What Constitutes Blasphemy?
Chowk P Room January 31, 2001
#669 Posted by ahmadb on February 16, 2001 1:44:33 pm
In response to cheraym (Reply # 656)
Dear Cheraym:
I agree with your desire to bring a peaceful revolution through human development (including human well-being).
Your concern for a general moral decline as well as your desire for a satisfactory continuation of the spirit of various social and political movements seem reasonable to me. We are currently passing through a period where the worldviews of many, if not most of us, are guided mainly by (economic) rationality. Mansur Olson’s “Logic of Collective Action” and Russell Hardin’s “Collective Action” are two useful books. Some understanding of Karl Marx and Amartya Sen may also help us to come to grips with the nature of our difficulties.
A politics of status quo generally suits those who are already in power. The social relations of class, gender, and place/territory surely need to be reexamined critically and transformed based upon a well deliberated and generally agreed line of action.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear Cheraym:
I agree with your desire to bring a peaceful revolution through human development (including human well-being).
Your concern for a general moral decline as well as your desire for a satisfactory continuation of the spirit of various social and political movements seem reasonable to me. We are currently passing through a period where the worldviews of many, if not most of us, are guided mainly by (economic) rationality. Mansur Olson’s “Logic of Collective Action” and Russell Hardin’s “Collective Action” are two useful books. Some understanding of Karl Marx and Amartya Sen may also help us to come to grips with the nature of our difficulties.
A politics of status quo generally suits those who are already in power. The social relations of class, gender, and place/territory surely need to be reexamined critically and transformed based upon a well deliberated and generally agreed line of action.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#668 Posted by Nachiketa on February 16, 2001 11:57:31 am
Umairr`s questions in #592
I just want to add to Shammi`s response that yes, if you held a plebiscite in the Valley today, the verdict will be against India. But I believe that cessationary conditions can be transitory. Most of the American South would have voted for an independent Confederate state during the Civil War, but today ... In India, Punjab in the 80s was also a close-run thing. Tell me, what the result of a plebiscite on self-determination in Baluchistan would have been in 1948, 1975 and 2000.
Shammi has also touched upon the war-like conditions prevailing since 1989. However, history of Kashmir from 1950 to 1989 is not unlike that of many other Indian states - little attention to basic economics and frequent political intervention by Congress governments at the center. Crucial difference between Andhra Pradesh (which too suffered at the hands of Indira Gandhi before N.T. Ramarao floated his regional party and became AP`s chief minister) and J&K was that AP did not have a border with Pakistan.
Cheers
I just want to add to Shammi`s response that yes, if you held a plebiscite in the Valley today, the verdict will be against India. But I believe that cessationary conditions can be transitory. Most of the American South would have voted for an independent Confederate state during the Civil War, but today ... In India, Punjab in the 80s was also a close-run thing. Tell me, what the result of a plebiscite on self-determination in Baluchistan would have been in 1948, 1975 and 2000.
Shammi has also touched upon the war-like conditions prevailing since 1989. However, history of Kashmir from 1950 to 1989 is not unlike that of many other Indian states - little attention to basic economics and frequent political intervention by Congress governments at the center. Crucial difference between Andhra Pradesh (which too suffered at the hands of Indira Gandhi before N.T. Ramarao floated his regional party and became AP`s chief minister) and J&K was that AP did not have a border with Pakistan.
Cheers
#667 Posted by shammi on February 16, 2001 11:57:31 am
Wise words indeed from Mr. Rashed Rahman from today`s Opinion section in the The Dawn:
``What our worthy columnist has missed is the point that the religious militants, be they 10 per cent or any other figure, are not taking the electoral route to achieve their aims. They are openly making it known that the next `jihad` is to be waged in Pakistan (against the vast majority of moderate Muslims, of course). The moderate Muslims majority has cause to worry because though it does not subscribe to the narrow prescriptions of the religious zealots (and this part of the thesis one can agree with), it has no defence against the armed militias that the fundamentalists have raised, with help from the military and its intelligence apparatus. There is little room therefore, to be as sanguine as the columnist in question appears to be regarding the ``lengthening Taliban-like shadows`` across the length and breath of the land.``
http://www.dawn.com/2001/02/16/op.htm#1
``What our worthy columnist has missed is the point that the religious militants, be they 10 per cent or any other figure, are not taking the electoral route to achieve their aims. They are openly making it known that the next `jihad` is to be waged in Pakistan (against the vast majority of moderate Muslims, of course). The moderate Muslims majority has cause to worry because though it does not subscribe to the narrow prescriptions of the religious zealots (and this part of the thesis one can agree with), it has no defence against the armed militias that the fundamentalists have raised, with help from the military and its intelligence apparatus. There is little room therefore, to be as sanguine as the columnist in question appears to be regarding the ``lengthening Taliban-like shadows`` across the length and breath of the land.``
http://www.dawn.com/2001/02/16/op.htm#1
#666 Posted by Godot on February 16, 2001 11:57:31 am
Re: ahmadb, #644
My position is that if Pakistan does not change its way of doing things, both domestically and internationally, and cannot tell a difference between its friends and foes (in fact, views them as exactly opposite), then it does not have a future nor hope for tomorrow. Simple. End of story.
Indeed there is a future and hope for tomorrow for Pakistan, that is, if it wakes up and smells the coffee. If Pakistan presently pursues the same misguided policies as of the last fifty years, then next fifty are going to be a lot more cruel to it than the previous fifty. That is my premise. In your own incoherent way you say the same thing in your second response. In your first response, you were happy with the ``current`` situation. That`s a complete turn around! Yet you are trying to corner me! Nice try!
I find your post without coherence or logic. You say this but you meant that. It indicates that either you have no clue as to what I am saying, or that you don`t have clue as to what you want to say.
I never said ``never.`` Furthermore, stop putting words in my mouth. Read you post again, you probably can figure out what I mean. I don`t want to duplicate your response and spare the reader the agony.
Lets stop this absurdity and not go around in circles. Thank
My position is that if Pakistan does not change its way of doing things, both domestically and internationally, and cannot tell a difference between its friends and foes (in fact, views them as exactly opposite), then it does not have a future nor hope for tomorrow. Simple. End of story.
Indeed there is a future and hope for tomorrow for Pakistan, that is, if it wakes up and smells the coffee. If Pakistan presently pursues the same misguided policies as of the last fifty years, then next fifty are going to be a lot more cruel to it than the previous fifty. That is my premise. In your own incoherent way you say the same thing in your second response. In your first response, you were happy with the ``current`` situation. That`s a complete turn around! Yet you are trying to corner me! Nice try!
I find your post without coherence or logic. You say this but you meant that. It indicates that either you have no clue as to what I am saying, or that you don`t have clue as to what you want to say.
I never said ``never.`` Furthermore, stop putting words in my mouth. Read you post again, you probably can figure out what I mean. I don`t want to duplicate your response and spare the reader the agony.
Lets stop this absurdity and not go around in circles. Thank
#665 Posted by shammi on February 16, 2001 11:57:31 am
Re: Umairr #618
``Not too many countries, the size of Pakistan, have been able to take on adversaries so much larger than themselves. A feather in Pakistan`s cap.``
Sorry to deflate your misplaced bravado -- but you do really need to read and find out for yourself where similar logic used by Ayub Khan landed Pakistan in 1965. The prevailing (il)logic of the day was that the `defence of the East lay in the West`. Thus, Ayub embarked upon Operation Gibraltar and the conquest of Kashmir, not realizing that in doing so he left all of East Pakistan feeling nakedly exposed, insecure and vulnerable (since it was poorly defended). This feeling of abandonment played a significant role in further alienating East Bengal, and ultimately secession in 1971. Ayub`s strategy was hawkish (like yours), full of bravado (like yours) and ultimately foolish and counterproductive (like yours). I will refer you now to War and Secession : Pakistan, India, and the Creation of Bangladesh by Richard Sisson, and Leo E. Rose, where you can read the details.
``Not too many countries, the size of Pakistan, have been able to take on adversaries so much larger than themselves. A feather in Pakistan`s cap.``
Sorry to deflate your misplaced bravado -- but you do really need to read and find out for yourself where similar logic used by Ayub Khan landed Pakistan in 1965. The prevailing (il)logic of the day was that the `defence of the East lay in the West`. Thus, Ayub embarked upon Operation Gibraltar and the conquest of Kashmir, not realizing that in doing so he left all of East Pakistan feeling nakedly exposed, insecure and vulnerable (since it was poorly defended). This feeling of abandonment played a significant role in further alienating East Bengal, and ultimately secession in 1971. Ayub`s strategy was hawkish (like yours), full of bravado (like yours) and ultimately foolish and counterproductive (like yours). I will refer you now to War and Secession : Pakistan, India, and the Creation of Bangladesh by Richard Sisson, and Leo E. Rose, where you can read the details.
#664 Posted by imranssyed on February 16, 2001 11:57:31 am
Tittle: ``Frontier Post article ; seperating fact from fiction``.
On Tuesday, January 30, 2001 angry mobs set ablaze the offices, including the printing press, of the Pakistani newspaper The Frontier Post. The mob was reacting to the publication of a letter written by a jew[on January 29, 2001] and containing highly blasphemous material. Having read the article, there are several aspects I wish to comment on.
1) The massacre of the Jews of Qurayzah at Medina
2) Anti-semitism in Islam; whether infact there has been such sentiment, and a general comment on interaction between these two monotheistic traditions over the last millenia
3) Muhammad`s moral character, as perceived by popular Christian and Judiastic thought.
The above 3 categories are intended as a response to the content of the Frontier Post article.
4) Response to the article in Pakistan, and the Blasphemy law.
First, regarding the article. Pertaining to the massacre of Qurayzah at Medina. It is mentioned in all four of the early biographies of Prophet Muhammad (by Ishaq, Sa`d, Tabari, and Waqidi) and is as such indisputable. It is important however to view it in proper perspective. The massacre followed the Battle of the Trench. It was a battle eventually won by the Muslims, but for a while the treachery of the Jews of Qurayzah (who had earlier promised allegiance to the Muslims) had brought the Umma to the brink of extinction. What happened after the battle with regards to Qurayzah is a grim story and has hideous overtones for us today. Muhammad summoned the Muslim army to the village of Qurayzah, where the Jews had barricaded themselves. They probably knew that as unfaithful allies they could expect no mercy. The Jews asked Muhammad to allow them to leave Medina as he had allowed previous Jewish tribes. To this Muhammad refused. The Aws (one of Medina`s two leading Arab tribes which was allied to Qurayzah historically) begged Muhammad to be merciful as he had been with regards to Qaynuqa (another Jewish tribe expelled from Medina). Muhammad asked them if they would accept the decision of one of their own (Aws) leading men and they agreed. The man chosen by Muhammad was Sa`d Ibn Muadh. It should be mentioned though that Sa`d had received a fatal wound in the battle and might have been less inclined towards granting clemency. Nevertheless, he was a member of the Aws (traditional allies of Qurayzah), and despite requests for clemency from his fellow chiefs, it is he who judged that all 700 men of Qurayzah should be beheaded, their wives and children sold into slavery, and their property divided among the Muslims. On hearing this, Muhammad is said to have cried, ``You have judged according to the very sentence of Allah above the seven skies``. For many it will be difficult to dissociate this story from Nazi atrocities (hence the mention in the article) and it will alienate them irreversibly from Islam and Muhammad. But many scholars have argued that it is not correct to judge the incident by 20th century standards. This was a primitive society and at this stage the Arabs had no concept of a universal natural law (for that matter, neither did anyone else), which is difficult for people to attain unless there is a degree of public order, such as that imposed by a great empire in the ancient world. Criticism from the Jews is especially unpalatable for there are worse examples in their own history. King David of Jerusalem was a mighty slayer of the enemies of God and on one occasion massacred 200 Philistines, castrated them and sent the grisly pile of foreskins to their King. The incident is mentioned in the Psalms, and is hence also irrefutable. That is not to mention Moses, who is said to have commanded the Israelites to massacre the entire population of Canaan shortly after he had told them; ``Thou shalt not kill``. It is senseless however to play a game of blame. The massacre of Qurayzah was more a reminder of the desperate conditions of Arabia during the Prophet`s lifetime. We are certainly not wrong in condemning it today, but it was not as great a crime as it would be today. In the early seventh century, an Arab chief would not be expected to show any mercy to traitors like Qurayzah. The Muslim Umma had narrowly escaped extermination at the siege, and emotions were naturally running high. Qurayzah had nearly destroyed Medina. If Muhammad had let them go, they would have swelled the Jewish opposition outside Medina and have organized another offensive against Medina. Next time the muslims might not be so lucky and the bloody struggle for survival would continue indefinitely with more suffering and more deaths.
This brings me to the second point mentioned in the article; that Muslims have always harboured a hate for the Jews, and that this has preceded Zionism, and the creation of the State of Israel. Nothing could be further from the truth. The tragic beginnings of Medina did not permanently colour the Muslim attitude to Jews. Once the Muslims established their own world empire, they began to evolve a more sophisticated and humane ethic in their law, and established a system of remarkable tolerance. Anti-Semitism is a vice of Western Christianity, not of Islam (it became an incurable European Disease during the Crusading period), and this should be borne in mind by people who feel tempted to make generalisations about the horrible incident at Medina. Even in the Prophet`s own time, smaller jewish tribes remained in Medina and were allowed to live without further reprisals. In the Islamic empire Jews like Christians had full religious liberty; the Jews lived there in peace till the creation of the modern State of Israel this century. The Jews of Islam never suffered like the Jews of Christendom. In Christian Europe, the Jews were forced to live in `ghettos` (the word infact originates from squatter settlements the Jews were forced to live in in places like Amsterdam in a form of religious apartheid), whilst they flourished in the Ottoman Empire. Later when Fredrick and Isabella threw the Muslims out of Spain, all the Jews were expelled too, only to find refuge in the Ottoman empire. The Judeo-Christian axis which we talk of today is only a recent development of the last 50 years. We forget that prior to this there is a history of 1200 years of good relations between Jews and Muslims. It is sad that today Muslims tend to turn to passages in the Quran which refer to the rebellious Jewish tribes of Medina and tend to ignore the far more numerous verses which speak positively of the Jews and their great prophets. The anger of the writer of the above article is thus understandable, for in the modern era, we as Muslims have tended to give a hostile and xenophobic image to most Christrians and Jews. It is important to remember though that there is no historical or valid religious context for this. In the Quran, most scholars will tell us that we are supposed to follow the law of abrogation. That means that where two verses in different parts of the Quran contradict one another, the earlier verse stands cancelled in favour of the later one. It is worthwhile then to recall that the second part of the Covenant of Medina, which deals with the Jewish population of the settlement was composed after verses pertaining to the Battle of the Trench.
As regards, the author`s mention of Muhammad`s low moral character. This is obviously borrowed from the unhealthy Western attitude towards Islam which developed during the Middle Ages and persists to this day. His sexual life was dwelt into in great detail, and he was credited with every perversion known to man, and said to attract people to his religion by encouraging them to indulge in their basest instincts. These tales, I think, reflected more the insecurity of Christian Europe against a triumphant Islam which was creeping into it`s territory. One of the best (and perhaps most humorous) explanations of this Western perception viv-a-vis Muhammad`s moral character is given in Karen Armstrong`s ``Muhammad``. It reads: ``At a time when the Church was imposing celibacy on a reluctant clergy, the astonishing accounts of Muhammad`s sexual life reveal far more about the repressions of Christians than about the facts of the prophet`s own life. There is a definite note of ill-concealed envy in this depiction of Islam as a self-indulgent and easy-going religion``.
I think it is clear that the letter in The Frontier Post was replete with inaccuracies, and that the author`s views were misinformed and reactionary. The content was just as nonsensical as some of the material that is regularly churned out by the religious parties in Pakistan. None of this detracts from the fact that the writer has the right to express his opinion freely. Let us be clear about this. As Muslims we do ourselves no favours when we burn down press offices and cinemas, and book editors on charges of blasphemy when they are clearly not at fault. Would it not be better if such fanciful theories were responded to by clear facts, rather than act as mad men. As Muslims we are supposed to follow a path of moderation. This over-zealousness in protecting the honour of our Prophet reflects more a sense of guilt within us, I feel. Certainly there must be a more dignified way of preserving his respect and honour. If nothing else, we must learn to develop a thicker skin, rather than act as such unstable, fragile beings. Islamic history gives us several such examples. On a personal level we can consider Taif, where despite being abused and pelted with stones, the Prophet did not wish ill on the people of that city. On another level we can also consider the example of the victorious Muslim army returning from Medina to conquer Mecca. Here again were people who had tormented and persecuted the Prophet during his time in Mecca, but all were issued a general amnesty. A Black List was certainly made, but anyone who asked forgiveness was spared.
The minorities in Pakistan live under constant oppression and threat from the mainstream religious parties. The Blasphemy law far from serving any useful purpose (and I believe it is unIslamic in principle) is used as a tool to blackmail and bully them. As a people we are less tolerant than ever before in our history. In terms of intellectual calibre, out clergy is destitute. We would do well to recall that during Islam`s Golden Age, the Age of Falsafah in the 11th and 12th centuries, when Muslims were prominent in Chemistry, Medicine, Astronomy, Mathematics, and Philosophy, we were a much more tolerant people. Scholars like Ibn Sina (Avicenna), and Ibn Ras`d (Averroes) would be branded heretics today for their Neoplatonic views. Others like al Ghazzali would be scoffed at for favouring the Sufi version of Islam. They were among the greatest Muslim philosophers of their age; yet none would fit the definition of an orthodox muslim today. The muslims of that age were rapidly evolving a sophisticated and humane natural law, and in the process established the preeminent civilization of their time. They did this by looking towards the future rather than the past, by having an educated clergy that accelerated the process of Ijtehad so as not to allow their religion to stagnate, and by borrowing unabashedly of preexisting scientific knowledge from other civilizations, and elaborating on it. Today we are in a diametrically opposed situation. We look obsessively towards the past of 650 AD as a society we have to reconstruct at any cost, we have an uneducated clergy which shuns the process of Ijtehad and seeks ever narrower interpretations of the Quran, and we choose to cocoon ourselves from the preeminent civilization of our age, generalizing it to be All-Evil rather than learning selectively from its finer points and incorporating them into our own civilization.
In summary, while there is much in the Frontier Post article to be found objectionable, I feel the writer should be free to express his opinion. It is easy to dissect such an article, and expose it for the propoganda that it is. This approach, I think, is preferable, more Islamic, and would reflect better on Muslims. If Muslims are to convince the rest of the world of the validity of their belief system i.e Islam, they must do this in a rational and appealing way, much as Islam teaches. Such overly enthusiastic displays of passion as are happening in our country right now are counter-productive and do little to serve our cause in this regard. It is vital that our generation establishes an atmosphere of greater personal and religious tolerance. Until that happens, one cannot help but feel that this is not the time for free-thinkers and honest debate in our society (not to say at all that this particular writer was a free-thinker, an imbecile rather), and without them there will be no progress. The following quote fits us well as a nation currently : ``We will have none who is best among us; if there be any such, let him be so elsewhere and among others``.
Imran S. Syed
On Tuesday, January 30, 2001 angry mobs set ablaze the offices, including the printing press, of the Pakistani newspaper The Frontier Post. The mob was reacting to the publication of a letter written by a jew[on January 29, 2001] and containing highly blasphemous material. Having read the article, there are several aspects I wish to comment on.
1) The massacre of the Jews of Qurayzah at Medina
2) Anti-semitism in Islam; whether infact there has been such sentiment, and a general comment on interaction between these two monotheistic traditions over the last millenia
3) Muhammad`s moral character, as perceived by popular Christian and Judiastic thought.
The above 3 categories are intended as a response to the content of the Frontier Post article.
4) Response to the article in Pakistan, and the Blasphemy law.
First, regarding the article. Pertaining to the massacre of Qurayzah at Medina. It is mentioned in all four of the early biographies of Prophet Muhammad (by Ishaq, Sa`d, Tabari, and Waqidi) and is as such indisputable. It is important however to view it in proper perspective. The massacre followed the Battle of the Trench. It was a battle eventually won by the Muslims, but for a while the treachery of the Jews of Qurayzah (who had earlier promised allegiance to the Muslims) had brought the Umma to the brink of extinction. What happened after the battle with regards to Qurayzah is a grim story and has hideous overtones for us today. Muhammad summoned the Muslim army to the village of Qurayzah, where the Jews had barricaded themselves. They probably knew that as unfaithful allies they could expect no mercy. The Jews asked Muhammad to allow them to leave Medina as he had allowed previous Jewish tribes. To this Muhammad refused. The Aws (one of Medina`s two leading Arab tribes which was allied to Qurayzah historically) begged Muhammad to be merciful as he had been with regards to Qaynuqa (another Jewish tribe expelled from Medina). Muhammad asked them if they would accept the decision of one of their own (Aws) leading men and they agreed. The man chosen by Muhammad was Sa`d Ibn Muadh. It should be mentioned though that Sa`d had received a fatal wound in the battle and might have been less inclined towards granting clemency. Nevertheless, he was a member of the Aws (traditional allies of Qurayzah), and despite requests for clemency from his fellow chiefs, it is he who judged that all 700 men of Qurayzah should be beheaded, their wives and children sold into slavery, and their property divided among the Muslims. On hearing this, Muhammad is said to have cried, ``You have judged according to the very sentence of Allah above the seven skies``. For many it will be difficult to dissociate this story from Nazi atrocities (hence the mention in the article) and it will alienate them irreversibly from Islam and Muhammad. But many scholars have argued that it is not correct to judge the incident by 20th century standards. This was a primitive society and at this stage the Arabs had no concept of a universal natural law (for that matter, neither did anyone else), which is difficult for people to attain unless there is a degree of public order, such as that imposed by a great empire in the ancient world. Criticism from the Jews is especially unpalatable for there are worse examples in their own history. King David of Jerusalem was a mighty slayer of the enemies of God and on one occasion massacred 200 Philistines, castrated them and sent the grisly pile of foreskins to their King. The incident is mentioned in the Psalms, and is hence also irrefutable. That is not to mention Moses, who is said to have commanded the Israelites to massacre the entire population of Canaan shortly after he had told them; ``Thou shalt not kill``. It is senseless however to play a game of blame. The massacre of Qurayzah was more a reminder of the desperate conditions of Arabia during the Prophet`s lifetime. We are certainly not wrong in condemning it today, but it was not as great a crime as it would be today. In the early seventh century, an Arab chief would not be expected to show any mercy to traitors like Qurayzah. The Muslim Umma had narrowly escaped extermination at the siege, and emotions were naturally running high. Qurayzah had nearly destroyed Medina. If Muhammad had let them go, they would have swelled the Jewish opposition outside Medina and have organized another offensive against Medina. Next time the muslims might not be so lucky and the bloody struggle for survival would continue indefinitely with more suffering and more deaths.
This brings me to the second point mentioned in the article; that Muslims have always harboured a hate for the Jews, and that this has preceded Zionism, and the creation of the State of Israel. Nothing could be further from the truth. The tragic beginnings of Medina did not permanently colour the Muslim attitude to Jews. Once the Muslims established their own world empire, they began to evolve a more sophisticated and humane ethic in their law, and established a system of remarkable tolerance. Anti-Semitism is a vice of Western Christianity, not of Islam (it became an incurable European Disease during the Crusading period), and this should be borne in mind by people who feel tempted to make generalisations about the horrible incident at Medina. Even in the Prophet`s own time, smaller jewish tribes remained in Medina and were allowed to live without further reprisals. In the Islamic empire Jews like Christians had full religious liberty; the Jews lived there in peace till the creation of the modern State of Israel this century. The Jews of Islam never suffered like the Jews of Christendom. In Christian Europe, the Jews were forced to live in `ghettos` (the word infact originates from squatter settlements the Jews were forced to live in in places like Amsterdam in a form of religious apartheid), whilst they flourished in the Ottoman Empire. Later when Fredrick and Isabella threw the Muslims out of Spain, all the Jews were expelled too, only to find refuge in the Ottoman empire. The Judeo-Christian axis which we talk of today is only a recent development of the last 50 years. We forget that prior to this there is a history of 1200 years of good relations between Jews and Muslims. It is sad that today Muslims tend to turn to passages in the Quran which refer to the rebellious Jewish tribes of Medina and tend to ignore the far more numerous verses which speak positively of the Jews and their great prophets. The anger of the writer of the above article is thus understandable, for in the modern era, we as Muslims have tended to give a hostile and xenophobic image to most Christrians and Jews. It is important to remember though that there is no historical or valid religious context for this. In the Quran, most scholars will tell us that we are supposed to follow the law of abrogation. That means that where two verses in different parts of the Quran contradict one another, the earlier verse stands cancelled in favour of the later one. It is worthwhile then to recall that the second part of the Covenant of Medina, which deals with the Jewish population of the settlement was composed after verses pertaining to the Battle of the Trench.
As regards, the author`s mention of Muhammad`s low moral character. This is obviously borrowed from the unhealthy Western attitude towards Islam which developed during the Middle Ages and persists to this day. His sexual life was dwelt into in great detail, and he was credited with every perversion known to man, and said to attract people to his religion by encouraging them to indulge in their basest instincts. These tales, I think, reflected more the insecurity of Christian Europe against a triumphant Islam which was creeping into it`s territory. One of the best (and perhaps most humorous) explanations of this Western perception viv-a-vis Muhammad`s moral character is given in Karen Armstrong`s ``Muhammad``. It reads: ``At a time when the Church was imposing celibacy on a reluctant clergy, the astonishing accounts of Muhammad`s sexual life reveal far more about the repressions of Christians than about the facts of the prophet`s own life. There is a definite note of ill-concealed envy in this depiction of Islam as a self-indulgent and easy-going religion``.
I think it is clear that the letter in The Frontier Post was replete with inaccuracies, and that the author`s views were misinformed and reactionary. The content was just as nonsensical as some of the material that is regularly churned out by the religious parties in Pakistan. None of this detracts from the fact that the writer has the right to express his opinion freely. Let us be clear about this. As Muslims we do ourselves no favours when we burn down press offices and cinemas, and book editors on charges of blasphemy when they are clearly not at fault. Would it not be better if such fanciful theories were responded to by clear facts, rather than act as mad men. As Muslims we are supposed to follow a path of moderation. This over-zealousness in protecting the honour of our Prophet reflects more a sense of guilt within us, I feel. Certainly there must be a more dignified way of preserving his respect and honour. If nothing else, we must learn to develop a thicker skin, rather than act as such unstable, fragile beings. Islamic history gives us several such examples. On a personal level we can consider Taif, where despite being abused and pelted with stones, the Prophet did not wish ill on the people of that city. On another level we can also consider the example of the victorious Muslim army returning from Medina to conquer Mecca. Here again were people who had tormented and persecuted the Prophet during his time in Mecca, but all were issued a general amnesty. A Black List was certainly made, but anyone who asked forgiveness was spared.
The minorities in Pakistan live under constant oppression and threat from the mainstream religious parties. The Blasphemy law far from serving any useful purpose (and I believe it is unIslamic in principle) is used as a tool to blackmail and bully them. As a people we are less tolerant than ever before in our history. In terms of intellectual calibre, out clergy is destitute. We would do well to recall that during Islam`s Golden Age, the Age of Falsafah in the 11th and 12th centuries, when Muslims were prominent in Chemistry, Medicine, Astronomy, Mathematics, and Philosophy, we were a much more tolerant people. Scholars like Ibn Sina (Avicenna), and Ibn Ras`d (Averroes) would be branded heretics today for their Neoplatonic views. Others like al Ghazzali would be scoffed at for favouring the Sufi version of Islam. They were among the greatest Muslim philosophers of their age; yet none would fit the definition of an orthodox muslim today. The muslims of that age were rapidly evolving a sophisticated and humane natural law, and in the process established the preeminent civilization of their time. They did this by looking towards the future rather than the past, by having an educated clergy that accelerated the process of Ijtehad so as not to allow their religion to stagnate, and by borrowing unabashedly of preexisting scientific knowledge from other civilizations, and elaborating on it. Today we are in a diametrically opposed situation. We look obsessively towards the past of 650 AD as a society we have to reconstruct at any cost, we have an uneducated clergy which shuns the process of Ijtehad and seeks ever narrower interpretations of the Quran, and we choose to cocoon ourselves from the preeminent civilization of our age, generalizing it to be All-Evil rather than learning selectively from its finer points and incorporating them into our own civilization.
In summary, while there is much in the Frontier Post article to be found objectionable, I feel the writer should be free to express his opinion. It is easy to dissect such an article, and expose it for the propoganda that it is. This approach, I think, is preferable, more Islamic, and would reflect better on Muslims. If Muslims are to convince the rest of the world of the validity of their belief system i.e Islam, they must do this in a rational and appealing way, much as Islam teaches. Such overly enthusiastic displays of passion as are happening in our country right now are counter-productive and do little to serve our cause in this regard. It is vital that our generation establishes an atmosphere of greater personal and religious tolerance. Until that happens, one cannot help but feel that this is not the time for free-thinkers and honest debate in our society (not to say at all that this particular writer was a free-thinker, an imbecile rather), and without them there will be no progress. The following quote fits us well as a nation currently : ``We will have none who is best among us; if there be any such, let him be so elsewhere and among others``.
Imran S. Syed
#663 Posted by Umairr on February 16, 2001 11:57:31 am
Some unbiased journalism regarding Kashmir. Quite a detailed audio report presented by BBC, titled victims of Kashmir conflict (requires Real Audio)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/
One must feel for the people who have punished for no crime of their own. I hope and pray that someday the people of Kashmir (and of any part of the world for that matter) will be allowed to live their lives in a manner they want to; be it with India, Pakistan or as an independed entity. I hope and pray that the people who achieve sadistic pleasures by justifying the use of force and killings to suppress genuine self-determination struggles are someday exposed for what they are. How someone can cry for victims of earthquakes on the one hand, and find roundabout justifications for supporting the killings of an equal number of people in Kashmir, on the other hand, is beyond my comprehension.
In the end there are only two groups one can belong to, on this issue: those who believe human beings should be allowed to live their lives the way these human beings themselves want to, and those who feel that human beings should be forced to live their lives according to the personal desires of others. One can be in one group or the other. Everything else is just talk, covering the by-products of self-determination, rather than the concept of self-determination itself. And I have come to the conclusion that no amount of logical argument is sufficient to convince the later group to see the cruelty of its beliefs. This group will always find some excuse, illogical as it may be, to support its arguments. They will blame everyone accept themselves for the problem, knowing fully well that the problem will be solved if self-determination is allowed. Unfortunately, they themselves hold all the keys to allowing self-determination.
I hope there are enough humane people in this world who are willing to let the people in any part of the world live how they want to live. These people just want to be left alone. They do not want to bother you, why are you bent upon killing them. In my opinion, anyone who openly or covertly supports military actions against innocent people, wanting self-determination, has more than a few drops of blood on his/her own hands. Perhaps one drop for every human being that has been killed just because he/she wanted to live his/her life according to his/her own wishes. I hope these people can look at themselves in the mirror every morning when they wake up.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/
One must feel for the people who have punished for no crime of their own. I hope and pray that someday the people of Kashmir (and of any part of the world for that matter) will be allowed to live their lives in a manner they want to; be it with India, Pakistan or as an independed entity. I hope and pray that the people who achieve sadistic pleasures by justifying the use of force and killings to suppress genuine self-determination struggles are someday exposed for what they are. How someone can cry for victims of earthquakes on the one hand, and find roundabout justifications for supporting the killings of an equal number of people in Kashmir, on the other hand, is beyond my comprehension.
In the end there are only two groups one can belong to, on this issue: those who believe human beings should be allowed to live their lives the way these human beings themselves want to, and those who feel that human beings should be forced to live their lives according to the personal desires of others. One can be in one group or the other. Everything else is just talk, covering the by-products of self-determination, rather than the concept of self-determination itself. And I have come to the conclusion that no amount of logical argument is sufficient to convince the later group to see the cruelty of its beliefs. This group will always find some excuse, illogical as it may be, to support its arguments. They will blame everyone accept themselves for the problem, knowing fully well that the problem will be solved if self-determination is allowed. Unfortunately, they themselves hold all the keys to allowing self-determination.
I hope there are enough humane people in this world who are willing to let the people in any part of the world live how they want to live. These people just want to be left alone. They do not want to bother you, why are you bent upon killing them. In my opinion, anyone who openly or covertly supports military actions against innocent people, wanting self-determination, has more than a few drops of blood on his/her own hands. Perhaps one drop for every human being that has been killed just because he/she wanted to live his/her life according to his/her own wishes. I hope these people can look at themselves in the mirror every morning when they wake up.
#662 Posted by Umairr on February 16, 2001 11:57:31 am
One of the best articles, infact the best article, I have ever read on how Pakistan should handle the odd situation it finds itself in, with regards to extremist religious parties:
``Taming the paper tigers
By Ayaz Amir
MORE than anything else Pakistan`s problem is the paper tigers that infest its towns and cities - distinguished people who have made a cult out of speaking vociferously and out of season.
Of these paper tigers none are more deadly than professors of the cloth - reverend divines whose concept of `jihad` is incomplete without a mike, powerful loudspeakers and an attendant press corps dutifully inscribing their bizarre utterances.
Consider the evidence. There are some organizations engaged in real combat in Kashmir. Like the Hezbollahs of Lebanon they are genuine people. One may disagree with their aims but no armchair rhetorician can scorn their sacrifices. It is their readiness to die for what they believe in which entitles them to public acclaim and attention.
But there are others, constituting the clear majority, who are champions of verbal jihad. Still others are engaged in a holy war against their compatriots - sunnis against shias, shias against sunnis. At their hands Mao`s dictum stands inverted: power flowing not from the barrel of the gun but from concentrated hate and mindless bigotry. Sectarian gunfire is aimed at the capturing of no strategic heights. It is an end in itself.....
Two caveats, however, are in order. Firstly, even if Pakistan wanted to, it cannot overnight cut its links with the Taliban. That would create more problems than it would solve. Geography, not ideological affinity, dictates the necessity of our close links with Afghanistan. True, there is a lot of ideological muddle about Afghanistan in Pakistan`s decision-making circles. But the generals of the Pakistan army are no acolytes of Mulla Umar. (One Holiness, Rafiq Tarar, is enough for Pakistan.).....
Secondly, even if Pakistan wanted to, it cannot overnight disengage itself from Kashmir. Nor would there be tangible profit in such a course. What would we get from India in return? Perhaps a quote or two from Ghalib. Perhaps even a verse from Mr Vajpayee, who is an occasional poet. But nothing even remotely approaching fairness on Kashmir. India is keenly interested in a solution of the Kashmir dispute but strictly on its own terms.
Pakistan`s necessity is altogether different. It is not to buckle under western pressure and cut all links with the Taliban. Nor to carry out a precipitate retreat from Kashmir which would sow the seeds of internal resentment. It is to muzzle the paper tigers who are giving it a bad name. In this case, the medium is indeed the message and in our hands the medium has turned into a dangerous instrument......
Around Kashmir too myths abound. Nothing that Pakistan can do will force India to the negotiating table. The sooner we rid ourselves of this delusion the better. If the Kashmiri people choose to fight against Indian occupation Pakistan has a duty to support them - but surreptitiously and without turning the politics of `jihad` into an international tamasha. If the Kashmiris score successes in this fight the triumph should be theirs. If they weary of it we should be able to live with that too. Proactive adventurism is what we must eschew, the days of this having passed, the costs of this now outweighing any likely benefits...... (DAWN, Pakistan)
Remaining article at http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm.
It`s a must read for everyone interested in this subject.
``Taming the paper tigers
By Ayaz Amir
MORE than anything else Pakistan`s problem is the paper tigers that infest its towns and cities - distinguished people who have made a cult out of speaking vociferously and out of season.
Of these paper tigers none are more deadly than professors of the cloth - reverend divines whose concept of `jihad` is incomplete without a mike, powerful loudspeakers and an attendant press corps dutifully inscribing their bizarre utterances.
Consider the evidence. There are some organizations engaged in real combat in Kashmir. Like the Hezbollahs of Lebanon they are genuine people. One may disagree with their aims but no armchair rhetorician can scorn their sacrifices. It is their readiness to die for what they believe in which entitles them to public acclaim and attention.
But there are others, constituting the clear majority, who are champions of verbal jihad. Still others are engaged in a holy war against their compatriots - sunnis against shias, shias against sunnis. At their hands Mao`s dictum stands inverted: power flowing not from the barrel of the gun but from concentrated hate and mindless bigotry. Sectarian gunfire is aimed at the capturing of no strategic heights. It is an end in itself.....
Two caveats, however, are in order. Firstly, even if Pakistan wanted to, it cannot overnight cut its links with the Taliban. That would create more problems than it would solve. Geography, not ideological affinity, dictates the necessity of our close links with Afghanistan. True, there is a lot of ideological muddle about Afghanistan in Pakistan`s decision-making circles. But the generals of the Pakistan army are no acolytes of Mulla Umar. (One Holiness, Rafiq Tarar, is enough for Pakistan.).....
Secondly, even if Pakistan wanted to, it cannot overnight disengage itself from Kashmir. Nor would there be tangible profit in such a course. What would we get from India in return? Perhaps a quote or two from Ghalib. Perhaps even a verse from Mr Vajpayee, who is an occasional poet. But nothing even remotely approaching fairness on Kashmir. India is keenly interested in a solution of the Kashmir dispute but strictly on its own terms.
Pakistan`s necessity is altogether different. It is not to buckle under western pressure and cut all links with the Taliban. Nor to carry out a precipitate retreat from Kashmir which would sow the seeds of internal resentment. It is to muzzle the paper tigers who are giving it a bad name. In this case, the medium is indeed the message and in our hands the medium has turned into a dangerous instrument......
Around Kashmir too myths abound. Nothing that Pakistan can do will force India to the negotiating table. The sooner we rid ourselves of this delusion the better. If the Kashmiri people choose to fight against Indian occupation Pakistan has a duty to support them - but surreptitiously and without turning the politics of `jihad` into an international tamasha. If the Kashmiris score successes in this fight the triumph should be theirs. If they weary of it we should be able to live with that too. Proactive adventurism is what we must eschew, the days of this having passed, the costs of this now outweighing any likely benefits...... (DAWN, Pakistan)
Remaining article at http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm.
It`s a must read for everyone interested in this subject.
#661 Posted by adnan_672 on February 16, 2001 11:57:31 am
ON THE IMPORTANCE OF AHADITH IN ISLAM
The following pages have been taken from the web:
They illustrate a misplaced notion that hadith are not required to interpret religion.
This is an old ploy to twist the meaning of Allahs words. In the sub continent from Akbars Deen e Ilahi to Pervez and his followers this has been used.
Comments Please
FROM THE BOOK OF ALLAH:
And He said:
Whoever obeys the Apostle has obeyed God [Q. IV, 82].So God instructed [men] that their homage to the Apostle is homage to Him, and their obedience [to him] is obedience to Him.
And He, glorious be His praise, said:
And also we have sent among you an Apostle, one of yourselves, to recite to you our signs, and purify you, to teach you the Book and the Wisdom, and to teach you what you did not know [Q. II, 146].
The believers are only those who have believed in God and His Apostle, and who when they are with him on some common affair do not go away until they ask his permission [Q. XXIV, 62].
Thus [God] prescribed that the perfect beginning of the faith, to which all other things are subordinate, shall be the belief in Him and then in His Apostle. For if a person believes only in Him, not in His Apostle, the name of the perfect faith [1. I.e., Islam] will never apply to him until he believes in His Apostle together with Him.
He said in His Book:
O our Lord, raise up amongst them an Apostle, one of themselves, to recite to them Thy signs and to teach them the Book and Wisdom and to purify them. Verily Thou art All-mighty, All-wise [Q. II, 123].
And He said:
God bestowed a favor upon the believers when He raised up amongst them an Apostle, one of themselves, to recite His signs to them, to purify them and to teach them the Book, although they had formerly been in manifest error [Q. III, 158].
And He, glorious be His praise, said:
It is He who has raised up an Apostle among the untutored people, one of their number to recite to them His signs, to purify them, and to teach them the Book and the Wisdom, though formerly they had been in manifest error [Q. LXII, 2].
And He said:
But remember the goodness which God has shown you and how much of the Book and the Wisdom He has sent down to you to admonish you thereby [Q. II, 231].
And He said:
God has sent down to thee the Book and the Wisdom, and has taught thee what thou did not know before; the bounty of God towards thee is ever great [Q. IV, 113].
And He said:
And call to mind the signs of God and the Wisdom which are recited in your houses; verily God is gentle, well-informed [Q.XXXVI, 34].
So God mentioned His Book-which is the Qur`an-and Wisdom, and I have heard that those who are learned in the Qur`an-whom I approve-hold that Wisdom is the sunna of the Apostle of God. This is like what [God Himself] said; but God knows best! For the Qur`an is mentioned [first], followed by Wisdom; [then] God mentioned His favor to mankind by teaching them the Qur`an and Wisdom. So it is not permissible for Wisdom to be called here [anything] save the sunna of the Apostle of God. For [Wisdom] is closely linked to the Book of God, and God has imposed the duty of obedience to His Apostle, and imposed on men the obligation obey his orders. So it is not permissible to regard anything as a Duty save that set forth in the Quran and the sunna of His Apostle. For [God], as we have [just] stated, prescribed that the belief in His Apostle shall be associated with the belief in Him.
The sunna of the Apostle makes evident what God meant [in the text of His Book], indicating His general and particular [commands]. He associated the Wisdom [embodied] in the sunna with his Book, but made it subordinate [to the Book]. Never has God done this for any of His creatures save His Apostle.
And He said:
The Qur`an indicates what I have just stated; for if this decision were a Quranic decision, it should have been prescribed in the text of the Book of God.
But if men fail to accept a decision based on a clear text of the Book of God, they undoubtedly cease to be believers, for they are rejecting a decision based on divine legislation. For God, Blessed and Most High, said:
Do not put the Apostle`s calling on you for aid on the same footing amongst you as your calling on each other. God knowsthose of you who slip away secretly, so let those who go against His command beware lest a trial befall them, or a painful punishment [Q. XXIV, 63].
And He said:
When they are called to God and to His Apostle that he may judge between them, lo, a party of them avert themselves. But if they are in the right, they will come to him in submission.
Is there sickness in their hearts, or are they in doubt, or do they fear that God and His Apostle may act unjustly towards them. Nay, but they are the evildoers.
All that the believers said when they were called to God and His Apostle that he might judge between them was: `We hear and obey.` These are the ones who prosper.
Whoever obeys God and His Apostle, and fears God and shows piety - these are the ones who attain felicity [Q. XXIV, 47-51].
Through this communication, God instructed men that their recourse to the Apostle to judge among them is a recourse to God`s judgment, for the Apostle is the judge among them, and when they accept his judgment they do so only because of an obligation imposed by God.
And He instructed them that the [Prophet`s] judgment is His judgment, for his judgment is imposed by Him and by His established knowledge - rendering him a man of destiny and assisting him by preserving him from error and [worldly] success - and by testifying that He guides him and causes him se; to obey His order.
So God imposed the obligation upon His creatures to obey His Apostle, and He instructed them that [obedience] to him is obedience to Him.The sum-total of what He instructed them is the duty to obey Him and His Apostle, and that obedience to the Apostle is obedience to Him. He [also] instructed them that He imposed the duty on His Apostle to obey His order, Glorious be His praise.
adnan
(As mentioned these have simply been taken off the web, I have NOT compiled them)
The following pages have been taken from the web:
They illustrate a misplaced notion that hadith are not required to interpret religion.
This is an old ploy to twist the meaning of Allahs words. In the sub continent from Akbars Deen e Ilahi to Pervez and his followers this has been used.
Comments Please
FROM THE BOOK OF ALLAH:
And He said:
Whoever obeys the Apostle has obeyed God [Q. IV, 82].So God instructed [men] that their homage to the Apostle is homage to Him, and their obedience [to him] is obedience to Him.
And He, glorious be His praise, said:
And also we have sent among you an Apostle, one of yourselves, to recite to you our signs, and purify you, to teach you the Book and the Wisdom, and to teach you what you did not know [Q. II, 146].
The believers are only those who have believed in God and His Apostle, and who when they are with him on some common affair do not go away until they ask his permission [Q. XXIV, 62].
Thus [God] prescribed that the perfect beginning of the faith, to which all other things are subordinate, shall be the belief in Him and then in His Apostle. For if a person believes only in Him, not in His Apostle, the name of the perfect faith [1. I.e., Islam] will never apply to him until he believes in His Apostle together with Him.
He said in His Book:
O our Lord, raise up amongst them an Apostle, one of themselves, to recite to them Thy signs and to teach them the Book and Wisdom and to purify them. Verily Thou art All-mighty, All-wise [Q. II, 123].
And He said:
God bestowed a favor upon the believers when He raised up amongst them an Apostle, one of themselves, to recite His signs to them, to purify them and to teach them the Book, although they had formerly been in manifest error [Q. III, 158].
And He, glorious be His praise, said:
It is He who has raised up an Apostle among the untutored people, one of their number to recite to them His signs, to purify them, and to teach them the Book and the Wisdom, though formerly they had been in manifest error [Q. LXII, 2].
And He said:
But remember the goodness which God has shown you and how much of the Book and the Wisdom He has sent down to you to admonish you thereby [Q. II, 231].
And He said:
God has sent down to thee the Book and the Wisdom, and has taught thee what thou did not know before; the bounty of God towards thee is ever great [Q. IV, 113].
And He said:
And call to mind the signs of God and the Wisdom which are recited in your houses; verily God is gentle, well-informed [Q.XXXVI, 34].
So God mentioned His Book-which is the Qur`an-and Wisdom, and I have heard that those who are learned in the Qur`an-whom I approve-hold that Wisdom is the sunna of the Apostle of God. This is like what [God Himself] said; but God knows best! For the Qur`an is mentioned [first], followed by Wisdom; [then] God mentioned His favor to mankind by teaching them the Qur`an and Wisdom. So it is not permissible for Wisdom to be called here [anything] save the sunna of the Apostle of God. For [Wisdom] is closely linked to the Book of God, and God has imposed the duty of obedience to His Apostle, and imposed on men the obligation obey his orders. So it is not permissible to regard anything as a Duty save that set forth in the Quran and the sunna of His Apostle. For [God], as we have [just] stated, prescribed that the belief in His Apostle shall be associated with the belief in Him.
The sunna of the Apostle makes evident what God meant [in the text of His Book], indicating His general and particular [commands]. He associated the Wisdom [embodied] in the sunna with his Book, but made it subordinate [to the Book]. Never has God done this for any of His creatures save His Apostle.
And He said:
The Qur`an indicates what I have just stated; for if this decision were a Quranic decision, it should have been prescribed in the text of the Book of God.
But if men fail to accept a decision based on a clear text of the Book of God, they undoubtedly cease to be believers, for they are rejecting a decision based on divine legislation. For God, Blessed and Most High, said:
Do not put the Apostle`s calling on you for aid on the same footing amongst you as your calling on each other. God knowsthose of you who slip away secretly, so let those who go against His command beware lest a trial befall them, or a painful punishment [Q. XXIV, 63].
And He said:
When they are called to God and to His Apostle that he may judge between them, lo, a party of them avert themselves. But if they are in the right, they will come to him in submission.
Is there sickness in their hearts, or are they in doubt, or do they fear that God and His Apostle may act unjustly towards them. Nay, but they are the evildoers.
All that the believers said when they were called to God and His Apostle that he might judge between them was: `We hear and obey.` These are the ones who prosper.
Whoever obeys God and His Apostle, and fears God and shows piety - these are the ones who attain felicity [Q. XXIV, 47-51].
Through this communication, God instructed men that their recourse to the Apostle to judge among them is a recourse to God`s judgment, for the Apostle is the judge among them, and when they accept his judgment they do so only because of an obligation imposed by God.
And He instructed them that the [Prophet`s] judgment is His judgment, for his judgment is imposed by Him and by His established knowledge - rendering him a man of destiny and assisting him by preserving him from error and [worldly] success - and by testifying that He guides him and causes him se; to obey His order.
So God imposed the obligation upon His creatures to obey His Apostle, and He instructed them that [obedience] to him is obedience to Him.The sum-total of what He instructed them is the duty to obey Him and His Apostle, and that obedience to the Apostle is obedience to Him. He [also] instructed them that He imposed the duty on His Apostle to obey His order, Glorious be His praise.
adnan
(As mentioned these have simply been taken off the web, I have NOT compiled them)
#660 Posted by sigalph235 on February 16, 2001 11:57:31 am
re fuzair#623
In the same post you say that the Pakistan Occupation Army elements were airlifted without their artillery and armor and that the biggest Novemebr 1971 engagement between Pakistani and Indian regulars involved artillery and armor! Kind of gives away the fallacy of the argument, doesn`t it?
On December 16, 1971 approximately 90,000 men walked into Indian captivity. If the Pakistan military element were 35k, then these people must have had a lot of multiple personalities (I am told that General Niazi did actually). Does not the late Colonel Siddiq Salik`s book put the number at 90,000?
The last Indian troops left Bangladesh in April 1972 (too long still). I will not comment on the rest of the `India-hand` insinuations in your post because such is very typical rhetorical defense by the Occupation forces at any place in history. Upon surrender in Yorktown, Gen Corwalis blamed his defeat on the thousands of French armymen who were cleverly disguised as George Washington`s troops. If it soothes the battered ego of the Pakistan Army to delude itself into believing that it was the Indians who did it to them in 1971, well I do not wish to take away that sedative from these old men whose conscience otherwise bothers them everyday.
On an aside I will mention that Pakistan Army was once a magnificient force which produced any number of gentlemen-officers even in 1971. People like Gen. Sahibzada Yakub is an example of this kind. A brigade commander in 1971 was the legendary Brigadier Atif(107 Brigade, Area Commander, Feni) of hockey fame; I met him at the Hockey Club in Karachi once: this was the last officer who could engage in the atrocities we mention.
In the same post you say that the Pakistan Occupation Army elements were airlifted without their artillery and armor and that the biggest Novemebr 1971 engagement between Pakistani and Indian regulars involved artillery and armor! Kind of gives away the fallacy of the argument, doesn`t it?
On December 16, 1971 approximately 90,000 men walked into Indian captivity. If the Pakistan military element were 35k, then these people must have had a lot of multiple personalities (I am told that General Niazi did actually). Does not the late Colonel Siddiq Salik`s book put the number at 90,000?
The last Indian troops left Bangladesh in April 1972 (too long still). I will not comment on the rest of the `India-hand` insinuations in your post because such is very typical rhetorical defense by the Occupation forces at any place in history. Upon surrender in Yorktown, Gen Corwalis blamed his defeat on the thousands of French armymen who were cleverly disguised as George Washington`s troops. If it soothes the battered ego of the Pakistan Army to delude itself into believing that it was the Indians who did it to them in 1971, well I do not wish to take away that sedative from these old men whose conscience otherwise bothers them everyday.
On an aside I will mention that Pakistan Army was once a magnificient force which produced any number of gentlemen-officers even in 1971. People like Gen. Sahibzada Yakub is an example of this kind. A brigade commander in 1971 was the legendary Brigadier Atif(107 Brigade, Area Commander, Feni) of hockey fame; I met him at the Hockey Club in Karachi once: this was the last officer who could engage in the atrocities we mention.
#659 Posted by krashid on February 16, 2001 11:57:31 am
Godot #601
Your comment regarding friends and enemy of Pakistan has any factual basis?
What is your definition of friend.
You said China. I agree. Then you said US. US is a country which utilized Pakistan against spread of communism in the form of Seato and Cento. It is the same country which prevented Pakistan from taking over Kashmir in 1962 when India was in weak position during its war with China. It is the same US which deserted Pakistan in 1965 again for war over Kashmir. Then you mentined India. I will skip this and hit you on your face three times to show that I am your best friend. Israel. Which is actively colluding with India against Pakistan.
Then you mentioned enemies. 1- Saudi Arabia. It is the country which has supported Pakistan through every thick and thin. 2- Taliban is actually a creation of Pakistan and Pakistan creates its own enemy. 3- Kashmiris. You should be thankful to God that you had the choice of living in India and when your family migrated to Pakistan you were taken with open arms. Kashmiris are enemy of Pakistan in what sense?
Or may be if you can elaborate a little bit on your thesis regarding your assertions. Because your assertion is very confusing.
Your comment regarding friends and enemy of Pakistan has any factual basis?
What is your definition of friend.
You said China. I agree. Then you said US. US is a country which utilized Pakistan against spread of communism in the form of Seato and Cento. It is the same country which prevented Pakistan from taking over Kashmir in 1962 when India was in weak position during its war with China. It is the same US which deserted Pakistan in 1965 again for war over Kashmir. Then you mentined India. I will skip this and hit you on your face three times to show that I am your best friend. Israel. Which is actively colluding with India against Pakistan.
Then you mentioned enemies. 1- Saudi Arabia. It is the country which has supported Pakistan through every thick and thin. 2- Taliban is actually a creation of Pakistan and Pakistan creates its own enemy. 3- Kashmiris. You should be thankful to God that you had the choice of living in India and when your family migrated to Pakistan you were taken with open arms. Kashmiris are enemy of Pakistan in what sense?
Or may be if you can elaborate a little bit on your thesis regarding your assertions. Because your assertion is very confusing.
#658 Posted by krashid on February 16, 2001 11:57:31 am
Siagalph235 #613
I agree with you.
Even if there was one army man from Pakistan doing the killing, murder, rape to its own people for demanding their long denied rights, it was a crime.
I salute the valiant Bengalis.
I agree with you.
Even if there was one army man from Pakistan doing the killing, murder, rape to its own people for demanding their long denied rights, it was a crime.
I salute the valiant Bengalis.
#657 Posted by shammi on February 16, 2001 11:57:31 am
Interesting tidbit with absolutely nothing do to with blasphemy:
``Kitna benaseeb hai Zafar ki dafn ke liye do gaz zameen bhi na mili kua yaar mein (how tragic that Zafar did not get two yards of space in his motherland to be buried there)`` thus wrote the poet-emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last Mughal emperor, in exile in Burma. To see a picture of India`s foreign minister bowing before his recently discovered grave in Yangon (Rangoon), visit:
http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/stories/01160006.htm
``Kitna benaseeb hai Zafar ki dafn ke liye do gaz zameen bhi na mili kua yaar mein (how tragic that Zafar did not get two yards of space in his motherland to be buried there)`` thus wrote the poet-emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last Mughal emperor, in exile in Burma. To see a picture of India`s foreign minister bowing before his recently discovered grave in Yangon (Rangoon), visit:
http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/stories/01160006.htm
#656 Posted by shankar on February 16, 2001 11:57:31 am
Urstruly,
Quit your griping about 71. Pakistan got its butt whipped. Live with it. All you Pakistanis can stand on whatever pedestal you want, cry & make all the excuses you want, post as many articles you want. It wont changed the bottom line. You lost. You got your butt whipped. Case closed.
What W.Pakistan did in E.Pakistan was drop its pants, bend over & present its butt to India. Dont cry because India kicked it! What the hell did you expect India to do--kiss it?!
If you want to place blame; blame your own stupidity. Wake up & smell the coffee pal. When is it going to sink in your thick skull that the rest of the world (let alone India) doesnt give a s *it what you say.
Same goes to your Kashmir propaganda. Feel good about how great a knight in shining armor your beloved Pakistan is. If it makes you feel better, I`m happy for you. I`ll even play the violin for you. Doesnt make a damn bit of difference. The rest of the world (let alone India) doesnt give a s *it what Pakistan says.
Live with it.
Quit your griping about 71. Pakistan got its butt whipped. Live with it. All you Pakistanis can stand on whatever pedestal you want, cry & make all the excuses you want, post as many articles you want. It wont changed the bottom line. You lost. You got your butt whipped. Case closed.
What W.Pakistan did in E.Pakistan was drop its pants, bend over & present its butt to India. Dont cry because India kicked it! What the hell did you expect India to do--kiss it?!
If you want to place blame; blame your own stupidity. Wake up & smell the coffee pal. When is it going to sink in your thick skull that the rest of the world (let alone India) doesnt give a s *it what you say.
Same goes to your Kashmir propaganda. Feel good about how great a knight in shining armor your beloved Pakistan is. If it makes you feel better, I`m happy for you. I`ll even play the violin for you. Doesnt make a damn bit of difference. The rest of the world (let alone India) doesnt give a s *it what Pakistan says.
Live with it.
#655 Posted by cheraym on February 16, 2001 11:57:31 am
Dear Bahmad:
I am not talking of any bloody revolution such as French. However, it is the revolution that ought to occur in our thinking in all levels. For that we need education to be the first and foremost tool, which our leaders have purposely kept away from the mass. So we all have to be involved, no matter how small it is, if we can be involved either by fostering/ donating/teaching/training even a small fraction of our less fortunate part of the community, we collectively would achieve something.
What is the reason for degeneartion of our morality? You said it did not start after the independence, which I agree, the pettyness in our people was always there. But why we became so corrupt? While we are not the only one in this world to be corrupt, but we destroyed our countries because of it, although we had so much potential. Just look at Mujibur Rahman, he had a goal, he mobilised people, and faught gallantly, but when the true moment came, he failed miserably.
The attitude of not letting anybody work when they are in opposition is another quality of us. This is the reason for regular strikes in Bangladesh and West Bengal. They just want to prove others wrong, this mentality has to change. What I have realised after seeing many Indians who are very established in abroad, that we fail to perform as a team, although individually we may be very good. To some extent, our inflated ego is responsible for that. May be Shankar can shed some light as a psychiatrist about the psyche of our people.
Also what Godot rightly points out is the status-quo that is one of the long line of factors causing our misery. And we really have to get out of it. This is my humble opinion.
Regards
I am not talking of any bloody revolution such as French. However, it is the revolution that ought to occur in our thinking in all levels. For that we need education to be the first and foremost tool, which our leaders have purposely kept away from the mass. So we all have to be involved, no matter how small it is, if we can be involved either by fostering/ donating/teaching/training even a small fraction of our less fortunate part of the community, we collectively would achieve something.
What is the reason for degeneartion of our morality? You said it did not start after the independence, which I agree, the pettyness in our people was always there. But why we became so corrupt? While we are not the only one in this world to be corrupt, but we destroyed our countries because of it, although we had so much potential. Just look at Mujibur Rahman, he had a goal, he mobilised people, and faught gallantly, but when the true moment came, he failed miserably.
The attitude of not letting anybody work when they are in opposition is another quality of us. This is the reason for regular strikes in Bangladesh and West Bengal. They just want to prove others wrong, this mentality has to change. What I have realised after seeing many Indians who are very established in abroad, that we fail to perform as a team, although individually we may be very good. To some extent, our inflated ego is responsible for that. May be Shankar can shed some light as a psychiatrist about the psyche of our people.
Also what Godot rightly points out is the status-quo that is one of the long line of factors causing our misery. And we really have to get out of it. This is my humble opinion.
Regards
#654 Posted by shammi on February 16, 2001 11:57:31 am
Sena’s method to madness: Carefully crafted
Considering the fact that these guys have 2.7% of India`s votes, they have to do something dramatic to gain attention. Results of previous exploits:
Feroz Shah Kotla pitch digging case, 1999 and the `Fire` poster burning case 2000: Offenders charged under section 147, 148, (Rioting) and 427 (mischief, causing damage) of the IPC.
Maximum sentence: three years imprisonment or fine or both.
Status: (Goyal`s) men are out on bail.
Valentine`s Day vandalism, 2001: Culprits charged under sections 160 (affray--when two or more persons disturb public peace) and 427.
Maximum sentence: Two years in prison or fine or both.
Status: Sainiks out on bail.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/160201/detfro02.asp
Considering the fact that these guys have 2.7% of India`s votes, they have to do something dramatic to gain attention. Results of previous exploits:
Feroz Shah Kotla pitch digging case, 1999 and the `Fire` poster burning case 2000: Offenders charged under section 147, 148, (Rioting) and 427 (mischief, causing damage) of the IPC.
Maximum sentence: three years imprisonment or fine or both.
Status: (Goyal`s) men are out on bail.
Valentine`s Day vandalism, 2001: Culprits charged under sections 160 (affray--when two or more persons disturb public peace) and 427.
Maximum sentence: Two years in prison or fine or both.
Status: Sainiks out on bail.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/160201/detfro02.asp