. apostasy. I specifically asked you to consider the question in the light of those who never ACCEPTED Islam to begin with. Okay, let me take it out of the purely theoretical realm... I have at least two friends who were born into conservative Muslim families. One is a haafiz, in fact. Both of them, by the age of 18, decided that Islam didn't fit their itellectual or spiritual needs. One is an atheist, the other agnostic. Neither goes to masjid because they do agree that hypocrisy is just wrong. It is only for fear of death that they will sometimes go as Muslims. (Can you blame them?)

Neither of the two engages in denigration of Islam-- to them its as good or bad as most religions; though I have no doubt that, owing to their very generous, caring personalities, they do influence others even in their (non)religiousness. (That's an easy thing to do in over-religionized Pakistan, actually).

So tell me... First, are the Apostates? Neither can be said to have consciously, and in maturity, chosen Islam in the fisrt place.

Will you, like Zeemax, deprive them of their right to choose in the fisrt place? Will you, like echoboom, present a specious arguement, that we don't choose to be born in the first place; so we have no choice in this either-- therby rejecting the whole Free Will deal so important to Isalm?

(We'll deal with those who choose Islam and later change their minds some other time.)

Second, (assuming they qualify as apostates) should they be deprived of their heads by God- and opposition-fearing Muslims were they to be found out, or publicly renounce their religion? Actually, here's the REAL question: WOULD YOU PULL THE TRIGGER,-- assuming there were no legal consequences, which there won't, of course, in your Islamic ideological state? Please answer.

Well, take it from there.

In the meanwhile, you might consider reading Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies if you're serious about seeing Islam sprout a living, vibrant society as opposed to one where, to quote Masadi saheb, " stunts growth and prevents thinking from developing."

rgds,

Philosopher ji

You know about that statement that 'Change' is the only constant in the world and everything else keeps on changing and evolving?

Then why you want your religion to be fossilised in 7th century? When God has promised to protect it in whichever form he feels it to be kept then let him do this job. Do you think you are more powerful then him to do his job?

Is the world exactly the same as it was in 7th century? When everything has changed then why not change the interpretation of religious instructions if not instructions?

Regards

If this doesn't cure Dr. Qaum-e-Lut Bhoy from his delusions, I don't know what will ...

Musharraf’s moment of truth

By Zaffar Abbas

It has been more than a week since the massive operation by the army’s elite (anti-terrorist) special services group eliminated what had come to be known as the Lal Masjid Brigade, but sounds from the bloody finale have continued to reverberate across the country in more ways than one.

Certainly the situation is more alarming than what many had earlier thought, particularly if seen in the light of the radical views of the non-combatant survivors of the religious complex. Coupled with that has been the angry reaction in a large section of the population, mainly due to the lack of transparency about the civilian casualties.

And a much stronger reaction by the Islamic militants has come in the form of suicide attacks in North West Pakistan. And now Islamabad. All this makes the situation look even more precarious.

The big question is: Is the country really poised on a powder-keg of Talibanisation, or the fissures seen in the aftermath of the Lal Masjid crackdown are just a passing phase? If the former is true, then does it imply the political and security establishment has once again been caught unaware of how deep-rooted the new wave of Islamism is?

But then Lal Masjid was never an issue into itself. The illegal actions of the mosque brigade and the open defiance by the armed militants in the heart of Islamabad had perhaps made the crackdown witnessed last week almost inevitable.

However, a deeper look into the malaise suggests that Lal Masjid was just a symptom of what is increasingly looking like creeping Talibanisation in the country. If not handled with determination and clarity of purpose, that may well continue its march from the tribal areas towards the settled regions beyond the North West Frontier soon and start to swallow the traditional political forces, including the mainstream Islamic groups that still believe in a democratic order.

So, little wonder that among those seriously worried about this disturbing trend is also the leader of the biggest pro-democracy Islamic group in the country, Maulana Fazlur Rehman.

Based on the assessment of several political and security analysts, it can be said that if there is at all a strategy to deal with the rising tide of religious extremism, it is not working. In fact, many believe the government’s handling of various issues from Waziristan to Bajaur, and madressah reforms to the Lal Masjid affair, is indicative of the fact that such issues are still being handled on a piecemeal basis, with no sign of an effective, coherent strategy.

Certainly the Lal Masjid affair was treated as an isolated phenomenon where the mission was to deal with a couple of hard-line clerics who, along with a bunch of militants, had turned against their one-time benefactors.

Throughout the crisis the authorities kept giving the impression that most of those inside the Mosque-Madressah complex were hostage to a situation, and if given a chance, would opt to come out and leave the militants alone to fight with the security forces.

All this is fast proving to be wrong. Many did come out voluntarily on the first day of the security siege to avoid getting killed, which was indeed a success of the authorities.

But scores of men and women who stayed back with a few dozen armed militants can best be described as highly committed religious extremists.

Still, they were unarmed civilians, and preferred to stay back, and became victim of a brutal situation. Those who survived, particularly the women, show they have nothing but praise for the people who died inside the mosque.

.... Dawn

From the WIKI regarding apostasy and Islam

"W. Heffening states that in Qur'an "the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only" and "in traditions, there is little echo of these punishments in the next world ... and instead, we have in many traditions a new element, the death penalty." [6] Heffening states that Shafi'is interpret verse 2:217 as adducing the main evidence for the death penalty in Qur'an. Wael Hallaq states the death penalty was a new element added later and "reflects a later reality and does not stand in accord with the deeds of the Prophet." He further states that "nothing in the law governing apostate and apostasy derives from the letter of the holy text." [7]

The dissenting Shia jurist Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, a significant Shi'a religious authority, states that the above verses do not prescribe an earthly penalty for apostasy and adds that it is not improbable that the punishment was prescribed by Muhammad during early Islam due to political conspiracies against Islam and Muslims and not only because of changing the belief or expressing it. Montazeri defines different types of apostasy. He does not hold that a reversion of belief because of investigation and research is punishable by death but prescribes capital punishment for a desertion of Islam out of malice and enmity towards the Muslim community.[8] "


---------------------

Let me add to this that it is not the Ayatollah's place to to translate "no punishment by death" which he acknowledges as being non-Quranic, into "some punishment" or what the prophet "might have done" when "haqq" on when life can be justly taken are clearly prescribe in the Quran- only when someone has killed already (life for life unless compensated) or is making war on you to kill you, until they surrender or give up, or is out to threaten your existence in some way by destroying a community's means of subsistence ("crops and cattle")- The belief or previous belief of the person is never a question in this "haqq"- ever so the point of apostasy does not even arise in the Quran with capital punishment...

In 861 read

as

That Zeemax is now trying to qualify it by making it a bit milder (though still barbaric) is a step in the right direction.

In 861 read

as

That Zeemax is now trying to qualify it by making it a bit milder (though still barbaric) is a step in the right direction.