Protest in New York!

That was a him not Him. Sorry for the typo.

Omar

`` I should have said, not what Pakistan`s priorities ARE, but what they SHOULD BE. There`s quite a difference between the 2 ... hyuck. ``

Yes and No!

``Anyway, you`re most certainly entitled to your opinion``

Rest assured, I would not need to seek permission to exercise my entitlement! It is against my book of belief :-)

`` Wish you would tell us why you disagree with the 3 i listed and the `correct` order as you see them?``

As I mentioned previously, each suggested action should be backed up by some concrete plan or implementation theory. i.e You went to voice your
concerns regarding the infra-structural malpractices.

Tell me, what happened, as the sun baded good bye and the moon said hello to the sky, that particular day ? Also, when the next day`s sun came out(with a pyaree see dhoop)-- Did anyone remember about the protest ? Did it leave the leaders with any message that they will carry back home ? Or were you under the assumption that their conscience will be pricking them during their flight back home ? [Rumors were that things went very differently during the flight... bomb hoax..tension.....]

In response, do not try to weave a web of intricate arguments[which will look nice written in black and white only]. You need to back up your action with substantive measures than ``pretty thoughts.``

As far as prioritization of the ``issues`` is concerned, I will leave it to you. The way you see the world is obviously going to be different from how I perceive it. My comment was as valid to me as your insights were to you. So why should I care to state any convincing arguments ? I think you will lead to those points yourself by analyzing few things here and there. I`d rather have you come up with the right allocation yourself than impose any insights. Theek!

Supposing you are fighting a case:

a) Do you specify the conclusion upfront or you lead an argument to that point ?

c) Once, you consider and then take the appropriate route, what do you do next ?

d) Do you try to influence the judge and the jury to consider your perspective ?

e) If not, what is the approach ?

f) How do you present that ?

Curious ?

THE SUMMATION

It is my understanding that throughout the course of our discussion we argued on two points:

1. Separate Electorate
2. State’s discrimination against minorities using Blasphemy Laws (and Ahmadi laws).

As far as point # 1 is concerned, I opined in an earlier post that it is a constitutional problem and not a religious problem. Painting this problem as a religious one is futile for minorities. It will only make things worse for them and give something to the extremist elements to oppose minorities. It is not an Islamic issue so minorities should not make it as one and don’t let extremist make it as one either.

Before we go further we should also examine the following questions one by one:

1. Do minorities have a right to vote?

2. Do they have a right to own property?

3. Are they prevented from carrying firearms to protect their property and life?

4. Do they have right to education- as per Affirmative Action and open merit?

5. Do they have right to employment – as per Affirmative Action and open merit?

6. Are there any specific restrictions to own and run a business?

7. Are they discriminated on taxes?

8. Are they given equal right to access state provided utilities-water, power, gas, phone etc?

9. Do they have equal right to a fair trial (according to the book)?

10. Do they have equal right to access to all levels of judiciary?

11. Are they innocent until proven guilty?

And then finally:
12. Are they subject to a special set of laws that are specifically directed against them?

For the sake of objectivity please try to answer question number 1 through 11as fairly as possible.
You may easily realize that whatever minorities get from 1 through 11 is coming at the cost of number 12.

Is it fair to say that we have narrowed down our list of discriminations to one aspect, and that is, the religion specific laws?

Before we start discussing these laws lets divide these laws into two groups. The first group consists of those laws that are Qadiani-specific (section 298 etc.) and the other group that (I call) are “non-specific” (section 295 etc). It is my understanding that the “non-specific” laws were enacted after the Suleman Rushdi fiasco. The language of those laws suggests that they were not directed at a particular community. Then why so many Christians are being “persecuted” under those “non-specific” laws? Doesn’t that call for a case by case examination of the law? An examination of judicial proceedings, number of convictions, and a ratio of conviction vs. acquittals will enable us to pass an objective judgement.

Again before we go on discussing Qadiani specific laws lets examine the question why societies legislate themselves? Without going into textbook definitions, I think it would be fair to say that ‘societies legislate themselves to define and clarify an ambiguous situation’. The traffic laws are made so that there is no ambiguity in the minds of the drivers and pedestrians. The banking laws are made to carry on financial transactions without any ambiguity. The property laws are made to remove any shred of doubt as to the extent of a person’s property and his possessions. The criminal codes are set up to protect society from anti-social elements; and laws of tort are made to settle personal disputes. The bottom line is that, societies legislate themselves to clarify any ambiguity in the transactions between their different elements (i.e people).

Then comes the question of discriminatory laws. Is a law really discriminatory? Is the law of ‘statutory rape’ (even if the sex was consensual) discriminatory towards the people who want to have sex with a person of less than 18 years of age? Are the tax laws discriminatory towards those people who don’t want to pay taxes? Is the United States’ Pro-Choice, pro-abortion law discriminatory towards pro-life people? By endorsing and enacting this law, is United States government sanctioning state sponsored murder of un-born life? The bottom line here is that, the state sets limits somewhere, as per direction of the values of the mainstream of the society. The state has to mark demarcation lines somewhere. It is one of the toughest tests that a government goes through.

Then comes the question of universality of laws. Are laws society-specific or are they universal? The answer to the question is that each and every society develops its own set of laws based on its culture, heritage, moral values, history and several other inherent traits. If that is the case then can we judge the values (or laws) of one society with the standards of other society. Consider for example, the laws in India and United States. Both countries are democratic and secular. Try applying section 144 of Indian Penal Code (which is equivalent to the infamous PPC 144 of Pakistan) on a crowd gathered at Times Square of NY. Can you? Or try applying the Law of Miranda Rights in India, which will be the joke of the century. But these laws in their own countries are as serious as anything. The bottom line here is that the laws are society specific.

Then comes the question of defining different segments of the society. Is defining different segments of society a discriminatory practice? For example, in order to benefit from Affirmative Action (AA) program in United States you have to disclose your race. Unless you are black (or colored) you can not get the benefits of Affirmative Action. Does it mean that the law is discriminatory towards whites? Was there any other form of this program possible where you didn’t have to disclose your race? The answer is, yes. Why didn’t they make a law where a family’s level of income was the criteria to qualify for AA? There were and there are poor white folks who belong to the lowest echelon of the American society, which so fondly calls them, ‘Euro-trash’, they could have benefited from AA. But no, then Commies would have won the war (at least at ideological level), wouldn’t they? Now a black whether he lives in Beverly Hills or he lives in a Public Housing in downtown Chicago, each has an equal access to AA. Is it fair? So the bottom line here is that the state has no other option but to define different segments of the society to extend different benefits that it offers or laws that it imposes.

Then comes the big Q. What is so different with the (Qadiani) Laws in Pakistan. Is it safe to say that the society and the state of Pakistan were in a state of ambiguity on the relationship of two of its segments, the Muslims and the Ahmadis? The minority segment of the society was under siege and the majority segment was feeling threatened that their ideals were being attacked by the minority. So the state defined these two segments of the society and imposed restrictions so that the life and property of one segment and the ideals of the other were safe from each other. As discussed earlier such a law was quite possible through a secular government if the criteria were the rule of majority.

End of discussion? No.

The constitution of Pakistan suggests that it is an Islamic State, which means that no law will be passed which contradicts Islamic ideology and injunctions. It means that we should examine the Blasphemy Laws minutely and in detail and try to find their origin in the Islamic injunctions. Since, this is the law of the land and just because 1.5% or 5% of its population doesn’t agree with the constitution the state or majority segment of the society can not and will not change its constitution. That leaves us with only one option i.e. to fight the system from with in the system. What Ahmadia community has to give to attain a status that is self respecting to them? In any social contract each party gives something and takes something.

The question also is that whether there is a specific injunction in Qur’an that commands Muslims to enact such laws and such punishments? Is there any case in recorded history where Holy Prophet has imposed such restrictions on non-Muslim communities? We know that Medina was a multi-religious and multi-racial state. We know that our Prophet delivered justice to non-Muslims according to their laws. We do not know any case where our Prophet has prevented any religious group to perform their religious acts. We also know that Abu Bakr (RZAH) declared Jihad against Musselma Kuzzab-but are we sure that our condition with Qadianis is same as that. We know that the rules of engagement against Musselma Kazzab were those, according to the Islamic Law of War, as if Islamic army was fighting against another sovereign nation. But in case of Ahmadis we see that they are neither claiming sovereignty nor they are a hindrance in the way of revenue collection. Are they against our constitution? It seems like it.

Re: krashid

``I am disappointed.``

At what?

``Who is right and who is wrong, you can decide on many factors.``

No one has said anything about what is right or wrong yet.

``Neither I take sides because Tabari said that Ali RZAH was right and Muawiya wrong.``

Tabari says no such thing. You need to read carefully. The reason I like Tabari is because he leaves that burden on the reader, and besides, he is the main source (and the earliest) of Islamic history, even for all the ulemas and ala hazrats of different species. We just get a sanatized version. You know.. what they think is proper for us children. So that our Iman, etc. won`t weaken. And the Ummah would remain united, etc. Most of the time they just don`t bring up these topics-When they do they leave out the important details, muslay-hatan you know, there is always that...some sort of muslay-hat..even lying is legal at such times.

``For me this and other struggles are purely political for Khilafat and tribes and people were aligned on that basis.``

Syrians had no tribal affiliation with Muawiyah. His hometown was Mecca, not Damascus.

This is your history Rashid Mian. You can`t hide from it. What you make of it is upto you.

I am a sunni but believe me if I had the misfortune of being at Siffin, there`s not a single iota of doubt in my mind on which side I would have been - On the side of what I consider to be right - Ali b. Abi Talib (may God bless Him).

Regards,

Amir Janjua

One very important issue that needs to be addressed. What constitutes a fair trial?

According to the info on hand, i am led to believe that the accused under the Blashphemy law is NOT ALLOWED TO CALL WITNESSES IN HIS DEFENCE. If this is in fact true, it is a violation of a substantive right of the accused, the right to call witnesses to testify upon one`s own behalf. Without this, any trial on charges of blasphemy would itself be fundamentally unfair and flawed.

Omar Mirza

RaJangua!

I am disappointed.

Who is right and who is wrong, you can decide on many factors.

Why Ali RZAH moved his capital to Kufa. There must be some reason.

Moreover the battle he was going to win was lost politically. Do you agree?

Neither I take sides because Tabari said that Ali RZAH was right and Muawiya wrong.

For me this and other struggles are purely political for Khilafat and tribes and people were aligned on that basis.

It was not a Islamic or non Islamic fight.

Tahmed

I make a strong exception. My views on Jamaat e Islami are well known ... and my dislike for Maudoodi and Qazi are also quite clear...

However to equate them with Hitler is not on.

Hitler has no equivalents... no equals so far in History... except some speakers from the 50s and 60s in the South of the United States...

Pakistan Zindabad!

PS please dont start throwing in the NAZIS left and right ... thankyou. It offends the sensibilities of a lot of Jewish people and also my personal views on History!

Urstruly

Blasphemy law in Pakistan is uncalled for. You cant discriminate against a community for their beliefs...

``You are free, you free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or anyother place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion caste or creed: that has nothing to do with the business of the state.``

Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah 11th August 1947

Please all of your keep your Sunni shia and Ahmadi Islams at home.... I am sick of them all!!!!!!

Pakistan Zindabad

A call to replace ISLAM with PAKISTANI NATIONALISM as our religion!!!!

Long live Pakistani Nationalism

Urstruly Sahib,

You continue to amaze me; this time for the following reason:

In one of your posts you called Mirza Sahib a deformer. I pointed this out to you, you took the opportunity and apologized. No problem.

In one of the later posts, the author called Mirza Sahib a delusional person who imagined things. No comments from you on this. No problem.

Then you read my comment and quickly stated to the effect, see this, this is the reason why we need blasphemy laws in Pakistan.

In the past you erred, and later apologized, without invoking the need to have blasphemy laws to protect the “feelings and emotions” of the Ahmadis. Now, how about first giving me the opportunity to recant or explain my statement? You seem to be in a rush to justify the blasphemy laws in Pakistan, and that also in “one direction” only. Any explanation for this bias?

Facts are facts, and I acknowledge that I went overboard with my comments. I apologize and hope that the readers will choose to overlook this shortcoming on my part.

Fairdinkum,

Arguments that I presented did not convince you, and that’s fine. We agree to disagree. At this point I am pleased with engaging in some discussion and explaining things the way I see them. It also helped me organize my thoughts. It may also “open a door” for some of the readers and give them something to think about. I appreciate your honesty in politely stating your opinion.

Best ragerds,

Asad

rajanjua #224 I think the German was in referece to that would-be Der Feurher, Qazi Hussain Ahmad (whose beard needs to be trimmed to match Hitler`s moustache).

RE: AI #223

YOU WROTE:

``Jamaat-i-Islami publicly brought up the issue of the plot grabbing by the Generals``

IN NEXT PARA YOU WRITE:
``You (see)this is how the muslim mind works. The rules and regulations are summoned up conveniently to defend what is fundamentally grabbing and piracy of sorts given legal cover by rules.``

Allow me to change the order of your writing:

``Jamaat-i-Islami publicly brought up the issue of the plot grabbing by the Generals - You (see)this is how the muslim mind works``

I changed the next paragraph to:

``The rules and regulations are summoned up conveniently to defend what is fundamentally grabbing and piracy of sorts given legal cover by rules.``

Dear AI,

Minds are like parachutes, they work best when they are open.

``RULES AND LAWS / ALT KAMARADEN UND PAKISTAN``

Old commarades and Pakistan? I did`nt get the significance of this heading unless you just wanted to practise your German.

RULES AND LAWS / ALT KAMARADEN UND PAKISTAN

Day before yesterday MR. Qazi Hussain Ahmed of

Jamaat-i-Islami publicly brought up the issue of the plot grabbing by the Generals with, I think, specific reference to Col. Gen. Sir Charles * Musharraf`s acquisitions of prime real estate.

The reports were denied first. The next day when Qazi offered to show proof of the military conquest of a plot in Lahore by Sir Charles * the ISPR department came up the lame story that the acquisitions were in accordance with rules and regulations that Qazi Sahib was not quite familiar with.

You this is how the muslim mind works. The rules and regulations are summoned up conveniently to defend what is fundamentally grabbing and piracy of sorts given legal cover by rules. No body wants to mention that Charles Musharraf and his gang violated the constitution and its rules and regulations and throw out the elected civilian government. What about those rules. So when the loyal musalmaans talk about rules one really wonders......

Q. If a Sunni or Shia Muslim is greeted by a Member of the Ahmadi Community with a Salam, is this sufficient reason for the Shia or Sunni to take offense that he has been deceived and send the Ahmadi to jail? Is this humane? Why can`t certain people see past this? Is this how the religion wants us to behave?

Why can`t a Salam, common enough courtesy in Pakistan, become like a `hello` and a W`Salam a sort of `hi` or `hey there`? Why does it have to become a religious issue? Is it so offensive or unbearable to Sunnis like myself that we cannot even bear the thought that someone who is not Sunni or by our religious judgement qualified as a Muslim (A view held by most Sunnis I suspect), should respond to us in a natural way? To me, the natural and courteous response to a Salam is to give a W`Salam to whomever has greeted me, or if i have greeted them in such a way, to receive a

W`Salam in return.

Not an explanation that `I am Ahmadi.` `How r u?`

So the bottom line is that no one wants to build any bridges. And bloodshed in the name of religion will continue in Pakistan. Sad. Look at where the world has moved to, and look at where Pakistan is still standing and just think for a moment, is it not at least partly because of this mentality, this obsession with having everything our own way?

Those who turn their backs on the world, are destined to be ruled by others. Now-a-days its not colonialism, its the terms of the balance of trade and the IMF & World Bank that exercises real sovreignity over a country. Why? Because Pakistan has been allowed to become so weak internally because all Pakistanis are doing is fighting in the name of religion (just glance in the daily papers). I say to each his own. G-D will decide who is right on the day of judgement. Who will burn in hell, and to whom the gates of paradise will be opened. Let us all worry about ourselves first and keep religion out of the business of the state as the Quaid e Azam advised and there will be no end to the progress Pakistan will make.

Peace to all,

O.M

Urstruly,

Would you be kind enough to sum up our discussion. I don`t think we are convinced about the validity of Mirza sahib`s claim of prophet hood.. However, I do think that certain sections of blasphemy laws need amendments - especially the one inserted by one Gen. Zia-ul-Haq.. wouldn`t you agree?

Btw, the last sermon (and there are only two version of it with very minor differences) is more clear and leaves no doubt about the finality of prophet hood matter. I have a slightly different version of the last sermon, but that sentence about finality of prophet hood is the same.

I am indeed surprised that in presence of such overwhelming evidence on the finality of Prophet hood of Mohammed(S), there is any doubt left.
I would be interested to see what arguments Ahmedis have apart from interpretation of some Quranic verses.

urstruly, my point about the language of Quran is very important.. think about it later.

RE: Sattar2 Reply #215

Sattar,

Your reply is Exhibit A to justify the presence of Blasphemy Law.

Think about it.