Protest in New York!

Does Islam enjoin separate electorates?

From TFT Oct 12

by

Khaled Ahmed



Many Pakistani opinion-makers appear to be moving to the stance that separate electorates are ordained by the Shariah. Somehow they presume that an ijma exists on the status of the zimmi in the Islamic state who has to be kept away from the mainstream of politics and `treated separately` as a ward of the Muslim rulers in return for some special tax. In the Mughal period some kings imposed such a tax but this tax was not a regular feature of the state. King Aurangzeb imposed this tax or jizya but removed it a few days before his death. Pakistan still has to formally declare its non-Muslims as zimmis and subject them to jizya. A concept of separation however has been developed which flies in the face of the international covenants signed by the state. `Separate job quotas`, confused with affirmative action, have been reserved in educational institutions and government departments to keep the non-Muslims out, and institutions disbursing zakat to the poor have kept the non-Muslims out.



Khalid Rahman in his article Electoral system and the minorities (Dawn: 28 September 2000) says: `An analysis of the arguments for joint electorates reveals that that the entire debate revolves round one capital point: whether religion is a private matter of individuals or it is concerned with collective affairs as well`. The author thinks that anyone who objects to separate electorates actually believes in religion being a private matter and therefore not within the ambit of state activity. Pakistan is an Islamic state and Pakistan`s law is Islamic law, that is, the Shariah, which, in the writer`s opinion, forbids joint electorates. There has been litigation about separate electorates reaching up to the Supreme Court which finally did not allow joint electorates in 1993, not on the point of Islamic law, but on the requirement of amending the Constitution. The plea was that joint electorates did not entail an amendment of the Constitution. The PPP promised to restore joint electorates in its last election manifesto, so did Imran Khan`s Insaf Party. It is obvious that politicians don`t think that the matter of electorates is an issue of the Shariah.



The idea of the zimmi: The status of the non-Muslim in Muslim history has been a subject of controversy. The jurists have developed theories of `partial` or `peripheral` citizenship for non-Muslims in the Islamic state. The zimmi is responsibility of the Islamic state after he pays a special tax. In Pakistan the non-Muslim has not yet been declared zimmi because it is difficult to arrive at an exact definition of zimmi. Islamic jurisprudence presents two examples from the past: the first relates to the government of Prophet Muhammad PBUH at Madina, and the second to the conditionality of conquest to the status of zimmi-hood. In the state of Madina, the Muslim and the non-Muslim were accepted as one ummah with equal rights. Many scholars are of the opinion that this parity of citizenship was conditional to non-Muslims taking part in the war to defend the Islamic state. In Madina. The system of conscription made it incumbent on the non-Muslims to defend the state against all invaders. Prof Shariful Mujahid in a recent lecture in Lahore recommended reversion to joint electorates on the basis of the covenant of Madina called Mithaq-e-Madina. He thought that since Pakistan does not have the system of conscription and that since non-Muslims have not declared themselves neutral in times of war, they are one ummah with the Muslims on the Madinate model.



The juristic model, on the other hand, is based on conquest. What if the non-Muslims of Pakistan don`t qualify as a vanquished community? When Pakistan was created the Christian community was not aligned with the Congress. In fact, the Christian community has a record of their leaders` allegiance to the Quaid. Later, the community took part in wars against India and Christians were prominent in the armed forces in proportion to their numbers. As for Hindus, most of them were driven out during the pre-partition riots. In Sindh, those who stayed back despite coercive migration, felt themselves tied to Sindhi Muslims on the basis of language and mysticism. In any case, it is difficult to describe Pakistani Hindus as a conquered community because Pakistan was not created after military conquest. In short, while Pakistan`s constitution may contain certain provisions enjoining separate electorates in the opinion of some people, others think that a mere change in the election rules is needed to revert to joint electorates. The Constitution does not accept the concept of zimmi-hood.



Separate electorates experience in Pakistan: The non-Muslims in Pakistan are not satisfied with the functioning of separate electorates. Their main objection relates to ineffective representation of their interests through 10 reserved minorities seats in the National Assembly 23 in the provincial assemblies. Their constituencies are too big and they don`t really come into contact with their elected leaders. Khalid Rahman in his above-quoted article thinks that this problem is merely logistic and has nothing to do with separate electorates. The truth of the matter is that the problem relates to distance as well as to the general status of the non-Muslim in society. The non-Muslim is much better off voting for a Muslim MNA or MPA because that will tend to highlight his interests within the Muslim community which enjoys more influence over the state apparatus. Just one 1992 case, that of Chowk Munda near Muzaffargarh, relating to confiscation of Christian village land, will highlight the problem. Four `chaks` inhabited by about 90 Christian families were being harassed by powerful lawyers, local landlords and `goondas` in the pay of influential people. The Christians did not know who their leaders were under the separate electorate system. The Chowk Munda Christians did succeed in getting federal Christian minister J.Salik to visit them twice, but the local officials were hardly impressed by these visits mainly because the minister lived far away and was not a local leader. On one occasion when J.Salik was there, the land-grabbing Mullah Ismail got the Muzaffargarh MNA and federal minister Mr Ghulam Mustafa Khar to visit his area right across the road. The local Christian leaders were forced to sit on the ground even while minister Salik was in the thana; the offending party was made to sit on chairs.



Reserved seats have attracted ambitious personalities usually related to the Christian church in Pakistan. They have benefited personally from being in the assemblies while their constituency has declined steadily into social and economic deprivation. Some of these leaders have been beaten up by Christians after their PTV `confessions` that Christians enjoyed equal rights in Pakistan and were happy with the Blasphemy Law. Separate electorates have bred corruption among the representatives of the minorities without affording any local advantage to them. The assemblies have been extremely corrupt in the past decade but Muslim MNAs and MPAs have had to `build up` their voting localities in order to win elections. This has not happened among non-Muslims because of their inter-penetration with the Muslim population and the very small size of their `distant` enclaves. A disingenuous promise of security: The author of the article gives a disingenuous excuse for separate electorates when says that they `eliminate chances of clash on religious basis and thus provides protection to the minorities`. Social experience all over the world has shown that separation has led to ghetto-isation and ghetto-isation has invariably led to violence. It is tantamount to excusing the state from the responsibility of upholding the law under joint electorates. The misunderstood doctrine of amr and nahi seems to be at the back of this thought: that the Islamic state, not allowed to supersede the doctrine, will be constantly under attack from the ulema who object to the laws on the basis of their understanding. In this eternally experimental state the majority will be free to reject and attack what they consider nahi. In this case the non-Muslims of Pakistan will be secure neither under one nor the other system of electorates. Under joint electorates they stand a better chance of saving their lives by taking protection from fellow Muslim voters.



Author Khalid Rahman`s reference to Bangladesh has revealed another fact about Pakistan`s politics. He says non-Muslims in Bangladesh are 12 to 15 percent, but their presence in the country`s parliament is only five. Had they accepted separate electorates, the non-Muslims of Bangladesh would have at least 40 representatives in the House. The truth is actually this: the non-Muslims of East Pakistan were a vote-bank of the Awami Party and their strong 25 percent presence in early years forced the Muslim League to adopt the notion of separate electorates. In Pakistan, the non-Muslims vote for the PPP, which once again compels the PML to stick to separate electorates. In Bangladesh, during my visit there in 1997 as a SAARC observer of general elections, many non-Muslims were losing hope after decades of martial law gone Islamic under General Ziaur Rehman and General Ershad. However, in many instances of violence to which I was witness, the non-Muslims were saved from being killed, by the local Awami League workers. Separate electorates in Bangladesh would result immediately in dispossession and expulsion of the non-Muslims because their leaders would be ineffective in saving them from discrimination. Had there been 40 non-Muslim representatives in Parliament, they would have been less effective than the five now representing Muslims and non-Muslims together along with other Muslim MPs. One also should not forget that in the Bangladesh parliament the non-Muslim population may prefer representation through Muslims in a society that is under pressure from religious passion.



Muslim societies all over the world are handicapped by their unresolved dispute over the status of women and non-Muslims. The Islamic state remains experimental, subject to attack from the concept of amr and nahi, which Muslims tend to equate with vigilantism of sorts. The state is clearly in retreat in the face of the majority orthodox opinion in relation to human rights. The Musharraf government is no exception. But after unexamined regimes of classical jurisprudence have been imposed with consequent disorder, there will always be a public backlash, as is happening in Iran. The Islamic state appears fated to be unstable till it rationally adopts laws that benefit all its people without discrimination.

Does Islam enjoin separate electorates?

From TFT Oct 12

by

Khaled Ahmed



Many Pakistani opinion-makers appear to be moving to the stance that separate electorates are ordained by the Shariah. Somehow they presume that an ijma exists on the status of the zimmi in the Islamic state who has to be kept away from the mainstream of politics and `treated separately` as a ward of the Muslim rulers in return for some special tax. In the Mughal period some kings imposed such a tax but this tax was not a regular feature of the state. King Aurangzeb imposed this tax or jizya but removed it a few days before his death. Pakistan still has to formally declare its non-Muslims as zimmis and subject them to jizya. A concept of separation however has been developed which flies in the face of the international covenants signed by the state. `Separate job quotas`, confused with affirmative action, have been reserved in educational institutions and government departments to keep the non-Muslims out, and institutions disbursing zakat to the poor have kept the non-Muslims out.



Khalid Rahman in his article Electoral system and the minorities (Dawn: 28 September 2000) says: `An analysis of the arguments for joint electorates reveals that that the entire debate revolves round one capital point: whether religion is a private matter of individuals or it is concerned with collective affairs as well`. The author thinks that anyone who objects to separate electorates actually believes in religion being a private matter and therefore not within the ambit of state activity. Pakistan is an Islamic state and Pakistan`s law is Islamic law, that is, the Shariah, which, in the writer`s opinion, forbids joint electorates. There has been litigation about separate electorates reaching up to the Supreme Court which finally did not allow joint electorates in 1993, not on the point of Islamic law, but on the requirement of amending the Constitution. The plea was that joint electorates did not entail an amendment of the Constitution. The PPP promised to restore joint electorates in its last election manifesto, so did Imran Khan`s Insaf Party. It is obvious that politicians don`t think that the matter of electorates is an issue of the Shariah.



The idea of the zimmi: The status of the non-Muslim in Muslim history has been a subject of controversy. The jurists have developed theories of `partial` or `peripheral` citizenship for non-Muslims in the Islamic state. The zimmi is responsibility of the Islamic state after he pays a special tax. In Pakistan the non-Muslim has not yet been declared zimmi because it is difficult to arrive at an exact definition of zimmi. Islamic jurisprudence presents two examples from the past: the first relates to the government of Prophet Muhammad PBUH at Madina, and the second to the conditionality of conquest to the status of zimmi-hood. In the state of Madina, the Muslim and the non-Muslim were accepted as one ummah with equal rights. Many scholars are of the opinion that this parity of citizenship was conditional to non-Muslims taking part in the war to defend the Islamic state. In Madina. The system of conscription made it incumbent on the non-Muslims to defend the state against all invaders. Prof Shariful Mujahid in a recent lecture in Lahore recommended reversion to joint electorates on the basis of the covenant of Madina called Mithaq-e-Madina. He thought that since Pakistan does not have the system of conscription and that since non-Muslims have not declared themselves neutral in times of war, they are one ummah with the Muslims on the Madinate model.



The juristic model, on the other hand, is based on conquest. What if the non-Muslims of Pakistan don`t qualify as a vanquished community? When Pakistan was created the Christian community was not aligned with the Congress. In fact, the Christian community has a record of their leaders` allegiance to the Quaid. Later, the community took part in wars against India and Christians were prominent in the armed forces in proportion to their numbers. As for Hindus, most of them were driven out during the pre-partition riots. In Sindh, those who stayed back despite coercive migration, felt themselves tied to Sindhi Muslims on the basis of language and mysticism. In any case, it is difficult to describe Pakistani Hindus as a conquered community because Pakistan was not created after military conquest. In short, while Pakistan`s constitution may contain certain provisions enjoining separate electorates in the opinion of some people, others think that a mere change in the election rules is needed to revert to joint electorates. The Constitution does not accept the concept of zimmi-hood.



Separate electorates experience in Pakistan: The non-Muslims in Pakistan are not satisfied with the functioning of separate electorates. Their main objection relates to ineffective representation of their interests through 10 reserved minorities seats in the National Assembly 23 in the provincial assemblies. Their constituencies are too big and they don`t really come into contact with their elected leaders. Khalid Rahman in his above-quoted article thinks that this problem is merely logistic and has nothing to do with separate electorates. The truth of the matter is that the problem relates to distance as well as to the general status of the non-Muslim in society. The non-Muslim is much better off voting for a Muslim MNA or MPA because that will tend to highlight his interests within the Muslim community which enjoys more influence over the state apparatus. Just one 1992 case, that of Chowk Munda near Muzaffargarh, relating to confiscation of Christian village land, will highlight the problem. Four `chaks` inhabited by about 90 Christian families were being harassed by powerful lawyers, local landlords and `goondas` in the pay of influential people. The Christians did not know who their leaders were under the separate electorate system. The Chowk Munda Christians did succeed in getting federal Christian minister J.Salik to visit them twice, but the local officials were hardly impressed by these visits mainly because the minister lived far away and was not a local leader. On one occasion when J.Salik was there, the land-grabbing Mullah Ismail got the Muzaffargarh MNA and federal minister Mr Ghulam Mustafa Khar to visit his area right across the road. The local Christian leaders were forced to sit on the ground even while minister Salik was in the thana; the offending party was made to sit on chairs.



Reserved seats have attracted ambitious personalities usually related to the Christian church in Pakistan. They have benefited personally from being in the assemblies while their constituency has declined steadily into social and economic deprivation. Some of these leaders have been beaten up by Christians after their PTV `confessions` that Christians enjoyed equal rights in Pakistan and were happy with the Blasphemy Law. Separate electorates have bred corruption among the representatives of the minorities without affording any local advantage to them. The assemblies have been extremely corrupt in the past decade but Muslim MNAs and MPAs have had to `build up` their voting localities in order to win elections. This has not happened among non-Muslims because of their inter-penetration with the Muslim population and the very small size of their `distant` enclaves. A disingenuous promise of security: The author of the article gives a disingenuous excuse for separate electorates when says that they `eliminate chances of clash on religious basis and thus provides protection to the minorities`. Social experience all over the world has shown that separation has led to ghetto-isation and ghetto-isation has invariably led to violence. It is tantamount to excusing the state from the responsibility of upholding the law under joint electorates. The misunderstood doctrine of amr and nahi seems to be at the back of this thought: that the Islamic state, not allowed to supersede the doctrine, will be constantly under attack from the ulema who object to the laws on the basis of their understanding. In this eternally experimental state the majority will be free to reject and attack what they consider nahi. In this case the non-Muslims of Pakistan will be secure neither under one nor the other system of electorates. Under joint electorates they stand a better chance of saving their lives by taking protection from fellow Muslim voters.



Author Khalid Rahman`s reference to Bangladesh has revealed another fact about Pakistan`s politics. He says non-Muslims in Bangladesh are 12 to 15 percent, but their presence in the country`s parliament is only five. Had they accepted separate electorates, the non-Muslims of Bangladesh would have at least 40 representatives in the House. The truth is actually this: the non-Muslims of East Pakistan were a vote-bank of the Awami Party and their strong 25 percent presence in early years forced the Muslim League to adopt the notion of separate electorates. In Pakistan, the non-Muslims vote for the PPP, which once again compels the PML to stick to separate electorates. In Bangladesh, during my visit there in 1997 as a SAARC observer of general elections, many non-Muslims were losing hope after decades of martial law gone Islamic under General Ziaur Rehman and General Ershad. However, in many instances of violence to which I was witness, the non-Muslims were saved from being killed, by the local Awami League workers. Separate electorates in Bangladesh would result immediately in dispossession and expulsion of the non-Muslims because their leaders would be ineffective in saving them from discrimination. Had there been 40 non-Muslim representatives in Parliament, they would have been less effective than the five now representing Muslims and non-Muslims together along with other Muslim MPs. One also should not forget that in the Bangladesh parliament the non-Muslim population may prefer representation through Muslims in a society that is under pressure from religious passion.



Muslim societies all over the world are handicapped by their unresolved dispute over the status of women and non-Muslims. The Islamic state remains experimental, subject to attack from the concept of amr and nahi, which Muslims tend to equate with vigilantism of sorts. The state is clearly in retreat in the face of the majority orthodox opinion in relation to human rights. The Musharraf government is no exception. But after unexamined regimes of classical jurisprudence have been imposed with consequent disorder, there will always be a public backlash, as is happening in Iran. The Islamic state appears fated to be unstable till it rationally adopts laws that benefit all its people without discrimination.

Dawn letters to the ed, Oct 9

Imperatives for democracy

REGARDING the call for `political accountability`, it may be pointed out that a population comprising a majority of four out of five functionally illiterate people cannot be expected to hold politicians accountable for anything either now, or in the foreseeable future.

Hard decisions need to be taken, but apparently General Musharraf is not prepared to state unequivocally (as did President Truman) that ``The buck stops here,`` and act accordingly decisively. Hence public confidence in his administration has waned over the past several months as he has come to be viewed as part of the status quo, and held hostage to the views of obscurantists.

However, even under such conditions, to speak of a `return to democracy` is nothing but a bare-faced farce. A `return to feudocracy and naked exploitation` would be a more appropriate characterization of the `democrats` desires in Pakistan.

While in the United States, General Musharraf asked ABC News Anchor Peter Jennings, in response to a question, the rhetorical question, ``Isn`t democracy more than just holding elections?`` Democracy also entails such things as the equal protection of the law for all citizens, due process, individual liberties, a free press, an independent judiciary, and transparency in government, including all its expenditures.

The impeachment of President Clinton on charges of perjury by the US House of Representatives demonstrated conclusively, that in a democracy, no man is above the law, not even the most powerful man in the world. This is the lesson Pakistan`s rulers should take to heart and attempt to apply, as they seek to create a system of checks and balances, before holding elections, that ensures across-the-board accountability (without leaving any sacred cows unmilked), and the supremacy of the rule of law in the country.

If foreign remittances have dropped over the years, and annual foreign investment is marginal in the country, it is because the perception in tune with the not so distant realities is that capital and investment in Pakistan is not protected adequately by the rule of law. So people who need to send money prefer to use the Hundi system, and foreign investors, including overseas Pakistanis, keep their money abroad.

In addition, there is an ongoing flight of capital from within Pakistan. The breakdown of the rule of law brought about by corrupt politicians in the past, is responsible for all this. The right to be free from unlawful arrest, and produced in court within 24 hours of arrest, are constitutional rights respected in Pakistan only in the breech, irrespective of the government in power. Security of private property from the encroachment of the politically influential in power has also never existed as a respected norm in the country.

OMAR MIRZA

New York, USA

Dawn letters to the ed, Oct 9

Imperatives for democracy

REGARDING the call for `political accountability`, it may be pointed out that a population comprising a majority of four out of five functionally illiterate people cannot be expected to hold politicians accountable for anything either now, or in the foreseeable future.

Hard decisions need to be taken, but apparently General Musharraf is not prepared to state unequivocally (as did President Truman) that ``The buck stops here,`` and act accordingly decisively. Hence public confidence in his administration has waned over the past several months as he has come to be viewed as part of the status quo, and held hostage to the views of obscurantists.

However, even under such conditions, to speak of a `return to democracy` is nothing but a bare-faced farce. A `return to feudocracy and naked exploitation` would be a more appropriate characterization of the `democrats` desires in Pakistan.

While in the United States, General Musharraf asked ABC News Anchor Peter Jennings, in response to a question, the rhetorical question, ``Isn`t democracy more than just holding elections?`` Democracy also entails such things as the equal protection of the law for all citizens, due process, individual liberties, a free press, an independent judiciary, and transparency in government, including all its expenditures.

The impeachment of President Clinton on charges of perjury by the US House of Representatives demonstrated conclusively, that in a democracy, no man is above the law, not even the most powerful man in the world. This is the lesson Pakistan`s rulers should take to heart and attempt to apply, as they seek to create a system of checks and balances, before holding elections, that ensures across-the-board accountability (without leaving any sacred cows unmilked), and the supremacy of the rule of law in the country.

If foreign remittances have dropped over the years, and annual foreign investment is marginal in the country, it is because the perception in tune with the not so distant realities is that capital and investment in Pakistan is not protected adequately by the rule of law. So people who need to send money prefer to use the Hundi system, and foreign investors, including overseas Pakistanis, keep their money abroad.

In addition, there is an ongoing flight of capital from within Pakistan. The breakdown of the rule of law brought about by corrupt politicians in the past, is responsible for all this. The right to be free from unlawful arrest, and produced in court within 24 hours of arrest, are constitutional rights respected in Pakistan only in the breech, irrespective of the government in power. Security of private property from the encroachment of the politically influential in power has also never existed as a respected norm in the country.

OMAR MIRZA

New York, USA

Omar:

Were you the writer of this letter ?

On another note, Friday will be the best day and I will send thee an email on that. I am assuming that I will be exchanging notes with you only as I have not heard YLH`s post stating: `I will abide by all the rules religiously.` I would like to get that confirmation note as soon as possible, if we are to meet next Friday. Please start pushing him on that! Oh, also make sure that he does that voluntarily :-)


Take Care

PS: The letter can be discussed more when we meet. I may have some controversial points when it comes to these laws, basic family laws, rights of women and etc. I`ll start my discussion with the Fasaa`d Kee Jurr`. :-) I am sure you`d be least interested to know about them :-)

Dawn letters to the Ed, Oct 5 (Lead letter)

Discriminatory laws against women

GEN. Moinuddin Haider (Dawn, Oct 3), said that ``all discriminatory laws against women should be repealed or amended to remove any discrimination against women. He revealed that the government was already seized of the matter and federal minister Attiya Inayattullah was working on it.``

I am happy to hear the government is keen to repeal laws that discriminate against women. It should start by repealing Zia ul Haq`s Hudood Ordinances, which shamelessly victimize female rape victims and put them in jail for `their crime` of being raped.

In Pakistan today it can be safely said that, ``rape`` per se cannot be legally ``proven`` in a court of law in the vast majority of cases, and not because it did not in fact occur. Generally, rapists are not so obliging as to provide four witnesses who both first observe the act, and are then willing to testify to their crime. A women gets raped in Pakistan an average of every 2 minutes. However, the state has created an absurd legal situation which punishes the victim by using her testimony against her to prosecute her on a charge of `unlawful sex` after the rape charge are dropped as unproven, as they usually are because rape cannot be legally proven in 9 out of 10 genuine cases, thanks to the law. Not that this has ever shocked the conscience of enough people to force changes in the law.

The law of evidence used in rape cases needs to be modernized. While technological progress in the past century has now enabled positive DNA and semen identification, which has a highly reliable evidentiary value, greater even than eyewitness testimony, this method is not used in the courts or widely available.

In fact, the ``medical`` methods used in Pakistan by police examiners as testified to me by a female Pakistani doctor who observed police examinations as a medical student (one finger `good`, two fingers, she is `habituated to sex`) are not only unscientific but mediaeval. There is no psychological counselling offered to the rape victims in Pakistan. As one judge aptly commented. ``It would take a brave woman to file a rape case in Pakistan``. Any women that brings a charge of rape under the Zia ul Haq Hudood Ordinance is highly likely to be incarcerated herself after the charge of rape is dropped against her rapist(s) as customary, and converted into a charge of `unlawful sex` with rapist and rape victim turned into co-defendants. This passes for justice in Pakistan.

For all intents and purposes the State encourage rape against women, non-reporting of rape and is entirely responsible for this entire deplorable situation. Custodial violence and rape of women is also common in Pakistan, if also largely unreported for `cultural` reasons.

Does Gen Mushrraf have the moral and political courage to face down the obscurantists on this issue? Or will he retreat yet again, as he has before on another issue before the obscurantists, when they marched and clashed with the police.

OMAR MIRZA

New York, USA

Dear Zahra,

YEP, the e-mail addy is real (why would i post one that wasn`t? I`m not that wierd), i e-mailed Ylh from it recently.

Re: your rules ... damn! Do you know me in real life or what? :) I will have to memorize those rules by heart to be able to abide by them. :)

Sounds like it`ll be fun. Can i bring my placard along? -:)

Timings: Just about any in the evening after 7:30pm on Weekdays, or anytime on Weekends are good for me.

cheerio,

Omar

Omar:

Thanks for the thought. I am hoping that the email address is real ? I am extremely busy this month and will be travelling quite a bit, therefore I cannot commit at this time. I just want to put forth some rules, if I end up taking some time out from my extremely busy schedule:

Rules:[In Chronological Order]

a) No mention of Stanley Wolpert
b) No mention of Jinnah
c) No mention of Ata Turk
d) No mention of Turks
e) No mention of Bhuttos
f) No mention of Imran Khan

If I heard a single sentence containing any of the above, I will simply walk out. I just thought of stating some salient features of my Mun` Maujee nature, after reading Yasser`s enlightening post [full of himself].

Being a June 07th, I could not resist.

Please confirm that it will be doable to abide by the above rules.

Thanks

Would love to ...

Well, i`m definitely amused to find out that Ylh, in addition to Zahra, is also a Gem.-:) Would be fun to meet sometime for a cuppa java, if you guys are ever in the NYC area. (I know Ylh is in NJ). I ALWAYS have fun with fellow Gems.

Krashid: Me an idealist? Well yes. My ideals are probably embeded in the Constitution of the United States of America & the Bill of Rights. But i do understand what you are saying about pragmatic compromises. It just makes me sad though.

I have started writing letters to the editor, Dawn again, after a 3 month break in which i could not even stand reading Pakistani newspapers.

best,

Omar M.

knotyourcupoftea@aol.com

PS People usually mention me when they want to prove that stars are right.. they say I am versatile and on extremes... love deeply hate intensely etc.... As a matter of fact I am the most Gemini person I have met!

No as a matter of fact ... I am the core of Geminis .. the most gemini of geminis .. 5th June 1980...

Yasser Hamdani

Omar:

Well, I sensed something from your `entertaining post.` :-) Fortunately, I was `here` first and came around the time when Neil Armstrong greeted the Moon with a warm hello.

Yasser:

You must be on the upper cusp.

Omar#

Looks like Omar is an idealist.

The fight in Pakistan is not liberalism.

Once you start taking a stand you will realize.

It is not pessimism on my part.

The minority rights can only be secured when other rights are secured.

Moreover minorities themselves have started to relinquish their rights in the form of seperate electorate as is evidenced by writing of Joseph Samuel in past and now a new one. A form of political expedition or pragmatism.

But the real war is different. When that war is won minorities will get their rights automatically.

As far as Qadiani rights. To be frank, I doubt it is ever possible until they declare themselves to be non-Muslims.

If you remember Bhutto. Who was more aware of politics in Pakistan than him. Just remember he has to relinquish to the pressure of not only Mullahs but majority of Muslims in declaring Qadiani non-Muslims.

I am a Gemini too :)

Zahra,

(my dearest critic here)

(groan) ... of all the 12 signs you could have been, you picked the period May 22-June21 to be born into the world ...:) I wouldn`t have guessed it. Well, you know what year i was born, so who was first?



OMAR

RE: Zahra

aah! my name. I aint a FrOg and I aint a gOd(and I aint a prince either, that was once a fRoG.:)

uRsTrUlY:

Thanks for the correction: Buch`kanaa` than Buch`ganaa`.

KRashid:

I appreciate your logic and reasoning behind Q vs K.

ThAnKs

Omar:

I think you are quite generous when it comes to using `adjectives.` Is it good or bad ? I will leave that for your finer senses to decide! The following post was quite an entertaining piece.

Rather than proving Netown`s 3rd law of motion, I will simply state that you misread my post.

Oh, lest I forget, I am not a Cancer. I am a
Gem-in-ian. I hope you aren`t :-)

``Zahra : You are a pessimist....................``

Take Care

PS: It does not hurt to read others carefully. I admit I have not been reading all the responses to this article and your enlightened views.

Zahra #

Aap Alfaaz Ki Bhool Bhulayyon Mein Gum Ho Gaen.

I wrote it for Omar.

It is Quran.

Kaan Pakra.

Re: Zehra `It should be backed up by a proposal, a thought, a plan and based on that legislations can be passed/should be passed.`

ITS JUST A MATTER OF POLITICAL WILL!!! Why can`t you understand that, how many TIMES do I have to repeat it, till people get this simple simple thing. All it takes is for the decision to be made, for that, one needs to create public awareness and political pressure if possible.

Naturally, you can expect reactionary elements in society to oppose anything good, so what, they are not much in terms of electoral strength, only street power. If they create too much tamasha all that is required is to give the police orders to shoot them in the legs, instead of just lathi charge.

What is required? Iron will & resolution. Things get done every day in the world believe it or not. Achieving `Consensus` before every action taken, is just another term for institutional weakness.

Zahra : You are a pessimist. You obviously have the unshakeable belief that nothing in the world can ever change for the better, no matter what any one does, and unless some sort of Guarantee comes with every effort, even an attempt is not worth the bother. So everyone should accept that the world is run by people who can never be influenced to change. You must be a Cancer. I`m NOT. And its not my problem that you always get up on the wrong side of the bed in the morning either, and the glass is always half empty when you look at it.

And its certainly not the responsibility of any ONE person to make something happen from A to Z. I`m not Mushy, and its not like i can roll out of bed in the morning and say, hmm, `okay, joint electorates for the elections ... no more Blasphemy law` its my will, it shall be done.

The history of Pakistan since the death of the Quaid e Azam M.A Jinnah, is a history of small men betraying great ideals.

Jihalat & Illiteracy, and the admixture of politics & religion make it all possible.

OMAR MIRZA

Omar 259:

Congrats!!!

Then What ?

Phir Kya Hoga ??

Phir Kya Hooaa` ???

More Protests ????

More Speeches ?????

You aren`t catching the drift.

Are U ?

All the steps from raising an issue to creating awareness are fine. I am asking where do you drop the ball assuming that the issue will be addressed or will be taken into consideration seriously. I do not think the protests are the only way of emphasizing your point. It should be backed up by a proposal, a thought, a plan and based on that legislations can be passed/should be passed.

That`s it!

RE: Zahra

I am the last person on this planet to discuss English language with. I didn`t even understand one single word from those ``Bombay Poems``. I was just trying to hide behind my Bachkana Harkaat, and you wouldnt let me :)

A modified version of this article, `Protest in New York` has been published in the Friday Times in their Features section under, `Issues` this week. (http://www.thefridaytimes.com) So now the issue is open for national debate.

OMAR MIRZA

The News International / News on Sunday

11 June 2000

THE PAKISTANI INQUISITION

The price of intolerence is stagnation

``The progressive intellegentisa need to get as organized as their opponents are and take their battle of ideas into the realm of practical struggle to change the very foundations of our social and political existence. After

all it is the outcome of this struggle on which the fate of our intellectuals and of the whole society depends``. Political Economy takes

sides with enlightenment in the struggle against obscurantism

Zain UI Abedin

(Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Daste-Saba)

O judgement,thou art fled to brutish beasts,

And men have lost their reason!

(Mark Antony in Shakespear`s Julius Caesar)

The ``Grand Inquisitor`` is an interesting and thought-provoking story by Dostovysky. Long after the Crucifixion, Chirist returns to earth from his

heavenly abode, and is shocked by the sight of innocent victims of the Roman Inquisition being brutally mutilated and burnt at the stakes on

account of being ``heretics``, under the supervision of a Roman Catholic cardinal. Angered by Christ`s protest at this inhumanity, the cardinal has him arrested and locked up in a dark cell. Later he gives a long lecture to Christ on how to deal with heretics and orders him to go back to heaven,never to return again. He threatens Christ with another crusifixion if he dares interfere again in Church matters. The self proclaimed custodians of state and religion in Pakistan and the defenders of our ideological boundaries are as committed to the task of eliminating dissent and fanning frenzy as the cardinal in Dostovysky`s story. They abuse venomously, they lie and distort facts shamelessly, the have raised hypocracy to an art form.

The recent vilification campaign by the right wing and its gutter press in Islamabad against Professor Dr Abdul Hameed Nayyar of Quaid-e-azam University is a case in point. Dr. Nayyar is respected in the academic world as a conscientious physicist and is known for his unflinching commitment to spreading anti-nuclear consciousness around the world. He is

one of the very few people who have the courage to talk sense in a society which abounds with creatures least amenable to reason. This is not the first time Dr. Nayyar is being targeted for his views. In the turbulant days of 1968 Dr. Nayyar was sacked from the University of Karachi . In 1998, after the May nuclear explosions Dr. Nayyar, Pervaiz Hoodbhoy and Late Eqbal Ahmed were attacked by the right wing goons during a press conference explaining the disastrous impact of nuclear arms race and a possible war between India and Pakistan.

This time he is being targeted by the right wing because he dared utter some words of wisdom at a place supposed to be a centre of learning.

Persectution of intellegentisa for holding nonconformist views is not new in Islamic History. Much romanticism is built around the fact that once there was a galaxy of Moslem thinkers and scientists who contributed greatly towards various fields of learning. No one bothers to ask the question as to why this glorious intellectual tradition became extinct. It certainly did not vanish into thin air. It was ruthlessly destroyed by obscurantists. To quote a few examples, Averroes (Ibne-Rushd) of Spain was thrown out of the mosque while offering his prayers and later exiled, Avicenna (Ibne-Sena) was condemned as a heretic, al-Kandi at the age of sixty, was lashed in public and his personal library containing thousands of books was burned down, Al-Razi`s head was struck with his book so many times that he went blind. We can find similar instances of ruthless suppression of dissent in western history. Galalio was put on trial by the church, Roger Bacon had to spend ten years in prison,John Huss and Giondeno Bruno were burnt alive and so was Michael Servetus along with his controversial book.These are but a few examples from a long history of brutal oppression by state and organized relegion.

One thing common about the persecuted intellegentsia both of Europe and the Muslim world is that they spoke of reason and rationality and stood for freedom of expression and freedom of thought.They became victims of state and organised religion, represented by the feudal monarchy, aristocracy and religious orthodoxy. The difference between the West and the Muslim world is that in Europe at last, the commercial and industrial classes overthrew the forces of status quo and reorganised the society on a radically new basis. No such development took place in the Muslim world. It remained a close society with no windows. Opinions not congenial to the rulers and orthodoxy were supressed with force. And as late sibte-Hasan put it: ``No community however virile and creative can progress under the fear of death, persecution, punishment, isolations and ostracism`` The result was the mental and intellectual enslavement of the Moslem world by the west-by those who once lived in the ``dark ages``.

The bigots and fanatics of today have zealously kept the torch of obscurantism burning. They want to eleminate every trace of reason and rationality from our lives and make every effort to arouse the savage in us. They madly attack ideas that smack of humanism and in this, they are directly inspired by their predecessors. Our society with its moral and material backwardness is a breeding ground for these enemies of all that is good and beautiful in life. In order to realize their reactionary agenda they resort to violence against and persecution of the weakest sections of society,e-g women,religious minorities, secular and enlightened intellectuals. The objectives they aim to achieve through violence, vilification and witch hunting are (a) a general atmosphere of hatred and intolerance (b) emotional mobilisation of the people away from their real problems (c) creation of consent within the society on a large scale for their reactionary agenda. What Dr Nayyar said in his lecture was bold and needed to be said loud and clear. But was the well-organized reaction of the right wing faced and fought in an equally organised manner? Is it enough being enlightened? Is it possible to counter the right wing propaganda against an individual or a minority by individual actions,e-g newspaper letters, articles and speeches? No doubt the courage shown by Dr Nayyar while speaking at the institute of Psychology is laudable. The religious right is organised, trained and perhaps the only developing political tendency in Pakistan .It has now even learned how to use the press to propagate its antihuman dogmas, breed intolerance and run hate-campaigns. If there can be Dr Nayyar at QAU then it is possible to have a section of teachers and a mass of students challenging the ideas of the right wing.

The question that finally needs to be asked is: are the progressive elements of our society doomed forever to remain impotant in the face of obscurantism or there is a hope of change? If there is, then how to go about realising it?. In reviewing historically the conflict between progressvise thinking and obscruntaism in the West, I mentioned that the reactionaries were overthrown by classes whose interests and world view ran directly counter to the Establishment of those days. It was not the intellectual vigor of the intellengtsia that changed the society but the fact that during an open class struggles the ideas of the progressive intellegentisa were owned and used against the status quo by the classes in whose interest it was to overthrow the then prevailing order.The ideas and visions of our progressive thinkers and enlightened scientists will remain only ideas unless they become part of the understanding of the world, of a class who has the capacity and need to change the reality that surrounds us. The progressive intellegentisa need to get as organized as their opponents are and take their battle of ideas into the realm of practical struggle to change the very foundations of our social and political existence. After all it is the outcome of this struggle on which the fate of our intellectuals and of the whole society depends.

Politics & Religion don`t mix. Its quite elementary. When this volatile cocktail is mixed, you get bloodshed in Imambargaghs and in the Streets. The Quaid e Azam was farsighted enough to understand this, and convey this msg on August 11, 1947 to the Constiuent Assembly and to future generations. But Pakistanis have yet to learn this lesson. Much blood has flowed already but it is not enough to quench the nation`s thirst for yet more of the same.

OMAR MIRZA

Just like `Rau`shni` is not part of English Language, therefore can be written as

Roshni
Rau`shani
Raushni
Raushanee
Roshnee
Roshnie

and many other permutations. Similarly, Lota can have different words in its configuration as well. That is why you cannot find it.

On an ending note, do not try to replace the original topic with silly example. Humor is one thing, Buch`gaa`na Hurkataen is another :-)

RE: Zahra

English is a strange language; I never found a word for ``Lota``-any roshni on this aspect.

Urstruly:

On second thoughts, your reason cannot be applicable here. The word Q-u-r-a-n is not an English word. So there is no way you can start applying the rules of English grammar to it. It is an Arabic Word and when you try to write it in English you ought to sepll it the way, it is pronounced in Arabic than the way it should be in English.

I will take the same example that I took for other names:

Qureshi - It is a proper noun, a surname and does not follow any grammar rules.

Qafus - Does not have any double vowels like you`ll have for Quotient or Quilt or Qualm or Quay or Quadrant. Simply, because they exist in English dictionaries whereas the word Qafus does not.

?

RE: Zahra

I think Rashid makes that exemption to the proper noun:)

Urstruly,

Good Point, but shouldn`t the Proper Nouns be exempted ? Or they`ll have to follow the same rule ? I think there is something else to it besides the grammatical part. I CANNOT seem to remember, but it has to do with certain groups pronouncing differently. ?

RE: Zahra

I think Rashid is partly right. Cuz the linguistic grammer tells us that a Q is always followed by two vowels. So either mis-spell it or use K.

KResh0d:

I couldn`t resist questioning:-

Why do you write Quran with a K than a Q ?

Shouldn`t it be Quran ? or Koran ? I think there is a rationale behind it and I have not forgotten that. If you have a reason, please explain that.

Just like if you say in Urdu, Qureshi that will be a Qaa`f with Doa` Nuktaas whereas when you say `Kashish` that will with Kaa`f with the other Kaa`f. Theek ?

I have noticed that people who have not read Arabic or are ignorant in that language they will often use `K` instead of `Q`. Similarly Westerners mostly Non-Muslims will write with a `K`. Now when Muslims write with a `K`, I cannot seem to understand the reason.

?

Omar 1974!

Jizya has validity from Koran and Hadith as far as my rememberance goes.

The Egyptian Jizya thing is different and is a blot in Islamic History where non-Muslim conversion to Islam was prohibited because of Jizya.

I agree with you that seperate elctorate or joint electorate or the system of Governance has nothing to do with Islam.

Yourstruly has still not answered my 2 simple questions. But i guess i didn`t answer his Qs either, but his are Yes/No types, and he knows the answers, while i asked for definitions.

Does anyone have relatively precise historical information on the institution of the practice of `Jaziya`? I believe when the Muslims conquered Egypt, the practice was instituted for revenue collection purposes in lieu of exclusion from military service, but not during the lifetime of the prophet Mohammad (pbuh). That would be 700 something A.D. If its not in the Quran or Hadith, which i believe to be the case, i don`t believe any kind of `Islamic` argument is sustainable for treating religious minorities in a `seperate but equal` manner on any kind of religious basis whatsoever just because of the political/revenue raising expediency of the Jaziya tax. And while Yourstruly may concede that its a political/ constitutional issue, not religious issue, the involvement of `Islamic` religious parties in Pakistan agigating for Seperate religious electorates has considerably blurred the line between religion & Constitutional law/Political issues, especially given the widespread illiteracy in Pakistan.

According to the kind of reasoning favored in Shariat Court however, in all liklihood there would be an examination of the operational theocracy established in Medina to make a determination on the issue of seperate electorates, in view of the fact that there is nothing quite on point (to my knowledge) in the Quran. But frankly, i think in the final analysis, it would be stretching it to argue that the principle on which seperarte electorates are based has some, `Islamic` basis in either Quran or Sunnah.

RE: OMAR 1974

Would you kindly convey my best regards to Sadia Saulat.

Thanks

RE: OMAR1974

Now we are going somewhere, Counselor, aint we? This is the battleground, and these are the rules of engagement, so stop whinning and get in the battle gear. We got some real hard work to do.

Pakistan`s olympic squad has always had women athletes right from the beginning... and none of them are Hijabis ...

Maybe Omar you need to stop making stereotypes about Pakistan!

Yasser

Re: krashid

``Like although I think Hussain RZAH was right, but why the war was fought. Why it was fought in Kufa. Why Meccans and Medina people (except his near relatives) did not join him.``

I thought you were still stuck at Siffin. And I replied-Ammar b. Yasir was fom Mecca. But you are now talking about Hussain.

So, ``you think`` Hussain was right. ``You think!!``. Get a life!

``Sorry for wrong information.``

That`s alright. So far most of your information has been wrong.

``You might be knowing Ushra Mubasharra of Shia are different.``

I am not aware of any such thing.

``The point I was trying to stress was that it was not a war Islam vs non-Islam but had different motive.``

What is Islamic or un-Islamic is Naqshbandi`s obsession. You can refer such questions to him. I have`nt seen a fatwa from that twit in quite sometime. Ask him before he goes into a withdrawl.

``Like although I think Hussain RZAH was right, but why the war was fought. Why it was fought in Kufa. Why Meccans and Medina people (except his near relatives) did not join him.``

Ammar b. Yasir was from Mecca.

``There is two history in Islam, Sunni and Shia. We need to look into it more objectively. Probably Mustashriquin (Western Muslims) can bring some sense to our history.``

There is only one history, my dear fellow. Get over your prejudice for people who belong to other sects. They are Muslims who don`t share your view point. There`s nothing wrong with that.

RaJangua!

Sorry for wrong information.

It is long time I have read. But as far as I remember the Governor of Egypt I think at the time of Uthman was one of Ushra Muabasharra. And some of them were against Ali RZAH.

You might be knowing Ushra Mubasharra of Shia are different.

The point I was trying to stress was that it was not a war Islam vs non-Islam but had different motive.

Like although I think Hussain RZAH was right, but why the war was fought. Why it was fought in Kufa. Why Meccans and Medina people (except his near relatives) did not join him.

There is two history in Islam, Sunni and Shia. We need to look into it more objectively. Probably Mustashriquin (Western Muslims) can bring some sense to our history.

Re: The Summation.

Q.1 Define `Muslim`.

Q.2 Define `Islamic State`.

Incidently, based solely upon my own knowledge, although i am not an Islamic scholar by any means, i feel reasonably secure in Saying that the origins of the Zia ul Haq Blasphemy law are not `Islamic` whatsoever the definition you come up with of that term. #1 Its not in the Quran, and to the best of my knowledge the Prophet (pbuh) Mohammad (not to be confused with M.G.A) never punished anyone who insulted him, to the point whereby according to the hadiths available, when the people of Taif threw stones at him and his shoe was filled with blood, he simply forgave them their sins when he could have had the city leveled. This narrated incident shows the glory of the prophet Mohammad (pbuh) and his compassion. Therefore i conclude that the while the Blasphemy law is not enjoined by any Islamic injunction, in fact, its promulgation as law, and application in fact, is against the available hadiths of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). If anything it not only has nothing to do with Islam, but it is an example of the cynical manipulation of religion for Political ends by General Zia, who went so far as to commission a referendum in which he had the sheer audacity to equate himself and his continued dictatorship with Islam.

The law is UnIslamic. Furthermore a Constitutional disprate impact analysis would i believe demonstrate conclusively that it is disproporionaly used as a political weapon against minorities by the religious majority

in Pakistan. Therefore its application is in violation of the legal principle of equal protection of the law, no doubt lodged somewhere in the 100 page Constitution of Pakistan, which somehow when compared with the mere 10 page U.S Constitution, manages to confer far fewer unqualified enforceable rights to the people of Pakistan.

As for the distinction YOURSTRULY attempts to make between a political/Constitutional issue & a `religious issue`, i`m afraid, the fine point eludes me, for i know quite well this land of Pakistan, where once the mullah gets involved, all rational discussion comes to an end.

Re: `Are they against our constitution?` Classic, `US` Vs. `THEM` view of citizenship. You presume you have more right by virtue of being a Sunni Muslim to the land than the `Ahmadis`. This is conceited to say the least. Get this straight, citizenship is not based on religion, only on birth/naturalization.



Omar Mirza

more later.

``Uthman RZAH is blamed for nepotism. i.e putting his relatives at high posts. Some of them like Amr-bin Aas were ``Ushra Mubasshira``.``

The ten men who were promised Paradise by the Prophet during their lifetimes are:

Abu Bakr Siddique

Umar ibn al-Khitab

Usman ibn `Affan

Ali b. Abi Talib

al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam

Abu Ubayda ibn al-Jarrah

Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf

Talhah ibn Ubaydullah

Sa`ad b. Abi Waqqas

Sa`ad ibn Zayd

Usman ibn `Affan, al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, Talhah ibn Ubaydullah and Ali b. Abi Talib were killed by their own muslim ``brothers``.

RE: Sattar

May be we were ``ambiguous`` about our limitations. Were we?

ylh #229 I guess you are right. Incidentally, I understand that in addition to the Jewish victims (and no disrespect to their memory intended), a few other folks also lost their lives in that great conflict of the 1940`s.

RaJanjua!

As I said in my first post, that I did not want to start a discussion.

1-Because I am not a scholar of Islamic History.

2- And I don`t have references available what I have read long time back.(Of recent Martin Ling book I have read after a decade)

The affiliation of Muawiya was not because of Syria. Syria was captured, I think at the time of Hazrat Umar and Arab Governors were ruling it.

Uthman RZAH is blamed for nepotism. i.e putting his relatives at high posts. Some of them like Amr-bin Aas were ``Ushra Mubasshira``.

How the alliances played into at that time you can judge when whole of Banu Hashim was boycotted because they would not stop protecting Prophet PBUH.

Although, you might join Ali RZAH, but at that time you would go with your tribe or people.

It was not Islamic or non-Islamic war.

ON MY MIND

As I sit here watching the Olympics on NBC, the womyn`s diving competition is on now, i suddenly wondered ... has Pakistan EVER been represented by a woman at the olympics? If not, why not? Something to think about surely. HamidM (a/k/a Salman Rushdie) is sure to oblige with an answer ... :)

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