Preventing More Lal Masjids

hamidm #236 er..um......oh i see...it is only (drum roll, trumpets)

....the Poster Formerly Known as Romair Whose Posts Are Just Like Hamidm If you Ignore The Words Between The Dots.

Faruk: ``indianize Pakistan``?? You mean we would need to come up with the paki-version of Pandit Hate Arjun who has driven himself over the edge and has to be given rabies shots every day. No, we couldnt match that. The best we can do is hamidm - and all he can do is talk about bombing Pakistan. Or urstruly or masadi - and the best we can do is get them to rant about the US, not India. :-(

re : Manto #196

“Do you have the figures on the 3000 Muslims killed in Gujurat.”

Here…..

http://164.100.24.219/rsq/quest.asp?qref=100652

In the post-Godhra riots of 2002: 254 Hindus and 790 Muslims were killed in Gujarat. A total of 223 persons have been reported missing, 2548 persons sustained injuries, 919 persons were rendered widows and 606 children were orphaned during the riots.

Regards,

Faruk

#236 by bulleya on July 11, 2007 1:30pm PT


since islam allows each individual to interpret religion, it gives each individual the freedom to individaully reject anything being forced down his/her throat


this is actually worse...what we see is a vast majority of individual muslims interpreting islam the same way: the more fundamentalist way..coincidence? I think not..

what % of muslims went ape-shit over the danish cartoons and what % accepted it as freedom of expression?

what % of muslims went ape-shit over the rushdie thing and what % accepted it as freedom of expression?

muslims show a tendency to individually arrive at a more fundamentalist interpretation of islam....

so whether you have all muslims going in a single bus driven by the clergy or you have individual muslims riding a bicycle, the destination is the same...fundamentalist street, jihad town...

p.s. if ``islam allows each individual to interpret religion``, apostasy should be tolerated..right?

Faruk: So it was OK for hindus to burn muslims families in their homes in Gujerat because muslims burnt hindus in a train in Godhra and which was OK too because those hindus had something to do with breaking down that mosque which was OK too because that mosque was built on hindu sacred ground...

(I am just trying to understand the advanced Indian civilization).

``ISI effectively used the same Deobandi Islamist elements first in the service of the great American Jihad against USSR ... and then .. effectively channeled them into India for 13 years.... without allowing them a foothold in Pakistan. ``

IMO, you are wrong on this. Your statement (not allowed a foothold..) would have been correct had ISI utilized Afghans alone in Afghanistan and Kashmiris alone in India. By expanding the recruitment process to Pakistanis themselves, ISI made the cardinal error of sacrificing its own monopoly of violence which is essential for a state to have to be credible.

My opinion is subjective, but I think current liberal opinion in Pakistan is on a high because this is the first time Liberals have truly taken on the religious element and have won a victory of sorts. But the real battle is just starting and honestly, I see a lot of parallels to Operation Blue Star. Just as Blue Star proved to be the start of Punjab`s decade of terror rather than the end (as many had thought in the operation`s aftermath), this Operation Silence too may be a start rather than an end.

re : tahmed # 240

“No, we couldnt match that. The best we can do is hamidm - and all he can do is talk about bombing Pakistan. Or urstruly or masadi - and the best we can do is get them to rant about the US, not India. :-(“

Oh come on … you have Manto


Regards,

Faruk

tahmed32 #143

It would be wrong to compare Hudood & Blasphemy laws to Lal Masjid vigilantism. Lal Masjid vigilantism is a recent phenomenon of the late 1990s, especially after the erudite Maulana Abdullah died. His son Abdur Rashid Ghazi was more an opportunist than a religious scholar.

Hudood and Blasphemy laws are part of a Shariah movement that started much earlier in 1949. This was a political movement that enjoyed staunch support from many judges, parliamentarians, religious scholars and educationists. Before Zia`s advent, this movement succeeded in getting some of its laws (e.g. Finality of Prohethood, declaration of Friday as holiday, ban on alcohol in restaurants) enacted during the PPP rule in 1970s. The Nizam-e-Mustafa campaign (1977) launched by PNA was welcomed in Karachi, Lahore and Rawalpindi. Zia only capitalized in the Islamist mood, but didn`t actually create it. This was a global phenomenon that affected many countries e.g. Iran, Afghanistan, Algeria and Egypt during the 70s. Even after Zia`s death, the democratically elected parliament passed a Shariah Bill in 1991 which included the Hudood and Blasphemy laws.

I agree with your comments about accountability and supremacy of constitution. Let me add that a true democrat shall respect the constitution even if it contains Shariah provisions, as long as those provisions got inserted through the due democratic process of elections, parliamentary legislation and judicial review. I say this because many pseudo-democrats (like Bush & Blair) harp about democracy only
as long as their friends (e.g. PLO, Fouad Siniora, Rafiq Hariri) win elections.

Re: # 244 stuka

Your analysis is right on the money, however, one should keep the difference in mind between this movement and Khalistan movement. The main and only reason that Khalistan movement had failed was that because all the leaders of the movement were sikhs.,

Stuka: ``the real battle is just starting ``

the real battle is not between the maulvis and musharraf. Mush was not pushed (the lal masjid mullahs were his best friends, by keeping attention away from the real challenge) until the chinese helped him.

the real battle was taking place at the Supreme Court yesterday, a mile or so away from lal masjid. And hopefully that battle will not involve any more bloodshed and Musharraf will be smarter than the maulvis and agree to have fair elections for President. Then everyone (Pakistanis, but also neighboring countries whether they realize it or not) comes out ahead.

Faruk #245 manto doesnt talk about bombing India. Hamidm talked about bombing Pakistan ... so I thought with a little modification to the target of his ire, he would be more up to the challenge of becoming the pakistani Arjn. :-)

re: tahmed # 243

“(I am just trying to understand the advanced Indian civilization).”

It will always be an advancing civilization.

In the Indian context, riots are engineered to ensure political survival of some of our politicians. The criticism of the Indian society is valid, we have not yet been able to see through all these political machinations.

Regards,

Faruk

#248 by tahmed32 on July 11, 2007 2:06pm PT


and Musharraf will be smarter than the maulvis and agree to have fair elections for President.


sure...and pigs will fly...

re: stuka# 244

“Just as Blue Star proved to be the start of Punjab`s decade of terror rather than the end (as many had thought in the operation`s aftermath), this Operation Silence too may be a start rather than an end.”

What about Indira Gandhi propping up Bhindranwale to counter Akali dal. I think that was the start of the Punjab problem.

Regards,

Faruk

HE #246 Since we both agree on the supremacy of the constitution (which includes a Bill of Rights to protect the individual from unbridled state power) and understand the importance of the rule of law and due process, we dont have any problem.

Our difference is terminology. So, to clarify, sharia laws are distinctive not in terms of content as you seem to see them, but in terms of process In terms of content, laws of inheritance, public morality, inheritance, economic regulations and so forth exist in all democratic countries as well, and sharia laws merely represent some specific formulations of these. However, in terms of process, sharia laws differ from other laws in the sense that historically they were issued by qazis or as royal ``firman``, i.e. executive order. This latter difference (i.e. in process) is the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship!!

Which definition is implied when maulvis refer to sharia laws? It is clearly that of process, in my view. This is the way what have been seen as sharia laws in pakistan (i.e. hadood, blasphemy) and this is the way they were issued in pakistan (i.e. executive orders). It is this definition of sharia laws that I have a problem with. It is OK to have laws on public morality - the US itself banned alcohol for a few years, and some of the state laws on morality would make maulvis seem like hamidm`s followers. But it is not OK to not permit these to be enacted and reviewed and updated as needed without proper debate, and outside of due democratic process.