Religiosity, National Ethos and Governance

Zyxius: " insult all Islamic scholars by lumping them into one "Maulvi""

Who are these scholars? Maulvi fazlulah who beheads Pakistani soldiers as he seeks to take advantage of the crisis in Pakistan to carve out a piece of real estate for himself? or Maulvi fazloo and co who have been falling over one another to make a "deal" with musharraf to share in the spoils of his theft of the basic rights of Pakistanis?

And if you think I am insulting them - read in the Quran about what it says about individuals who act they way these individuals act - they are useful idiots for a dictator in this life, and there is a special place in hell reserved for them in the next life.

tahmed,

The full context of #22 is 'Don't mind my saying but it sounds arrogant and self-righteous of you to be saying things like "Think about this before responding. Don't continue to be made a fool." It just assumes way to much about the strength your own argument and doesn't bode well for the enlightened and secular you seem to be aspiring to.' The clipping you are providing in #27 is somewhat misleading. The full quote accuses me of being continuing to be made a fool simply because you are 100% convinced about the righteousness of your argument.


Our discussion began with my saying that the violence we are seeing in our country today should not be termed an insurgency and the people doing the fighting should not necessarily (I repeat, not necessarily) be termed as extremists because they are fighting due to their family members either having disappeared (extra ordinary rendition) or have been "collateral damage" in one of the US lead campaigns against the "Al Qaeda". Their complaints are legitimate and violent suppression is not the answer. Calling them extremists or insurgents only hurts us because we fail to recognize the causes of our disarray.

Also there is no compulsion in religion at all. You can do whatever the heck you want and I did not once say that anyone should care what you do or believe in. Our discussion was about secularists trying to enforce secularism in Muslim Pakistan. The other point in this regard was the fact that it has been the secular parties that has bankrupted Pakistan over the last 15-20 critical years.

Finally, it was the Islamic Jazba that is the reason you and your family do not salute Putin today and it is only fair that you recognize the sacrifices that believing and practicing muslims have made in this regard. Pakistan is a Muslim country and it will be Muslims who will fight for it.

Zyxius: "Ahmad Shah Masood may have been secular himself, but no one can deny that the war was fought as a holy war and those who fought it did so in the name of Islam."

You can put the label "holy war" or anything else. The fact is that Ahmad Shah Masood fought for the liberation of his country from the Soviets, not for turning the Soviets into muslims. When you make such an unthinking statement that merely repeats the standard maulvi propaganda, perhaps my well-meaning friend you should not feel insulted when I (with no arrogance, rest assured) suggest you to "think before your respond".

I am glad you think the lal masjid maulvis went too far. This puts you ahead of a lot of Pakistanis. I suggest you think a bit about WHY musharraf gave the lal masjid maulvis this long leash and moved only when the CHinese government pulled his ears.

Zyxius #22 I am sorry if my saying "think before responding" sounds arrogant, and will assume you do that anyway.

If I aspire to be secular, than I am being consistent with a fundamental message that is clearly stated and re-stated in the Quran ("There is no compulsion in religion") and just as clearly violated by those who support the maulvi who sees it as his "muslim duty" to compel others in matters of religion.

If I aspire to be enlightened, than I do no better than follow the spirit of the Quran which showed the direction to the primitive society of 7th century AD. And dont confuse "enlightened" with the mockery of the term made by Musharraf, just as he has made a mockery of the election process and the consitution in Pakistan. And I am certainly better than the maulvi who thinks he is making God happy by looking through the telescope for the moon, or by following some mode of dress, or by not shaving.

I have a simple question.

Assume that Pakistan is being ruled by a set of people according to Islamic Law. Every Pakistani, outside this set wants to replace this set with another set of people who would again rule according to Islamic Law. These two sets only differ on issues which are not related to Islamic law.

Is a change in government allowed for and how should this change be brought about?

Dear author,

Since I am not used to reading "deep" stuff, it was a bit difficult for me to read through your article. Nevertheless, I believe that I have been able to get your main messages:

1. Let Pakistan be governed through a system which is based on "Islamic principles and jurispudence".
2. The present Constitution has to be slightly changed to adhere to this objective. The change should be brought about by "knowledgeable people".
3. The present dictator has outlined a few objectives which could guide the process.

These points are indeed very noble and have been made several times by quite a few interactors in chowk. Of course, not in the great details as spelt out by you.

I was surprised to learn that the dictator's objectives are not orthogonal to Islamic principles, though (as you say) he may have deviated a bit in practice due to the pressures brought about by the West and some "moderates". Nice to know this.

It is also pleasing to read the various posts by Zyxius. We need a strong defender of the dictator here in chowk.

In essence I agree with you. Religion cannot be taken out of the lives of common people in Pakistan (and also India). Hence, the Constitution should not propogate rules that induce behavior that are at odds with religious principles. I do however disagree on a few things. For example, I would have liked a few moderates (like Hamid) in the Constitution council. They could for example debate on the length of skirts which define vulgarity, of course along religious lines. They should, however, not be given voting rights.

Re: # 23 One should ask the question to these liberal-fascists how come US with all its dollars is not succeeding now. As a matter of fact it is receiving the hiding of its history both in Iraq and Afghansitan. In Afghanistan alone not only does the US military supported by NATO but military personnel of 37 nations and not to mention the shameless immoral napak fouj as well. Why not those dollars working now. Why those dollars are not able to buy mullahs now, which were used to "buy" mullahs during soviet union. There is one thing being a peon of west and then there is being more loyal than the peon of west thing. What shame.

rf786 "By the way, it was the proud and mighty US$ that was the reason why Soviets left Afghanistan"

The mighty US$ alone would not have dislodged the soviets from Afghanistan if it werent for the bearded bodies who carried those weapons on the ground and died in their thousands. If it werent for them, you might be speaking russian today.

Continue to hate those bearded fundoos, if you must, but at least give them the credit where it is due. Otherwise, you risk coming across as a petty liar with some sort of baseless grudge.

Dear tahmed,

Don't mind my saying but it sounds arrogant and self-righteous of you to be saying things like "Think about this before responding. Don't continue to be made a fool." It just assumes way to much about the strength your own argument and doesn't bode well for the enlightened and secular you seem to be aspiring to.

#19 - I am referring to the reasons for anger in the SWAT and the other areas where there is an "insurgency". You can argue that Habeus Corpus is secular, but that is not relevant to what I am saying here....it still stands that even the Chief Justice touched upon the injustices faced by these people.

Also, the classic technique of branding all people who believe in religion with the extremist logo because of the actions of a few is just disingenuous. Be fair in your argument and don't use double standards. I will agree with you that Lal Masjid people went too far and should have been brought under control much before...but that is small compared to what the mainstream secular parties have done to this country in the last 15 years.

Ahmad Shah Masood may have been secular himself, but no one can deny that the war was fought as a holy war and those who fought it did so in the name of Islam. For you to deny this is also disingenuous as even Zbigniew Berzinsky, the US National Security Adviser who was responsible for this whole affair has repeatedly stated throughout history that this was an Islamic war and those who fought it did so as mujahideen. Now you are going to deny that it wasn't the Islamic Jazbah that protected us from the soviets? Again, dont mind my saying but that simply cannot be believed by right thinking people.

Then you go on to insult all Islamic scholars by lumping them into one "Maulvi" category and hurl accusations against them of collective guilt for burning video stores and "lording over women". My friend, this is good drawing room talk amongst a bunch of secular buddies having a drink of scotch, but in the real Pakistan you have to make good with the mainstream muslims of this country if you want to go anywhere. Muslims make up the majority of Pakistan and you are kidding yourself to think that anyone will bringing a Kemalist revolution to Pakistan. There would be a bloodbath before that happened.

Pakistan’s General Anarchy
By MOHAMMED HANIF

London

On the night he declared the emergency, General Musharraf released 28 Taliban prisoners; according to news reports, one was serving a sentence of 24 years for transporting two suicide bombers’ jackets, the only fashion accessory allowed in Pakistan’s Taliban-controlled areas. These are the kind of people who on their off days like to burn down video stores and harass barbers for giving shaves and head massages.

In what can be seen only as a reciprocal gesture, the Taliban released a group of army soldiers it had held hostage — according to the BBC, each soldier was given 500 rupees for good behavior.

Why do General Musharraf and his army feel a sense of kinship with the very people they are supposed to be fighting against? Why are he and his army scared of liberal lawyers and teachers but happy to deal with Islamist Pashtuns in the tribal areas?

The reasons can be traced back to the 1980s, when another military dictator, Gen. Zia ul-Haq, launched a broad campaign to Islamicize Pakistani society and the armed forces in particular. Back then, I was a cadet at Pakistan’s Air Force Academy, where I witnessed, along with hundreds of other aghast cadets, a remarkable scene in which a new recruit, out of religious conviction, refused to shave his beard. (Like most military training institutes in the world, the academy’s first right of passage was to turn the civilian recruits into clean-shaven jarheads.)

The issue was eventually referred to the Army high command in Islamabad, and as a result procedures for training institutes were amended — the boy was allowed to keep his beard and wear his uniform. The academy barber never recovered from the shock.

Within months there were other changes: evenings socializing to music and mocktails were replaced by Koran study sessions. Buses were provided for cadets who wanted to attend civilian religious congregations. Within months, our rather depressing but secular academy was turned into a zealous, thriving madrassa where missing your daily prayers was a crime far worse than missing the morning drill.

It is this crop of military officers that now runs the country. General Musharraf heads this army, and is very reluctant to let go.

Zyxius #18 "money given to secularists would have done nothing to protect us from the soviets"

Wrong again. Ahmed Shah Massoud, the sworn enemy of the Taliban, was a "secularist" by any definition - in other words, a true muslim. He was the "lion of panjshir", the man whose name came up more than anyone else during the soviet-afghan war.

The Taliban were the para-military force raised by a military dicatator in Pakistan - maulvis can only lord it over innocent women, burn the property of helpless video store owners, and become the unwitting fools who provide the ticket to Musharraf's rule in Pakistan.

Think about this too - I can only take you to the water and try to make you see it with your own eyes. It is up to you to open your eyes to reality.

Zyxius #17 "What do you expect people to do when you take people from their houses and make them disappear for years without charge? "

The "secular" Chief Justice used the "western" legal concept of "habeas corpus" to challenge this practice by Musharraf.

The "religious" mualvis of lal masjid on the other hand did an imitation of this when they branded helpless women in Islamabad as prostitutes and kidnapped them and the rest of the nation was so busy laughing at the victims ("aunty shamim" as she was branded) that they forgot that the real aunty shamims of pakistan are themselves. Treated with contempt by a dictator, with religious extremists thinking they are anything more than useful idiots for the dictator.

Think about this before responding. Dont continue to be made a fool.

# 16; Beneficiaries of Saudi and US$ money were indeed the Muslim forces and it was they who actually fought on the ground and brought massive casualties to the soviets. Money alone would have done nothing. Also, money given to secularists would have done nothing to protect us from the soviets because no secularist group could have put up the resistance that our Mujahids have. They died in the millions for this cause and recognition of that is the bare minimum that I think we can repay them with.

I do not say that secularists are not Muslims, but I say that those who try to push Islam out and force secularism upon all of us should either cut it out, or fight it out and see who really has faith in what they profess to believe in.

My point about Bibi and Nawaz is very valid. Nawaz, Bibi, Altaf...these are the main players in Pakistan's downfall in the last 15-20 years. It has been them who have turned Karachi into a mafia run city and Pakistan into a nearly bankrupt and failed state. These corrupt elements are the mainstream secular parties. Mr 10% (90%) is not known to be a die hard Muslim is he? Altaf the terrorist, is also a secularist isn't he? Now tell me if these three have done more to harm our country in the last 15 years, or some Islamic party...and please do not lump Islamic with all the fanatics such as Osama or Sipa-e-Sahaba. Think in terms of what we could have if we recognized that our strength is in being Muslim and that we must come up with an Islamic way of governance that properly represents us.

What do you expect people to do when you take people from their houses and make them disappear for years without charge? Our government has been doing that and that was one of the Chief Justice's issues of discord with the government.

What do you expect people to do when you launch missiles into their neighborhoods to take out one "terrorist" hideout and kill 100 other innocent people in the process?

Why is the Pakistan army screenings its own soldiers to ensure only the most carefully selected are being sent to fight this war? It because they realize this war is injust and widely unpopular amongst everyone.

Please look at things in the proper context, these are not necessarily people who have nothing to complain about. They are the most uneducated, but most loyal people in our country and we should have given them more respect...they are not terrorists. I saw General Durrani, former ISI Chief, saying on TV the other day that these people are the flesh and blood of Pakistan and were it not for them, we could never had held the territories from India that we have. We should treat them with much more respect than this. We have paid them with missiles and death. That is just totally unfair. And now because they fight back, we call them terrorists and extremists. Of course, their poverty, lack of education and backwardness will cause brutal incidents like beheadings, but who instigated this?

And BTW, I am a major Mushy supporter who is saying this.

Re: # 13


"The whole anti-maulvi thing is really getting old though. It hasnt been maulvis who have been robbing the country for the last 20 years, it has been the two main secular parties; Nawaz and Bibi. It is the secularists who brought this country to disaster in recent history, not the maulvis who have at best been minor players/irritants. Who defended us from a Soviet invasion...a bunch of faggot secularists? No...it was Muslims!"

And your point being those who profess to be secularists are not muslims?

By the way, it was the proud and mighty US$ that was the reason why Soviets left Afghanistan and please correct yourself, they chose to leave, they were not defeated.

As for the corrupt B & NS, well my dear naive chowkie, u should first try and understand who was the main beneficiary of US$ and Saudi riyaals? Secularists who were hounded and marginalized Or the Maulvi+Army nexus?

Re: # 13

Dear Zyxius,

We have a difference of opinion, we both can agree to disagree and that is the civilized thing to do. But, when people are massacred, beheaded because they differ in their political view, then that is fascism. What is happening in Wazirastan, Swat and was attempted in Lal Masjid are good examples of people using religion to impose their ideals on others. Now u r free to call it whatever u like, but in common language and historical context it is called Islamo Fascism, nothing to do witht he religion itself but those who practice such abhorrent views.