Preventing More Lal Masjids

Re: # 148 Manto

Dearest Manto (I like you, you know?:)):

The point is that El Presidente has successfully suckered you by changing the topic of the debate from the Supreme Court Judge to the masjid.

Further, to your point on fundamentalism and the tottering Musharraf regime (hey, time for another Kargil, right?) here is an insightful article that claims a linkage between the recent US Government leak about massive, planned operations in FATA in 2005 (and the related NY Times leaked story) to the near certainty that should Musharraf`s government fall, the US will have no option but to step in FATA. Time to Iraqize FATA! Long Live Musharraf!

Here is a juicy excerpt from the first link:

``If the threat of a (Pakistani) government fall was the only thing holding Washington back in 2005, and now that the fall is imminent through no action of the United States, what does Washington have to gain from restraining itself any further (in Pakistan)?``

Chew on this a bit and take the time to time to read the links before responding! You may soon need to re-write your resume to make yourself useful to a Western NGO tasked with writing a new Paki constitution! Not that I seriously expect you to draw the correct conclusions from the facts.

Take a hike to Monal Restaurant today for me and have a beer! I`ll be toasting to you over paani puris at the Mahatma Gandhi Mall in Edison, NJ (your old haunts at Rutgers).

Have a nice day!

CIAO

hamidm: you sound madder than mullah rashid when you say the government should not have negotiated to try and get those who wanted to surrender leave.

If mullah rashid had agreed, those who surrendered would have been tried through due legal process; Pakistan army soldiers who died would still be alive because then the government would not have needed to send them in - it could simpy have used a single gunship or a single tank to take out those who refused to surrender.

Since mullah rashid disagreed (since he would almost certainly have figured out the above as well), then of course Pakistani soldiers had to die and some of those inside the mosque who would have surrendered would also be alive and brought to justice before courts.

I am sure most Pakistani people appreciate that the government at least tried to save lives. You and the cold-blooded writer of the News may disagree, but in doing so you make yourselves the same as the terrorists in terms of lack of concern for human life. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you need to stop acting like the crazy general in Dr. Strangelove.

Re: # 160 Tahmed

``...If mullah rashid had agreed, those who surrendered would have been tried through due legal process...``

Only a naive fool believes that Rashid would have `agreed and surrendered`.

#156 khairbaksh: ``there are no proof that there was any usage of students as a human shield``

You have eyes but you do not see. In fact it appears from news accounts that three girl students who tried to leave were shot by the lal masjid holdouts.

#161 pew man: refusing to discuss anything with two-taka twits from India like you makes me a wise man. not a fool.

As before: f.o.

Re: # 163 Tahmed

You are hilarious with your childish immaturity! See ya!

Professor Hoodbouy;

For all the analysis, you have not touched the basic question. Why no one has heard of progressive reformers of Islamic society? Why it is all these reformers, if you can call them, mullah brothers to Bin Laden are all regressive reformers?

Until, muslims can understand the root cause, they are unable to produce progressive reformers who could build a Tsunami of progressive reforms.

Would some one care to answer my questions, of every one is busy expressing hapiness or sorrow on the defeat of dynamic-duo of regressive Islamic reformers.

Pakistan lost, and regressive Islamic reform is not even dented. Why this gloating?

pew-man #161 and just for the record, I never said that mullah rashid would have agreed (which is what you implied I said). In fact I said the opposite after considering this hypothetical: ``Since mullah rashid disagreed (since he would almost certainly have figured out the above as well),`` .

Your jumping to find a reason to call me a fool thus illustrates what I say in #163. Nothing immature in that out. Why would I discuss anything seriously with a twit? No go worry about that cesspool that you come from (plenty of problems in India).

Re tahmed # 142
I hope you will come around to accepting that some articles are worth you time.

I only know that Hoodbhoy does not interact under his own name….

Regards,


Faruk

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re : FarzanaVersey #144

Nice Post!

“We forget that the US has been making Pakistan a scapegoat. Was it the doing of mullahs?”

We must add that Pakistan was a willing partner.

“This is the problem with a certain sort of `vocational liberalism` everywhere. In that it becomes a spokesperson of the West.”

“all manner of theories are being flaunted. FYI, militancy - and I am sticking my head out on this - arises as much from a need for a renaissance as any liberal thought. Marxism hardly has a history of peaceful resistance.”

The problem with militancy is that it is not capable of solving a problem. Liberalism is not a spokesperson for the west but recognition that renaissance is a change of mindset. You have to accept responsibility for your situation. You have to think long and hard how to change that situation. Let’s take the example of the Chinese, they hate the west a lot more than the militants do. They are beating the crap out of the west one paper clip at a time. Not very romantic, but they are winning and the militants are going nowhere.


“This whole business about Jinnah would not have approved makes no sense because 60 years on it is time to grow up and grow out.”

Jinnah is the only person respected across the religious divide in Pakistan.

“PS: Am glad you identified yourself as a leftist. It shows that not everyone has to follow the straight and narrow path of a given ideology.”

Nice…


Regards,

Faruk

Pervez hoodbhoy

Sir i am deeply impressed by your scientific approach....I wanna request you to write such a gem on spanking and its effects on confused women.

Re: # 163 Tahmed

Afterthought:

If your stated reason for not `discussing with twits from India like you` is because of national origin, then I suggest that you go to a Paki-only forum, since Chowk is for `Ideas & Identities of ,b>India Pakistan`

Re: 166: Why beat around the bush? If you know what will and what won`t work, just get straight to the point like Hamidm2 suggests?

CIAO

Re: # 165

anil mian,

you ask: ``Why it is all these reformers, if you can call them, mullah brothers to Bin Laden are all regressive reformers? ``

....... there is a very simple answer to your question: islam, by its very nature does not lend itself to `progressive` reform........... the koran claims to be the `final` word of god himself and the perfect system of government was established by the prophet himself with the koran as its constitution ........... nothing can be changed - ijtihad means merely redefining things within the very narrow limits prescribed by the koran and sunnah ............ any attempt to introduce anything new is considered to be shirk or outright kufr ........

The tragedy of Lal Masjid is very unfortunate and it might have some serious repercussions. But considering with a cool mind and without impassioned religious emotions, what other choice was there for the government to resolve the irrational impasse’?

The fanatic mullahs clamor that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam so it should have an Islamic government, the kind of government that they perceive is Islamic. The kind of theocracy that they want to impose will not most likely be acceptable to the majority of Pakistanis. No referendum has ever been held on this issue. The culture of the 7th century Arabia, a desert country of the nomadic Bedouins, is outdated and will not successfully function in any Muslim country of the 21st century world.

The Shariah that the mullahs want to impose needs to be redeveloped if it is to be incorporated in a Constitution. The best solution out of this miserable fix is secularism as Salim-Chauhan has suggested and many other rational thinkers believe. But the problem is how to do it. The word ‘secularism’ is considered kufr by the traditional Islamists. In actual fact, it is not. All that it means is that religion should be allowed to be practiced at individual level without any interference from the government and anybody else. My religion should be my business and nobody else’s. If I choose to abandon it, it’s my business. Ther should be “no compulsion in religion.” There should be an end to fatwas of all sorts.

Secularism cannot be introduced by only wishful thinking. A right environment needs to be created for it. It can be done through education. It will take time for it to take roots; it cannot (and should not) be installed instantaneously. It should be done gradually. First step toward this end should be to eliminate the constitutional amendments introduced by Zia-ul-Haq. The Hudood provision should be deleted right away.

I agree with the author that education needs to be improved; its effect will not show in a short time. It may take a couple of generations to dissipate the religious fanaticism. There doesn’t seem to be any short term satisfactory solution. Even if Musharaff’s autocracy is abolished and replaced with democracy, it may not produce immediate salutary environment. We had tried democracy several times in the past. The irresponsible manner, in which the past democratic governments had functioned, invariably opened the way for military takeovers. But country’s salvation lies in democracy.

Finally, the mullahs’ claim that Pakistan was created for Islam is wrong. Pakistan was created for the Indian Muslims so that they could practice their religion freely. Its implication was that the other non-Muslim minorities who lived in Pakistan would also be allowed the same freedom to practice their own individual religion as the Muslims. It was never stated nor intended that the envisioned new country would have Shariah for its Constitution. In fact, most of the mullahs including Maudoodi had opposed the creation of Pakistan.

Those who had suffered severely at a personal level in the process of creation of Pakistan are deeply saddened and affected by the way Pakistanis are undermining their own country in the name of Islam and otherwise.
Mohammad Gill

Re: # 165 Anil

``Why has no one heard of progressive reformers of Islamic society?``

Anil, if you are serious about the answer to the above questions, then I suggest that you take a look at the following books:





and






and