Religiosity, National Ethos and Governance

Re: # 93 I must accept the truism put across by your correspondant, and your correct observation: we have Muslim bigotry of 7th -10th century to thank for this!!
Our leaders and politicians are not up to it, and it looks like we have to suffer on......
Looks like this article and post has lost further appeal for discussion/debate!!

Re: # 92

Mateen

The problem in fact is not having any faith but treating other faiths as 'kufr' and believers in those faiths deserving to be lynched, not sparing even those carrying the lable of Muslim.

Just see this letter I got from somewhere:

"Islam and Muslims

Sir: A Western philosopher once said that “Islam is probably the best religion but its followers are the worst of all religions”. The decline of the Islamic world in the past 500 years is clear evidence that Muslims themselves are to blame. At the heart of the matter is a widespread belief among Muslim populations that they are God’s chosen and preferred people and superior to others.

That makes approximately 4.8 billion people (3/4th of the world) infidel, kaafir and jahanammi. The fallacy and absurdity of this idealism has pitched Islamic civilisation against the rest of the world. Do we ever pause to think why Muslims are involved in conflicts in most regions of the world? Why can’t they get along with anyone? I believe this is because most Muslims seem to be unable to respect other civilisations. Religion should be a means of ending people’s suffering not increasing them. One can only hope that the Muslims become less arrogant and learn to live amicably with people of other religions. That alone will lead to a lasting peace in the world."
(IMRAN MOHAMMAD KHAN
Pennsylvania)

Everyone who 'submits' to the creed of 'Tauheed' and the acceptance of 'Peace', is considered a 'Muslim': I have taken a very large canvas to define what is arguably the most contentious of definitions, and cause for much harm and 'fitna'.
It also is the terribly brittle basis for the many 'fiqahs' amongst the Mussalma'an - despite the many lucid warnings and exhortations in The Qura'an and Hadees.
Actually, from a reading of the more renowned translations and commentaries of the Qura'an, Maulanas Maududi, Yusuf Ali and Jallandhri/Dehalvi, it may be assumed that the word 'Muslim' derives from both 'tasleem' and 'sullam' i.e 'accept' and 'submit' e.g. "Salley-a Allah-u wa'a ala'e-hi' wa'a sulla'm". There may be more pronounced meanings attributable to this word, which does not occur as such in any Revelation or Hadees.
I would have lots of reservations reading Justice Munir's Report of the 1953 happenings: suffice it to state that I firmly believe that no man is qualified to declare anybody as either a 'munafiq' or 'kafir' - or certify to any group being beyond the pale of 'believers'. Also, Allah Almighty had prohibited even The Prophet [PBUH] from casting anyone as a 'momin' or 'disbeliever', awaiting Allah's Judgement on the Day of Resurrection and Final Pronouncement. Wa kafa'a bi-Allah-i Wakeel-u'nn.
Both Zia ul Haque and Zulfiqar Bhutto stand indicted for causing immense harm to Islam and all Muslims in general, Pakistani Nation in particular. And I firmly subscribe to the theory of Pakistan being ONE NATION of diverse Faiths, Beliefs, languages, cultural nuances and, above all, the 'secularism' which was practiced and annointed in the 'Meesaq-e-Madinah' and the Last Khutbah.
The core of my suggestive re-structuring of State and Constitution given in this paper, is founded on an understanding of Islam being [what I understand and think] as truly completely "Muslim" as possible.
Over to you, Zyxius!

Re: # 18

Zyxius

Can you define the term 'Muslim' you use so profusely? In this connection I will advise you to read 'Munir Inquiry Report', if not already done. According to this judicial Inquiry the self-styled 'Ulema' had failed to have consensual definition of the term 'Muslim'. Despite that, later on the very Constitution was turned into a 'fatwa' by ZAB whose own faith was questionable with the Islam-Pasands. This constitutional fatwa had an earth-shaking effect when still later on Zia used it as a handle to make the faith of all the citizens of Pakistan who claimed to be Muslims questionable requiring a disgraceful affidavit (Half-namah)to be signed by them each time they desired to be certified as such.

Ironically, only this 'Fatwa' stands ground even when the Constitution is held in abeyance.

#89 Thank You, teshah!
Unfortunately, you seem to have given up at the point of quote of Ayesha Jalal: you should hve continued....it gets a bit more 'interesting' if for no other reason than that it is substantially different from the what I can discern in the multitude of cursing or polemic in the many write-ups on this forum [chowk.com]: I feel a total lack of clarity on WHAT is wrong and WHAT needs to be done.
Perhaps, it may be prudent to start from questioning the premise and concept that 'parliamentary democracy' is what the doctor ordered for Pakistan. How about giving a shot at understanding what Jinnah wanted for Pakistan?
Can we suggest Chowk Editors to invite comments / views from: Janab Sharif al Mujahid , Dr. Parvez Hoodbhoy, Janab Qazi Faez al Issa, Prof Anwar Syed [his write-up, "Dealing with an emergency", DAWN, 11th November 2007, is a sort of sequel to a long list of revealing/suggestive political frame-work for Pakistan], and many other apolitical commentators?

A really thought provoking article or may it be called a pamphlet, titled 'Lamahe Fikreehah"!

I could read only a portion of it and stopped at the quote from Ayesha "A country in search of a nation".
In fact that is the crux of the problem as Pakistan is neither a 'country' nor have a nation but is a Federation of Nationalities. It recalls to me a statement made by a Kashmiri Leader a few years ago. While opposing accession to Pakistan he was of the opinion that since Kashmiries are a nation it was for nation-less Pakistanies who should accede to Kashmir, if they so wish.

Kulharee writes "#82 Masadi joker ki aulad, you have no problem dragging other people's relative, and now you have your panties in a bunch if someone mentions quran? do you have any shame you a-hole? "

As was expected the Chowk staff took no notice of this post even though I had highligheted it and took no action against Kulharee, while every benign post of mine is censored by them and I am banned time and again for over 24 hour periods. Why you ask?, it is because of my ideas and ideas alone, they want to run this damn site as a PTV propaganda network, only that they don't represent the propaganda of the peons but what to present the propaganda of the US elite. It will be no wonder if reading this they decide to ban me again-

Re: # 86

mateen mian,

.... sorry, but i don't have the stomach to read this crap - it is a sorry attempt at obfuscation ......

.... if you can post a fifty word summary i promise to read it .......

A real pity that the likes of laddu, hamidm2, majumdar, kulharee are still 'clawing' space on this site: leaves one with a bitter taste for the loss of really clean, stimulating discourse based on reason and well-read discussion/debate.
Please get a life, you people: at least go over the write-up and pass plausible comments that are half-decent!!

Maj writes "So what were the Afghans supposed to do? Become peons of the Russian elite?"

If they were not peons of their own ignorance they could have avoided being peons of the Jihadists who were peons of the Americans...

#82 Masadi joker ki aulad, you have no problem dragging other people's relative, and now you have your panties in a bunch if someone mentions quran? do you have any shame you a-hole?

Masadi sahib,

So what were the Afghans supposed to do? Become peons of the Russian elite?

Regards

hamid writes "as the koran says, "verily, we are screwed!""

Leave the Quran out of this you moron. You don't have to abandon all sense of decency to make a point. Get some morals....

maj writes "You cant blame the Afghans for fighting for their liberty.."

Just like they are fighting for their "liberty" in Pakistan, a "liberty" to end all liberty? Long before the Soviets stepped in to protect their turf as against the other players, these rag tags were fighting the local authorities

Re: # 68

"No Laddu-Ji, but we will surely make you a head-less 'pateela' and plant a 'Buta' in it."

In short it is some thing that no idolator or non muslim should think about.

The truth is that in a mullah's fantasy land the non muslims can not exist at all!!!

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

hamidm #76 Let us then hope you find a nice, edible, low-cholestrol high fiber hat to eat three months down the road. :-)

No doubt the situation in Pakistan has hardly ever been more serious. We are truly stuck between a rock and a hard place with the devil to one side and the deep blue sea to the other (I hope Romair appreciates my miserable attempt here at mixing metaphors up to his standard here). FF posts were falling in Swat yesterday due to soldiers refusing to fight their own, while musharraf was busy putting lawyers in jail in Islamabad and Lahore.

And forget about blonde haired aunties in Islamabad - I heard suit wearing gray-haired uncles growling like gray wolves yesterday.

Re: # 66

zyxius,

..... sorry, but i just don't trust people who push a totalitarian ideology ..... remember chamberlain who trusted hitler? ....and the poor people of mecca who trusted the ruler of medina ?

tahmed,

..... one more thing ...i will eat my hat if 'the people' and the political jokers can make musharraf go away .......... heck, i will go out, buy a hat and then eat it ! .......... and you know what? i hope you are right ..

Re: # 62

tahmed,

.... i am not saying everything is fine .... it is time for musharraf and his goons in khaki to go, but i don't think abdul paki is gong to make it happen ...... i doubt more that a couple of hundred people will show up for bb's jalsa in rawalpindi and if she can't do it nobody else can ....... we have to depend on mushy's goodwill to grant us democracy - the people are a bunch of clowns lead by jokers ....... and i don't blame them - it is hard to worry about the constitution when you can't get two square meals a day .....

...... everyone wants to jump on the lawyers bandwagon but i don't think it is big enough ....... as for 'civil society', the aunties with blonde hair won't miss an appointment with thir haidresser just to go on a long march ......... as the koran says, "verily, we are screwed!"

Jinnah where are you. The contry created for islam, the leader mushy is talking not only to Bush, he is pleading with the US politicians. Benazir is asking the US to kick out mushy. Now even navaz is talking to the US leaders to do something about pakistan, What a pathetic sight, the leaders of all hues of a country created for islam is pleading with the sata to save the muslim country.

Jinnah, this what you created , wake up and shoot yourself.

"This is not a battle for the soul of Pakistan, or to slay the dragon of extremism, as our foreign godfathers wish us to believe so that the more readily we jump to their commands and do their bidding. This is a fight for American interests in Afghanistan and we are only performing the role of unwilling mercenaries, hardly the higher purpose of an army whose motto is ‘jihad in the name of Allah’."

The above is ayaz amir from dawn.

This is a clear indication that the pak army will not fight the jihadis of NWFP, the jiahdic army cannot fight the jihadis and the pak soldiers are abandoning their posts in droves.

It is time for teh B52s to come in and the US belives that benazir is going to give a wink and a nod.

It is clear that it is all quite in teh western front, and the emergency was to save the pak army from the jihadis.

#70...masadi...take a deep breath, a cool glass of water, your medication, and reading the full context of the discussion before taking a small clipping of my post to distort what is being said. Be a little more fair than that and for god's sake...chill out.

Masadi sahib,

Re: 69

You cant blame the Afghans for fighting for their liberty, can you? No country ought to be occupied by or occupying another country. Or do you justify Russian occupation of A'stan just because Russia was a commie country?

Regards

Zyxius writes "and belong to the society in which everyone has screwed everyone else's mother, sister, daughter and aunt. A slut society by any other name is just as bad..."

It is the mullah's hallmark not only to make a damn fool of himself because he or she has half baked knowledge, but their tendency to reduce all morality to things sexual shows that not only do they not have any understanding of the dimensions of morality- for them butchering someone is of lesser significance than a woman's ankles being bare, godforbid. These narrow minded fools are what humanity needs to stay clear of, their provincialism is a disease and their lack of knowledge of things social and scientific an outrage against Islam and God....

Zeemax writes "#49 Posted by masadi,

I disagree completely. One to two million people don't die in war for someone else's cause. They die for their own cause."

They might have a cause planted in their head by motivational support, the dynamic of the war and war supplies (all provided by the devil, the US elite). They died chasing a lie, for the benefit of the Americans and they butchered each other for the same lie- if they were educated enought to ponder and understand the Quran, not only would they have avoided being manipulated by both powers, they would have avoided the unnecessary casualties...Instead of drumming some sense in those fools you want to join their ranks which is a big disservice to Islam...

#60 Posted by laddu

... an idolator like me who loves his "Buta-Paraste" become the Khalifa of you momeen land???.......

No Laddu-Ji, but we will surely make you a head-less 'pateela' and plant a 'Buta' in it.

If one were to picture an equally narrow minded stereotype about the secularists of Pakistan one would likely describe them as a bunch of weak sissies who probably went to grammar school and belong to the society in which everyone has screwed everyone else's mother, sister, daughter and aunt. A slut society by any other name is just as bad! How is that for narrow minded Hameed? It goes both ways, so I suggest you try to be a bit more fair to the majority around you rather than make broadly sweeping comments from your lofty position of "enlightenment".

Hamidm,

#57, "........ a religious bigot by any name is just as foul ..... anyone who proposes the implementation of barbaric seventh century laws and the establishment of a government based on the model of the abominable four is a jihadi ........ the disguise of scholarship does not hide the suicide belt"

How incredibly closed minded....you my friend are the extremist who wishes to impose his way of life on others. If a maulana did that, he may be taken out with a gunship....I honestly believe that so should people who take the secular position that you do. Its only fair that extremists on both sides should be taken out with equal vigor.

Laddu...you keep talking a lot of crap without any purpose....so if you want to know how a piss drinker like you would fit into society...come meet me somewhere in Karachi and I will give you a full 1 hour lesson.

To the author:

It might be helpful if you add a healthy summary of the important ideas up front.
Reading through such a long piece is not
every one's cup of tea.

Re: # 50 zyxius

"Things will never change in Pakistan unless people find COMMON GROUND!!"

... and the way to do that is to promote
Musharraf?

Re: # 58

Imran Khan, Pathan is the leader of Tehreek e Imran (Insaaf) that has ONE (sympathy) national assembly seat. Yet u like others wish to have another ONE (NO-)MAN show?

hamidm #53 Obviously Musharraf does not agree with you about everything being fine - otherwise why would he put thousands of people in jail which has forced even Bush to speak out against him? Perhaps Musharraf will take your advice and not interfere with the demonstration called for this Friday by Benazir, but I would not bet my chowk nic on that. Stay tuned for that..

PS: You are beginning to sound like Baghdad Bob a bit now: "What opposition? I dont see any opposition!! People are happy!! See: They are lining up for gulaab jaman at the Happy Halwai shop in Lahore!! Why, when I mentioned "crisis" on the phone today, my sis in Pakistan thought I was talking about the wedding invitation cards misspelling the groom's name!!"

Re: # 58

shankar mian,

...... would you hire a shrink who is nice, honest and reasonably intelligent but doesn't know crap about psychiatary ?........

....... politics, like prostitution and shrinkery, is profession and you have to know the art to be successful .... we have had people like imran khan before; asghar khan is a prime example - a hijra from his home town got more votes than him ..... imran khan should have joined an established party and learned the trade instead of striking out on his own .... like an independent streetwalker he is going to get beaten up by the pimps and the other girls ....... it is a tough business .... i feel sorry for the poor guy and send him all my tax-deductible dollars, but i'd vote for masadi or romair before i vote for him ....... the man is a loose cannon and a fool ...

Hey Zyrix and Zeemaxes of this crazy country of Pakistan,

Please tell me would you allow an idolator like me who loves his "Buta-Paraste" become the Khalifa of you momeen land???.......

Re: # 9 Posted by hamidm2 on November 7, 2007 4:30:48 am

Hamidm2,

[.... what the muslims really need to do is to get their heads out of their posteriors,...]

Do you mean the posteriors of the person in front of them? Being a communal loving society this is what is actually happening.

hamid mian,

why is imran khan never even considered an alternative?
he has no corruption charges..seems patriotic..reasonably intelligent..
he is the only Paki who defeated India(hey that itself should be reason enough to make him pm)
compared to the alternatives you have, tell me, who is better?!

Re: # 56

mateen mian,

........ a religious bigot by any name is just as foul ..... anyone who proposes the implementation of barbaric seventh century laws and the establishment of a government based on the model of the abominable four is a jihadi ........ the disguise of scholarship does not hide the suicide belt .....

RE: Naqshbandi, hamidm2: Very sincere and reasonable suggestion - please read and assimilate the total write-up. Your own self-contradiction is apparent when you disdainfully state "...didn't read the whole article but it was rambling and seemingly self-contradictory in parts" Touche!
However, you do have it right in that measures suggested are for a structure that is based on "traditional Islamic Fiqh principles" - to a point. Please read my response at no. 8. I am a 'Sunni' by birth, but a total Muslim in practice, thought and intent/action. I don't agree with your implied assertion that the Sunni Orthodoxy is the true spirit or foundation of Islamic Jurisprudence or life-style [this term IS very contextually valid to what may be termed as 'ways of a Mussalman'] There are profound lessons to be picked up from Shia and Sufi religious practices and in their application of doctrines given in the Holy Qura'an.
A quick reading/video study of Akbar S. Ahmed's, "The Living Islam"; Syed Ameer Ali's 'The Spirit of Islam'; Fatima Mernissi's 'Islam and Democracy'; and the renditions of the Quran mentioned in my Post at No.8, would probably cast better light on what is being stated.
There can be no debate or discussions on the meanderings of tahmed and confusion on 'secularism', 'liberalism' etc etc: the Revelations of the Holy Qura'an [as also the Torah, Ingeel, Talmud, Gospel] are very lucid insofar as having a secular outlook is concerned. It is the "moulvis" [not "maulanas"] who have disgraced and distorted the very essence of Islamic Philosophy/Traditions by their fulminations and belligerance, making a simple 'deeni' message into a 'na-deeniat' masa'ael. With deference to Zyxius, I beg to differ on the 'Taliban' and 'Deobandi' ways.

Re: # 53

tahmed,

.... did you see the ppp 'demonstration' in islamabad today? ...... there are more people lined up to buy mithai at qasr-i-shireen on eid!

....... i think the people of pakistan are in no mood to take to the streets simply they don't have any faith in the same old tired faces - fazloo, bb, qazi, ns ...... and that clown, imran khan - what the hell is he up to ! ......... hiding under the bed in his cousin's house and issuing video tapes as if he was osama in his cave! .... what a joker!

i didn't read the whole article but it was rambling and seemingly self-contradictory in parts...

anyway i agree largely with Zyxius. The older I get and the more I read about our history the more certain I am that Muslims will remain in this weak and pathetic state where our blood is cheap until we return to Traditional Islam--the orthodoxy which existed in the Sunni world [at a coexistence with the Shia world before others start talking of sectarianism] until the 19th/ 20th century and the calamity which was the end of the Caliphate by that heretic Ataturk.

We need to return to the Quran and Sunnah as historically represented for over 1000 years by the Four School of Sunni Orthodoxy which coexisted without any problems. Traditional Islamic fiqh principles are so brilliant that they allow qualified legal islamic scholars to adduce rulings for any modern development now or in the future till Qayamat.

I do think though that the mainstream Muslim majority [both Sunni and Shia] are also largely to blame for the rise of the extremist lunatic fringe who disavow the classical consensus for their own deranged interpretations which lead to the atrocities we see today. Our fault is that we depoliticised Islam completely--understandable perhaps given the traumas of colonisation and loss of caliphate and Muslim sultanates everywhere--and turned Islam into a purely devotional faith. Whereas traditionally classical Islam balanced the temporal and the spiritual: the Sufis also advised the sultans and took part in jihad! By leaving the political arena to the extremist ghair muqallids we have shot ourselves in the foot. The solution is for the silent mainstream Muslim traditionalists of the 4 Schools and the Sufi tariqahs to get politically involved so that we can have insha Allah--when it is His Will--a union of strong, Islamic, states governed by the Sacred Law with an Amir at its head till Allah sends the Mahdi alayhisalam.

When a major political party (PPP) gets off the fence and joins the thin, brave ranks of the lawyers (as per demonstrations today), when the army itself has rumblings of discontent with Musharraf's insane destruction of Pakistani institutions...does this mean Musharraf's goose is perhaps cooked?

See article:

1. by Benazir in NYT today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/opinion/07bhutto.html?ref=opinion



2. on the army discontent with Musharraf:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/11/07/in_pakis tan_the_army_is_key/

#49 Posted by masadi,

I disagree completely. One to two million people don't die in war for someone else's cause. They die for their own cause.

In the Afghan Jihad case, they fought and died for their independence from a foreign invader, motivated by Allah's message in the Qura'an. It is as simple as that. And they continue to do so when the foreign invader is the same in whose cause, according to you, they were fighting for in the first place.

Sorry Masadi, but your logic is skewed.

Zyxius writes " The US will probably go bankrupt fighting these ridiculous wars "

That's where you are dead wrong, wars are very beneficial for the US political economy, it is very profitable maintaining standing armies and bases and undertaking reconstruction, post WW2 that has been the strategy of the US power elite, they're no fools...

It is clear that everyone can argue till the cows come home, and it will make no difference since many people will simply remain convinced of their existing beliefs. The things that everyone should take away, in my opinion, are these:

1. Pakistan is a Muslim country and will remain so despite the frothings of the "civil society" secularists. Islam shouldn't be forced on anyone, but neither should the secularist thump their beliefs in the self righteous manner that they do and try to force them upon others. If they do, they should expect what they get just like those who push their Islamic beliefs these days who are termed extremists and usually exterminated with gunships. Secularists can be fanatics and extremists too! The last century should prove that secularists/liberals have killed probably more than any religious group.

2. Terms such as "maulvi" only lump people together, and if we claim to be educated we should be above that sort of thing and be specific about whom we are talking about rather than lumping all people together. If you don't like Islam and don't want anything to do with it, fine...but be respectful as you would expect respect for yourself and your beliefs.

3. Stop finding divisions amongst ourselves and realize that we are being threatened from outside. The Americans are not your friends....they only have "interests". Their war on terror has started with Afghanistan, went to Iraq, the plan for Iran is now in full swing, and does it take a genius to figure out that Pakistan could be under threat? No matter what you believe in, secularism, religion, communism, or any other ism, if you are a Pakistani you should stop the divisions and look at the common grounds that exist and build on them. If you can't find common ground with others that you disagree with, you aren't as civilized or educated as you think you are....even if you are one of the "enlightened" secularists.

4. Ask yourself the root causes of our issues rather than just jump to the easy name calling and assigning blame to the "mullahs". Could it be that someone could have done something to hurt these people of SWAT and caused them to rise up? The US will probably go bankrupt fighting these ridiculous wars and Pakistan is barely even a shadow of the US...we simply cannot afford to ignore reality and squash it with brute violence followed by a well oiled propaganda machine [Fox News].

5. Things will never change in Pakistan unless people find COMMON GROUND!!

Zeemax writes :"And if the numbers you quote are correct (they lost around 1 to 2 million), I will need a lot of convincing to know that they died for nothing. "

They died for America's cause, and when you fight on behalf of the devil you end up in hell, that is what Afghanistan is right now and what it became after that fight...

#43 Posted by masadi

You are on the wrong side Zee, you are not on the side of Islam

If Islam is nothing but Qura'an, and if it means what it says, that's my side. I don't bother much with exotic interpretations. And if the numbers you quote are correct (they lost around 1 to 2 million), I will need a lot of convincing to know that they died for nothing.

#40 Posted by laddu,

Actually that's true. Where did you learn that?

Zyxius writes "You do not even bother to try to take Islam as a basis for further building of our society and institutions...you just want to jump ship and become the white man's "house nigger". What is so wrong with trying to make our religion our own, instead of trying to abandon it and running for another identity"

Whose Islam, Khomenis or Osamas, or yours or mine? First you have to clarify that; due to heavy interference of the political in the religion field when you talk of Islam you are talking of a politically perverted version, perverted through centuries of manipulation, interpretation and addition. If I say the Quran says such and so and is perfectly compatible with freedom and democracy, you Jihadi types jump up and say but the hadith says such and so. Then you all have very conveniently borrowed the terminology of the left and the scholarship of the left for your perverted agenda of not only implementing a gross distortion of Islam, but a system that you have manufactured and closed from any further thought or inquiry. There is little difference between Musharraf's call of dictatorship to preserve and promote democracy and your call of "Islam" for social justice, when we see very well what your types do when their absolute authority which they usurp and attribute to God does to peoples minds and their ability to grow as human beings and fulfill their purpose of existance that God has set for them, "to see which one of you is best in deed". No thanks to the dark ages of Crusader inspired "Islam"- which is an outrage against the Quran and an outrage against all that is decent and human

Re: # 23

malik99

If u wish to exchange civilized ideas then Don't take things out of context, if the idea is crap shoot then thats a different thing.

Afghan rebels funded by US/Saudi petrodollars and armed with western armament inflicted heavy casualties on the soviet empire. Had they not succeeded we wud be speaking russian, well maybe that wud hv been the best thing for a country which has yet to decide whether they want arabic or urdu.

in #43 read "Actually that depends on who you say"

as "Actually that depends on who you ask..."

Zeemax writes "The Afghan Jihad against Soviets had started much before USA jumped in. When those morons saw potential in the Jihadis"

Actually that depends on who you say, if you ask ZB, he says they lured the soviets in by helping the Jihadis first. In any case were it not for US help, and the potential bearing Jihadis would have amounted to nothing. The US didn't see any potential in them, they were a butt of CIA jokes for being quite rag tag and bad shots, but what the US did see in them was their willingness to die for a cause and they were willing to expend the very last one of them that is why compared to the Soviet losses the losses of the Jihadis were enormous, they lost around 1 to 2 million with another 2 million displaced inside the country, and 5 million refugees that went to Iran and Paksitan, while the Soviets lost around 50,000. Not to mention the butchering of the Jihadi on Jihadi war after the US and Soviets left- that my friend was no picture of heaven or justice. You are on the wrong side Zee, you are not on the side of Islam but on the side of the Crusader's caricature of Islam brought to life by a frankenstein that the West created...

Re: # 41


as a matter of fact, the biggest mistake pakistan ever made was supporting the us jihad against russia in afghanistan ..... during the russian occupation you could buy a five gallon jerrycan of vodka in peshawar for a hundred rupees !

........now there is no vodka, just suiciders drunk on imaan !

Re: # 37

zyxius,

"Well, I'm still glad it was the Islamic Jazba that has protected us all from speaking Russian "

.... nonsense! ... do you really think the russians would have invaded pakistan ???? .....why?.... oh let me see, because they want a warm water port ! ..... same old crap

........ as for the afghans, it would have been much better if the russians had stuck around for a couple of hundred years so that they could have taught them how to take a bath and not have sex with their pet sheep ......

...... islamic jazba cannot even protect us against body odor - we need deodrant

Let me take you on a little memory trip. The Afghan Jihad against Soviets had started much before USA jumped in.

Miyan,

The jehad started since the days of medina.......nothing special about that ......... it would continue till the day the kafirs remain alive......

No??

#37 Posted by Zyxius,

Let me take you on a little memory trip. The Afghan Jihad against Soviets had started much before USA jumped in. When those morons saw potential in the Jihadis, they started to pump in support through Pakistan, and not before.

In short, the Afghan Jihad was intrinsic and spontaneous by the Musalmaan Afghans. USA entered the picture when it felt it could get something for its money, and did, and then pulled out of the picture.

It's quite another story that the same picture (wall frame and all)is being shoved in its rear-end now.

beta zeemax

long time, no yahoodi conspiracy stories???

anyway,
regarding Union of Islamic Califart, shouldn't it be UICSA, coming very close to USCIS, u.s. immigration services

Well, I'm still glad it was the Islamic Jazba that has protected us all from speaking Russian today and has given you the privilege of being able to be so unkind to the followers of that faith. And if, God forbid, we face violence in our country, lets see how many of you stick around to do something about it. I remember as I kid I, my family, and almost everyone I know contributed in some way or another in the Soviet War and we even know many people who fought in that war. You instantly term any khilafat as a dictatorship without even considering that it may not necessarily be so. You do not even bother to try to take Islam as a basis for further building of our society and institutions...you just want to jump ship and become the white man's "house nigger". What is so wrong with trying to make our religion our own, instead of trying to abandon it and running for another identity?! You can deny it all you like, but thats that privilege they already paid with their lives for. Cherish it while it lasts because it looks like another sacrifice will soon be required and I doubt very much that the secularists will be up to it.

#22 Posted by Zyxius Behen,

Then you go on to insult all Islamic scholars by lumping them into one "Maulvi" category ...

This is unfortunately the arrogance of the 2% or less secular / liberal civil society of Pakistan which has brought the country to this pathetic state. By ridiculing and dismissing the politico-religious parties (which are actually more democratic internally than the secular ones), they handed the ball to the apolitical militant Islamist movements (thankfully), who have thrown it back at them in a lethal curve they can't avoid smashed with in the face.

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 ...

Yeah, actually, Reagan himself had called them 'Moral equivalents of our founding fathers' on the White house lawns. I.e. the same 'Moulvis'. What's the problem now?

Re: # 10

zyxius mian,

" When our soldiers die protecting our country, they are called Shaheed! "

..... don't forget that the horrible hindoos also call their dead soldiers shaheed - and their guys have done a much better job of protecting their country ....... if i remember correctly, al-lah mian's soldiers haven't won a single battle ..... these goons in khaki keep on banging their heads against the ground five times a day and praying for more plots in defence ....

..... this article is not worth reading - i am sure it is the same old bullshit about how the muslims need to follow the koran and sunnah or else .......... nonsense! ...... this dog don't hunt !

Zyxius: You are right in saying that Pakistani mainstream parties have not delivered. But the religious parties are no alternative. That has not just myself saying this, but has in fact been the verdict of the vast majority of Pakistani people to date. If in future the majority of the Pakistani people chose to elect a legislature that by the necessary majority changes the Pakistani Constitution (not the PCO) that makes one indivdiual a khalifa and law-giver in the name of God as the islamic parties would like to see (in other words, institutionalizes dictatorship in Pakistan, and thus turns Pakistanis from a free people into a "raayaa" of one man), fine. But till that day, maulvis can come to power only the way any thug comes to power - via force.

I have to beg leave for now. I applaud your civilized manner of conduct, even as I beg to disagree with you on these fundamental points.

Re: # 4
"Laddu....have you even asked yourself what Khilafat is? I mean, people seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to Shariah or the concept of Khilafat. Tell me how wonderfully democracy and capitalism are working out for 30% of America's poor."

Mian Zyrix,

I speak from an idolator's point of view. I do not care if your khilafat is called democracy or not - for me it is the road to hell for an idolator.

Tell me my dear sir, Would you allow an idolator like me be the Khalifa of the momeen country??????????????????

All bhai/behens, hindoo macacas, ex-pat kanjars, and assorted 'civil society' walla liberaloon, motheratoons, kafiroon enlightenedoons etc.

Listen up and listen good:

The Union of Islamic Caliphates of South Asia (UIC in short) is in bloom!

#24 Posted by Urstruly on November 7, 2007 6:54:59 am


how come US with all its dollars is
Why not those dollars working now.
Why those dollars


Clearly the problem is not enough $$

the solution is for you and malik and atif to work harder so the US government can get more of your tax $$.

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.

A TRIBUTE TO MY BELOVED & PEOPLE OF PAKISTAN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkMD56bHsog

#11....there is no such thing as Islamo-fascism...that is a bullshit term coined by the nut cases in the west who are hell bent on bringing about an Armageddon with a clash between the good christian folks and us dark skinned Gog and Magog folk....look in a little more depth and see where the words you are using come from and which agenda they represent. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is open knowledge that Jerry Falwell and the Christian right believe these things about us and use these terms.

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! The lawyers are no example, so I don't want to bother commenting on that. I have never heard of a nation being defended against its enemies by the people of this profession.

Also, you lump all people who believe in religion together when you say things like, "thinking they are doing their islamic duty by praying and hajj, when in fact their islamic duty is to do the opposite of what they do when they engage in sectarianism, act as if muslims are a "chosen people", make a de facto god out of human beings (including the prophet himself), and so on." Rather than being so ashamed of our Muslim identity, my point is to make it our own and use it to strengthen ourselves rather than divide. No matter how much you fight it, Pakistan will always remain a Muslim country and those who wish to change that will likely tear it apart in the process because those of us who do believe in religion being a major part of our identity and governance will fight tooth and nail for their right to live the way they feel is right.

Also, for rf786....if you try hard enough you will always find someone who knows someone who is a part of any of those organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbullah and Hezbut Tahrir...but I have never come across anyone, even 7 degrees removed who even remotely has even met someone who is Al Qaeda. Neither I, not many of the people I know in Pakistani intelligence (on a friendly basis) believe that Al Qaeda even really exists. You are saying that political Islam turned in fascism in the 70s in Pakistan, but I am telling you that these are the terms used by those who wish us the greatest harm. You think Jerry Falwell and his Armageddon crew care that you are a secular Muslim? The probably want to wipe you out just as much as they want to get rid of the rest of us colored non Christian folk.

Re: # 7

My dear well intentioned chowkie, maybe you have not followed the Al Qaeda trail across the globe. If you have and yet choose to ignore their political ideals, then there is a difference in interpertation of events. Political Islam is alive and kicking, those who ignore it while opposing it will suffer the most.

Islamo fascism has become popular post 9/11 agreed, but that term was being debated and condemned much before the occurrence of 9/11. Had you studied in Pakistan in the seventies-eighties you would have seen strains of political Islam being studied and debated. Political Islam turned into fascism post Zia ul phuk when Islamic/Arabic laws were imposed. Since then, Pakistani liberals/moderates/socialists/nationalists have bore the brunt of Islamo fascism in form or another. Therefore, no matter how good your intentions maybe, but u do seem to lack the grasp of Pakistani ground reality.

Zyxius: Religious fascists are Musharraf's ticket to power. Pakistanis are like the boy who cried wolf - Maulvis harping about "Islam khatray maiN hay", nonmaulvis harping about "western conspiracies" and taking to the streets over stupid things like cartoons, becomeing more arab than the arabs about palestine and israel, twisting and turning Islam into a mockery of Islam (e.g. thinking they are doing their islamic duty by praying and hajj, when in fact their islamic duty is to do the opposite of what they do when they engage in sectarianism, act as if muslims are a "chosen people", make a de facto god out of human beings (including the prophet himself), and so on.

In the meantime, Indians and Chinese strengthen their national institutions by learning from the west (e.g. the "secular" Indian Constitution) and use the western economies to build up their own economy.

So: when the real wolf comes (i.e. the military general), the world is silent. The tinpot general then uses these maulvi fools as an excuse to go after his real enemies - the "secularist" lawyers and human rights activists.

Where are the maulvis now? Half of them are still begging to be given a "deal", the other half are busy trying to attack Pakistan and carve out separate fiefdoms for themselves (as in case of fazlulah in swat). The only ones standing up for the basic rights of Pakistanis and for Pakistan are the "secularists" wearing western suits who are braving the lathis of a brutal dicatorship.

Dude, Hamid...that just sounds incredibly closed minded of you. You are passing judgment on an article without reading it, pronouncing all islam as "gibberish in arabic", and see the light...what light are you referring to? I think the only way forward is to understand one another instead of trying to force upon one another without even listening to what the other guy has to say. And lets not forget one thing, if Pakistan has ever been protected by sons who are willing to die for her, it hasnt been from this secular pooftas who would be on the next plane out of here in such a situation. When our soldiers die protecting our country, they are called Shaheed! So I would highly recommend having respect for the religion and its followers who are first in line to defend this country from outside forces. AN army of secularists in Pakistan would consist of corrupt, debauched, and cowardly individuals who wouldnt stand a single battle....what for? What is Pakistan if not a Muslim country?

mateen mian,

......... i just read the last line and decided this article is simply islamofascist propaganda written by a mardoodite ...... no? .. tell me i am wrong ... if i am, i will go back and read this obvious rubbish .....

.... what the muslims really need to do is to get their heads out of their posteriors, see the light of day and stop muttering gibberish in arabic

Re: # 6. Yes, have you read even the basic premise of why the re-structuring is being suggested? Leave alone reading the whole article [and I'm sure, rf786 will be spared the saluting!], you may not even have assimilated the very concept of the "Khilafat"!
Re: #s 3, 4, 5 and 7: Thank you, Zyxius! Let me add three more points:
1) Please understand that the system is based on many components of which the Shariah [as given in my write-up] is a foundation on which stand the Hadees, followed by Ijtehad and finally is the collation, consideration, discussions, acceptance and decisions.
2) Flowing from all this is the 'Tareeqah'; ergo Islamic Concept of State and Governance! If this is not democracy, please tell me what is?
3) As brought out in many fruitful articles available on www.Islamonline.net and reading/assimilation of the excellant translations/commentaries of Maulana Maudoodi, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Muhammad Asad, Dr. Bilgrami, Maulana Jallandhari, Maulana Muhammad Ali et al, one can have a fair idea that the real Faith is anything as damning as made out by M/S Fazlur Rahman, Qazi Hussain Ahmed and the lesser mortals who also strut around flashing their "islamo-fascism" {again, with you non this Zyxius!!] to the delight of screwballs like GWB and the neo-cons of USofA.

Dear rf786,

Islamo-fascism is a term mostly used by the likes of Jerry Falwell and other right wing bible thumping christians and fanatic zionists, but has now made it into the mainstream after years of repeated use by these fellows. It serves no purpose except to lump all of the poor and uneducated classes amongst the muslim world's rural communities into one enemy (in place of communism) for the western world.

The actual fact is that no such thing exists and I urge thinking Muslims to recognize these things. Certainly there are plenty of misguided and backward muslims amongst us who need to be educated, but we should not fall into the trap of our enemies who have always divided and ruled us. Have we not learnt anything from history?

Re: # 1

laddu jee,

Did u read the entire article? If u did, I salute u.

PS: Sooner we get rid of this political islamist fascism, the better.

BTW, do you realize that even Dubai has a Sharia based system of law? They have made it their own....why can't we?