Pakistani Judges - Read This Lawyer’s Oath

Laddu:
Currently, Democracy, human rights etc is MORALLY superior to Fundamentalism etc.
Idolatory as a culture may be existing. But as a philosophy, I highly doubt. (except if bowing before BUSH, Blair etc can be considered as such).
I don't know if idolatory is morally inferior or superior.
Historically, since idolators of Mecca were answerable to themselves, it created vices, to the detriment of poor, slaves, women etc. It contrasted with message of Mohammed PBUH where he suggested that all men are created equal and one is answerable to GOD for all his /her deeds. And will be punished/rewarded in hereafter for their deeds.
So on one side is philosophy, that "DO WHATEVER NOW" which is good as long as you can afford. But "DO WHATEVER NOW" is useless for someone who cannot do meaning who has no means, poor, destitute etc.
While if all men are created equal, and there is a life hereafter, then the criteria for success becomes different. The one who is more pious.
There is nothing inferior or superior in genes.
MAsadi:
There is Qurani sect or so. And there is a trap of Hadith and Sira.I don't know. But interpreting Quran in historical context with history, hadith, sira etc is fraught with problems. Interpreting Quran without historical context, is for me useless. The question is how much weight you give to each. As a Muslim one has to believe in Quran as non corrupt. But history of accumulation of Hadith and Sira clearly suggest that they are good historical sources. Also Quranic Laws to some extent are interpreted and enforced on historical precedence including Sira and Hadith.
HP:
That is why I asked you the definition of Islamist. I am aware of some writers who have written good things about Mohammed PBUH, although they were non Muslims. Some of them while writing the history and sifting the historical resources became Muslims themselves. As far as I read, I cannot help but love the man for his human qualities. If you are aware that even before he was prophet, his slave refused to go to his own family ( when the family found him) and preferred to stay with Mohammed PBUH. In later times when he used to "Wudu" people would not let water fall on ground. He was loved by his companions to the extreme.
He was a great missionary, messanger, conqueror. Although there might be others in history, and I am not well versed, but will not deny the rightful place for Mohammed PBUH.

Laddu:
Jinnah's Two nation theory has nothing to do with Mullahs. Mullahs were mostly supportive of United India.
Two nation theory meant Muslims and Hindus are two seperate nation, people , culture etc, so Muslims needed a seperate country of their own. But it has more to do with the leadership of Congress and Muslim league also. Particularly, 1937 Congress Government did a great harm and alienated the Muslims away from Congress towards Muslim league. So Congress Goverment of 1937 alienated a lot of friends.

Laddu:
Jinnah's Two nation theory has nothing to do with Mullahs. Mullahs were mostly supportive of United India.
Two nation theory meant Muslims and Hindus are two seperate nation, people , culture etc, so Muslims needed a seperate country of their own. But it has more to do with the leadership of Congress and Muslim league also. Particularly, 1937 Congress Government did a great harm and alienated the Muslims away from Congress towards Muslim league. So Congress Goverment of 1937 alienated a lot of friends.

Laddu:
Jinnah's Two nation theory has nothing to do with Mullahs. Mullahs were mostly supportive of United India.
Two nation theory meant Muslims and Hindus are two seperate nation, people , culture etc, so Muslims needed a seperate country of their own. But it has more to do with the leadership of Congress and Muslim league also. Particularly, 1937 Congress Government did a great harm and alienated the Muslims away from Congress towards Muslim league. So Congress Goverment of 1937 alienated a lot of friends.

" #50 Posted by krashid1961 on November 21, 2007 8:46:44 am
Two nation theory meant Muslims and Hindus are two seperate nation, people , culture etc, so Muslims needed a seperate country of their own."

You still have leftover Hindus in Pakistan when are you planning to discard them?

krashid1961,

The two nation theory was a dumb-ass racist theory which has no more merit to it than the dumb-ass racist theory that the (white) South Africans once had that they could not live with those of dark color.

The two nation theory was a dumb-ass racist theory which has no more merit to it than the dumb-ass racist theory that (white) Americans in the South could not be considered equal to Americans of African heritage.

The two nation theory is a dumb-ass racist theory which can be “extended” to ANY country in the world where there is a significant fraction of Muslims and then the theory can be applied with impunity to fracture that country.

The two-nation theory brought disaster to the Indian subcontinent and any derivative of the two-nation theory will inevitably bring disaster to wherever it gets practiced.

The two-nation theory is based on essentially making human beings unequal. It is a theory based on suspicion, hatred, fear, exclusivism and pure simple racism!

Cobra #53 One of these "leftover hindus" is Bhagwan Das - who has stood like a rock along with his brother ghairat-mand lawyers whose name will go down in Pakistan history while that of the rogue generals is mud.

We need all the "leftover hindus" we can in Pakistan if they are true men like Bhagwan Das.

bjkumar:
Two nation theory will continue to haunt sub continent. More than a million people have been killed so far.
I didn't live in time when it was propagated. After the fall of Caliphate in Turkey, particularly after 1928 Muslims started to realize that their interests cannot be safeguarded in United India. It was initially one or two voices, and not the Muslim masses. Iqbal proposed something in 1930. Rehmat Ali proposed something from England. Jinnah dishearted left for England and started his law practice.
Slowly things started getting shape. But the biggest blow as far as historians are concerned was 1937 Congress sweep of election and Congress Government in various states which led common man to realize that their interests cannot be safeguarded in United India. It led to two states and later 3.
I don't think this theory is based in any way on race.
Being different does not mean superior or racist.

Cobra:
I don't think Hindus have any problems.
They are as happy and suffer as much as any other person.
Nor is there any movement even in religious circles to discard them.

Rashid,

(After the fall of Caliphate in Turkey, particularly after 1928 Muslims started to realize that their interests cannot be safeguarded in United India.)

How did the fall of Caliphate in Turkey convince the Muslims that their interests could not be safeguarded in India???

Regards

majumdar:
Fall of Caliphate is associated with a movement in India "Khilafat Movement" (I think alongwith satyagrah by Gandhi) after which there was some political activity. To draw some constitutional points in 1928 Congress side presented "Nehru report" while Jinnah presented 14 points.
There was the sticking point (as far as I remember) 33 vs 34 seats for Muslims. Congress leadership will not budge, nor would Jinnah or possibly Muslim leadership bend.

#56
[Being different does not mean superior or racist.]

Yaar, explain to me how being a Muslim (as distinct from being a Hindu, for example) makes one “different” so they are unable to have their “interests” safeguarded.

What ARE those “interests”?

And how does one “safeguard” those interests in other countries? Like the USA.

bjkumar:
We are talking about the reasons of partition of India.
What is happening in Calcutta and Gujrat is a testimony to the fact that muslims have not yet integerated in Indian society. And politics is being played on communal lines.
Still politics on communal lines does not make one racist. It makes them different, who are yet unable to tolerate each other.
As a continuation. There has been partition of India. A very bloody partition. And that fact is sufficient to justify that there were reasons for it. As far as history, for one reason or another Congress in keeping with its secular tradition would not give in to the demands of Muslim League (for fear of making it as a voice of Muslims perhaps)which was supposed to safeguard Muslim interest in India.
What were those interests. As far as I understand constitutional guarantees and reserved seats.

#61 Rashid1961

You did not answer my question and are beating around the bush.

Let me rephrase.

If Muslims are a minority and according to you their interests can not be safeguarded without guaranteed parliamentary seats, etc. - what is there to stop the same logic that you apply in India from being applied in other countries where Muslims are a numerical minority - like, the USA or UK?!

And why should that logic be applicable to Muslims alone? What is so "different" about the Muslims?

#61 Rashid1961 (more)

[A very bloody partition. And that fact is sufficient to justify that there were reasons for it.]

Therefore, according to this logic - the fact that there was wholesale killing of the Jews during the holocaust - that very fact that the wholesale killings happened - makes it a justifiable fact - just because it did happen?

And the massive discrimination against the Ahmediya community within Pakistan - is that also justifiable...

...simply because it happened, you claim there must be good reasons for it?

And the rape of the Mukhtaran Mai - what is your "good" reason for that - EVERYONE knows it did happen!