Faith, Religion and National Direction

Mateen #75

You said that ``I believe in creation (special creation theory) and not evolution as all people of book do.``

First of all why do you believe in special creation theory. Can you tell me from an Islamic perspective with Ayah of Koran.

Because for me evolution can be interpreted to be correct according to Koran.

If you are interested let me collect my ammunition.

Tell me Qazi Hussain is saying that there should be no representation of women in local council. Is it non-Islamic or ``Bughz-e-Muawiya``(N.G.O`s)

Urstruly #79

Your points are valid as far as participation in National election for democracy. (Although it is contradicting your earlier statement regarding Iqbal`s couplet that in democracy they count heads and not substance).

What if people resist such a proposal. Or do your plan suggest that it is a criminal offence and should be punished. Because if not, then if you make it a law or not, it does not matter.

Second given the situation in Pakistan, where rulers have made the rule according to their interest, I think not participting in election is a valid form of protest. I would remind you of famous referendum in Zia era, that if you like Islam elect him for 5 or 10 years. 11% of people participated. There is more to it. In the past elections as you are aware that elections have been manipulated, to bring the CORRECT people to power. In this situation whatever I or you vote there is no guarantee that public opinion will be upheld.

In this regard, you know that Bhutto was gotten rid in a coup and inspite of two times election/selection of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir, both were gotten rid of by extraconstitutional measures. So what is the importance of public opinion for the power that be.

If the public opinion is held high, whether you make voting mandatory or not, it does not matter.

I will give you the example of pollsters like Zogby in USA. Their polling population is very small as compared to real turn out in election, but the result of polling and real results match to a significant extent. I have followed the election of 1998 senate and congress in detail and there was almost 100% concurrence.

TAhmed 321!

I agree with you. But as you might have guessed from my other posts, that real strength of third world countries like us depends upon the will of nation, as is exemplified by China, Iran etc, and which pays dividend when the time arises.

Although per capita income might have reduced at Bhutto`s time and increased at Ayub`s time, still we lost East Pakistan. Bhutto might not be a friend of Industrialist and might have made many mistakes, but I remember that he laxed Passport requirement for poor and paved the way for their emigration to Arab World. Locally I remember the mushrooming of MiniBus etc. And all in all he gave voice to poor all over the country. As you know he started Afghan policy, Kashmir policy, Atomic policy etc. And apart from the beneficiary of old system in cities like Karachi and Lahore, whole nation was with him. (It can be judged by election results also even if you take out the 28 seats on which rigging was alleged. Although it included Jan Mohd Abbasi from Larkana who stood against Bhutto ):):):). These are the ingredients. The whole nation in high spirit. The opportunity which was presented at the time of Russian invasion, might have been better utilized, rather than enriching some Generals and Beaureucrats, making the whole nation pay the price of indebtness. I might be wrong, but considering the example of China and Iran, if necessary ingredients are present, the opportunity can be utilized effectively.

Siagalph 235!

Contrary to your view I said that Jamat-e-Islami and other parties like brotherhood utilize Islam to get power. But you cannot lump all Islamic parties with them. There is Tablighi Jamaat. Other Parties in Pakistan stick to their religious jobs and elction is a very small part of their effort and some even don`t participate.

re Urstruly who said

``I think Iranian Democracy is passing through a brief phase of McCarthy-ism. They well get over it. The McCarthyism always dies eventually.``

Iranian democracy? What beast is that, sir?

A parliament and elections do not make a democracy; the Soviet Union and its sattelites had regular elections to their elaborate parliaments and, believe it or not, some even had more than one political party (GDR had four).

And please save the stuff about Iran being more democratic than Saudi Arabia or Oman. The difference essentially is that while one is a hereditary Sunni autocracy, the other is a parliamentary Shiite theocracy. If Iran is a democracy, then the Pope must be a Baptist.

Sigalph235 #85

Why don`t you define democracy for us?
I infer from your reply that Iranian political system is not democratic? Is U.K a democracy then? And if so then why? And why Iran is not a democracy?

I look forward to your response..

Thanks & regards,
fairdinkum

Urstruly #81

My question was a sincere one not rhetorical :-). The author says:
``A firm resolve and unfettered recognition of Islam as a dynamic, enduring and unalterable Faith and Creed is needed....`` ``...Doctrinal aspects of Islam were founded more than 1400 years ago and, unlike Christianity and Jewism, are not subject to re-interpretation....``

So wrt current events in Iran, I am curious, which is the doctrinally-correct end to this `McCarthyism`, the reassertion of supremacy of religious heads or reassertion of the supremacy of elected representatives? Hence the question, according to Islamic tenets, which ought to be designated the guardians(the final arbiters) of the state`s Islamic ideology?

Sadhana

RE: Sadhna # 87
Sigalph

Whether your question was rhetorical or sincere I will still stick with my reply number 81.

As far as your selection of excerpt is concerned, Mateen has elaborated his point of view in his reply #75. I agree with his ammendment.

Sigalph and Sadhna
One must understand the status of Iran among the self assumed Chowdrys of this Global society. Any criticism of Iran by West should be looked with in the perspective of shamefull defeat of US and Western interest in Iran. Iran is the only nation in the world that stands up against the tyranny of Neo-colonialists. It has faced a war for 10 years that was imposed on it as a punishment to dare to stand with pride. Iranian democracy is not perfect but it is working. Iran has come through all the tests of time so far with flying colours. It is the POWER OF THE PEOPLE, isnt it. The message to West from Vietnam, Iran, and Afghanistan is clear-You CANNOT fight the people.

The message is also clear for India in Kashmir-You CANNOT fight the PEOPLE. It is just the matter of time.

According to Siagalph`s standards Indian Democracy should also be a text book example of what NOT to do in Democracy. By the way it is a laughing stock for the rest of the World-specifically Western World. It`s just not me who is saying this-please read the book ``The War on Top of the World`` by Eric E. Margolis. This book has just hit the shelves.

Urstruly #88

`` According to Islamic tenets, which ought to be designated the guardians(the final arbiters) of the state`s Islamic ideology?``
Are the author`s views(#75)and your own, which seem to grant the final say to elected representatives, open to doctrinal challenge?

Sadhana

Why do houris have to be buxom?

KASHMIR AND THE UN,

Even the allegedly informed and the educated pakistanis on the chowk harp on the UN resolutions. The fact is that it has been superceded by the Simla and the Lahore accord. Here is a pakistani who nows this and is bold to state it. From dawn,



20 August 2000 Sunday 19 Jamadi-ul-Awwal 1421

Over-stretch: Causes and Consequences

By M.P. Bhandara

WE Pakistanis have a number of admirable qualities. We are a happy-go-lucky people - generous, friendly, optimistic, emotional. We warm up to a sultry Sikh riding atop a London bus. We chat up foreigners and invite them to our homes and hearths, oblivious of their reservations and hesitations.

Unlike Indians who save, calculate and excel in sophistry or the Chinese whose memories go back to the ancients and keep their feet grooved in the circuit of a targeted distant future, we repose our faith in an exuberant naivety forgetting that Allah only helps those who help themselves.

Our national failing is that we live in a world of make-believe. Our assumptions are based on shaky foundations. Our goals are often starry-eyed and about as real as a mirage in the desert.

Consider: We started with a perfectly good case on Kashmir. India had reneged on solemn promises to determine the wishes of this unhappy state through a transparent UN plebiscite. It is not they who are in the dock of world opinion today not withstanding the mayhem of the past 11 years let loose by the Indian army on Kashmiris, but us, and for this we have only ourselves to blame.

In 1965, our intelligence falsely reached the conclusion that Kashmiris were in a state of ferment. We slipped in army men as saboteurs to provide the spark for a conflagration which would pin down the Indian occupation army containing the rebellion, naively thinking that in the process our armed forces would cut the strategic roads in Jammu which gave the enemy access to Indian occupied Kashmir. These ambitious operations known as `Gibraltar` and `Grand Slam` were starry-eyed plans based on illusory foundations. And what happened?

* Even though Prime Minister Shastri had publicly warned Pakistan that any adventurism in Kashmir could lead to a war between the two countries, the warning was ignored. Lahore was left undefended and saved only by the skin of our teeth.

* The Ayub government - one of our best governments - was destabilized; economic development blocked. Ayub publicly declared that ``the battle of Pakistan`` could only be fought from and for the western wing.

* East Pakistan was alienated. Events led like a poison arrow to the 1971 civil war in the eastern wing, followed by an ill-advised war with India later that year.

* The Simla Pact of 1972 reduced the status of Kashmir from an international dispute recognized by the UN to a bilateral issue.

The reason why Pakistan has not given the Kashmir problem back to the UN is that in the view of most countries, the UN resolutions have been superseded by the Simla declaration. The implications of bilateralism have not been revealed to our public, who are fed on the belief to the contrary that the UN resolutions have the same force as they did before the Simla Pact. The Simla Pact superseded the old legal framework of the dispute. We lost the war of 1971, and the terms demanded by the victor had to be accepted at Simla, albeit in innocent small print.

The price for forgetting the past is to pay it over and over again, with interest - or if you prefer, profit. But this is getting ahead of the story.

Post-1972 Pakistan has been resurrected apparently on three principles: (1) A reinvented or serving Islam provides the glue for sustaining national aspirations keeping subnationalisms in check and provides a jihad to deliver Kashmir. (2) Nuclear weapons balance the disparity in conventional arms between India and Pakistan. (3) Jinnah`s concept of Pakistan has never been disavowed but neatly side-stepped; retained as an honourable museum exhibit with other relics of the Quaid. The Quaid remains an icon hanging on our walls, much to his posthumous disgust, I imagine.

These, in brief, are the seminal ideas that rule Pakistan today. I submit, as I have in these columns over the past few years, that this is a combustible compound likely to produce a disaster as great or greater than that of 1971. As in 1971, at the time of the civil war we have lost touch with reality.

Barring the summer of 1971, never have we been so isolated in the world, condemned and traduced by friend and foe alike. Under the label of jihad we pursue a policy that is not sanctioned by the principles of the United Nations Charter. The world community says, ``why don`t you do jihad on illiteracy, contaminated drinking water, unemployment, civil and human rights, a non-functioning judiciary; we are prepared to give real help for this, which we have given to China and are now willing to give to India.`` No, we say, we prefer the likes of Sayed Salahuddin, Qazi Hussain Ahmad (who of late has suddenly gone moderate), Hafiz Mohammad Saeed and Maulana Fazalur Rahman - and last but not the least, Mulla Omar of Kandahar. In truth, they are all after absolute power, not Islamic piety. Give power to any one of these and he will set upon the others without mercy.

The safer course for a bankrupt Pakistan (a Pakistan whose sovereign guarantee has been dishonoured in respect of loans provided by foreign lenders and its own investors) is to turn its back on this very perilous road it is on. Return to the mainstream of the developing world and get the priorities right: Pakistan comes before Kashmir or anything else.

The three-point programme given below requires courage to carry out:

* Start distancing ourselves from the Taliban government and movement within Pakistan. Support the UN call for a Loya Jirga preceded by a cease-fire with the Northern Alliance - the Loya Jirga has for centuries served Afghans as a forum for conflict resolution. The jirga should be called by a neutral body such as the UN or the OIC.

Outside powers, particularly Pakistan and Iran, must stop meddling in Afghanistan`s domestic affairs. The Taliban government is not likely to be the permanent government of Afghanistan. We must think of the government to come. We have antagonized broad ethnic sections of Afghan society.

Our realpolitic interest in the Afghan imbroglio is to secure the recognition of the Durand Line. A resolution to this effect by the Loya Jirga will go a long way towards addressing Pakistan`s concerns.

* Sign the CTBT: The trenchant opposition of our right-wing parties to the CTBT is based on entirely misconceived or irrational grounds. It appears to be a case of opposition for opposition`s sake. They well know that signing the CTBT - which is simply an undertaking not to carry out a nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion - neither circumscribes our ability to do nuclear research nor open our nuclear facilities to outside inspection. In terms of Article IX of the CTBT, ``Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests.``

Here is a case where courage is required to take on the blackmail head on. Will the military government prove as weak or vacillating as its civilian predecessor? Japan is our largest aid donor. Its role in world affairs is totally pacific. Being the only country to have suffered a nuclear war, it has taken a world lead in nuclear disarmament. The Japanese Prime Minister happens to be visiting Pakistan, this week. It would be a good gesture to our biggest donor to indicate our intention to sign the treaty, during this visit. The treaty will, however, be ratified or rejected as and when we have a parliament.

The world will fully understand if conditionality is entered on our joining this treaty subject to India not causing further nuclear tests.

The US Senate rejection, unfortunate in itself, has little or no relevance to Pakistan`s refusal on the CTBT.

* Kashmir: The courageous decision of the Hizbul Mujahideen and subsequent events need a follow-up by the world community. Pakistan has spoilt a good case on Kashmir by abetting violence. Following our sponsorship of the Mujahideen, the world has shifted its focus from the human right, depredations of the Indian army to the daily mayhem of the Mujahideen. The Mujahideen camps are mostly located at well known places in Pakistan, Azad Kashmir and Afghanistan. Pakistan cannot avoid taking responsibility for the fallout. It is for Pakistan to decide if the continuation of these camps serves our interests.

Once again an opportunity knocks at our door. Pakistan should take a bold initiative for peace, call upon the Mujahideen groups and India for a ceasefire say for a month, and persuade a neutral country such as Sweden, Norway, Switzerland or Japan to ``facilitate`` round-table talks involving Mujahideen groups, India, Pakistan and the governments of Azad Kashmir and Indian held Kashmir. If India refuses round-table talk in the ``facilitator`` country, this will help shift the focus of international opprobrium from Pakistan back to India.

To save ``face`` each party to the talks may be permitted to come to the table with its own set of reservations. Only face to face talk can melt or mellow these reservations. The onus is on Pakistan to expose Indian stonewalling - an exposure not possible in the Simla format.

Let us take courage and heart from the Palestinians. Their problem is even more intractable than Kashmir. But starting from the period when the Palestinians gave up on acts of individual and collective violence, it was the Israelis who were forced to concede the timetable of the Oslo Accords in 1993 and one hopes and expects that an agreement will be reached on Al-Quds before the deadline of September 13. If this materializes, the violent world of today will receive a great push in the direction of sanity.

In response to Urstruly (Reply # 72)
Dear Urstruly:
For Hamza Alavi`s works, please go to his site on on the internet (I don`t recall his URL). For Hasan Gardezi`s article, please let me know your e-mail address. I will try to send you a copy of his text.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
bahmad@home.com

Urstruly!

Although the discussion is already diverted by the CONSPICUOUS PRESENCE of well intentioned people, but still I will be waiting for your response.

Iranian democracy is not ideal. But it is much advanced than what the DEMOCRATIC CHOWDRY of the world was supporting there in the form of Shah of Iran.

For me Iran is the real democratic world test for third world countries. The aspiration of people represented by the leadership of Khatami vs leadership represented by Khamnaei. And I agree with you that this fight will be won by believers in rule of people of the Nation without interference by Chowdry`s of the world. Compare this with LARGEST DEMOCRACY of the world where aspirations of people are represented in the killing of Kashmiris, suppression of rights of states and minorities and more than ready to open their --- to CHOWDRY`s of the world.

There is no comparision of Iran with Arab world, contrary to the chagrin of great DEMOCRATS.

Iranian people are fighting a war (political) among themselves, while Arab regime depend upon American support to prop up their regime.

This is the advantage of democracy, that if a whole nation starts saying A is B then A becomes B. But sanity should prevail.

In my opinion gathered from this board, most Indians are good for one thing, their profession.

Otherwise they are as biased as illiterate (both watch the same T.V and media) and worse in human relationship.

Finally someone who puts things in perspective ...

I just wanna point out a minor thing to the Indians that according to people like myself an IDEAL ISLAMIC STATE would be a Muslim state with Secular Government and equal rights for all ....

This is what Pakistan should aspire to be ....

-Pakistan Zindabad

-Quaid e Azam Zindabad

-Ataturk Zindabad

-Jiye Bhutto

-Imran Khan for PM

Yasser Hamdani

PS Aisha nice to see that the return to US also means return to chowk....

Iran certainly does have some good Ambassadors on this board. The sad thing is that, like many others from the subcontinent, these well-meaning folks honestly think that whoever is anti-America must be good. Never mind the absolutely medieval barbarism often practiced there.

As for the definition of democracy asked for, tongue in cheek, by some, I recommend reading two books. One is called ``To Craft Democracies`` and the other is ``Polyarchy`` by Robert Dahl. Essentially these researchers point out that in addition to parliaments and elections, true democracies are also supposed to incorporate some other things, including:

1. Supremacy of elected bodies over hereditary, clerical, or appointed ones.

2. Freedom of assosciation including the freedom to form and run with a political party.

3.Civilian control of the military

4. Liberal access to public/private media by most shades of political opinion.

There are quite a few other conditions too, but these seem to be the most basic and most regularly flouted by self-proclaimed democracies like Iran, Pakistan, and their cohorts. India`s democracy is hardly perfect, but it really doesn`t compare to the autocracies in Iran or Pakistan.

The thrust of our collective thinking needs to be refocused at us rather than at America or elsewhere. We have failed ourselves in providing the infrastructure of a decent demopratic pluralist polity to our people. Blaming Uncle Sam, IMF, Martians, or anybody else only goes to show the rank narrow minded imbecility of our childish passions.

Especially for Pakistan this is ironically sad. She has discarded the vision of her noble Founder and sold herself cheap to the thugs who care not a whit for the Quaid or his ideals. The Quaid`s principled fight got us a Pakistan; the thugs` is phony jehad lost us half, and the other half may be on the way.

I swear leave it to JAY to come up with the stupidest notions ....

TO ALL YOU INDIANS OUT THERE WHO BRING UP THE SIMLA AGREEMENT AS AN ARGUMENT ... WHERE DOES IT IN SIMLA AGREEMENT SAY KASHMIR ...

SECOND QUESTION ...

HOW CAN YOU CLAIM THAT IT BECOMES A BILATERAL ISSUE ... WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL EH?????? The UN resolutions stay in place. How can the destiny of Kashmiris be decided without their consent????

Your logic is flawed just like your brain ... You are indeed a typical INDIAN!



READ MY LIPS ... YOU ARE NOT WANTED HERE!!!!

SO SPARE US YOUR BABBLINGS!

-Pakistan Zindabad

-Quaid e Azam Zindabad

-Ataturk Zindabad

-Jiye Bhutto

-Imran Khan for PM

Yasser Hamdani

KRashid & Urstruely,

Since you have decided to bring India into this to make comparisons--I have to agree that Indian democracy is far from perfect. However, our leaders come into power or leave it through the ballot. When Indira Gandhi tried to mess with democracy for 2 years, she was unceremoniously booted out. She was then bought back to power because the opposition behaved like idiots. In our 53 years, our leadership has changed constitutionally.

So you can laugh at our democracy all you want. What the hell has Pakistan to show for itself!?. Eventhough you have a common religion, Pakistan has had a genocidal civil war, & at least 3 military coups. Not a single Pakistani leader has left office constituionally.

Dont go sermonising us about Kashmir. Your hands are equally dirty.

You say India is a laughing stock! What about Pakistan?!The world looks at you, shakes their head & occasionally sheds a tear at your plight. Ofcourse you always have India to blame for all your misery.

Same old mumbo jumbo with sprinkling of fancy language and vocabulary. An attempt to sell pink-sheeted security as a blue-chip by painting a rosy picture of the basics while technical analysis of last 1000 years in the sub-continent point to a quite opposite picture. Sell the naked put options and sell it short as soon as you can, on this so-called blue-chip security and prosper.

Pakistan`s major problems, Islam, Kashmir, Military spending, Feudalism and Corruption are intricately linked to one root cause of all problems. The ``Islam in its truer sense`` is no solution; it is the root cause of most problems. The political Islam is a total failure for the people of an area now called Pakistan for the last 1000 years. There has never been a just society, social justice, respect for humanity, role of women, treatment of minorities, equality or harmony. All we are given is a Badshahi mosque, few forts and a Hiran Minar and a plethora of literature dealing with ``the true, the real, the original, Islam in its truer sense. Are we ready to be fooled for another 1000 years chewing on this fantasy while the virulent Islam in the form of Taliban, deobandi, wahabi and a host of lashkars and harkats is raining down from the western mountains on the Indus valley plains.

Islam in the real sense will not be able to stop this onslaught. British tried for 100 years and failed to control them and so will Pakistan. We lost counterweight to this absurdity when we ethnically cleansed Pakistan in 1947. Now for a real plural society it is a must that a significant portion of the masses liquidate their holdings in this pink-sheeted issue, otherwise pray for another Pakistani Hari Singh Nalwa.

Pakistan`s strngth lie in its 5-6 distinct deep-rooted cultures and not in 72+ gun totting fanatic sects of Islam, contributing nothing to the peace, development, revenues and prosperity. It is the cultures which should be tapped into for strength, identity, harmony and prosperity. Religion is not going away and can be thought only after we achieve a certain level of success in social justice, humanity, equality, education, population control, basic necessities for a decent living and at least 2000 dollar per capita income. Only then will I consider ``Islam in its truer sense`` worth thinking about.