This Visit To Pakistan

re asif n`s

``...if their millions of mureeds hadn`t voted for the Quaid Pakistan would never have come into being. ``

The Quaid was never up for direct election. As for the last elections to the provincial legisltures that were held prior to Pakistan, let`s see:

A. Punjab returned a non-Muslim League majority

B. The Frontier had a Congress ministry

C. Baluchistan and its affiliated States did not have legislative elections.

D. Sind returned a Muslim League ministry

E. Bengal returned a razor thin Muslim League ministry that was to fall at the very next election in 1954.

Now then, who were these murids voting for? Horror of horrors, don`t say that `kafir` Khan Ghaffar Khan!

Sir, Pakistan was not created by your mullahs and their murids any more than it was created by the House of Commons in London. In fact Pakistan was fought for and created by men and women who dreamt and sacrificed it all for the hope of a modern, progressive, free country where Muslims would be safe (here is the distinction you guys conveniently ignore after the death of the Quaid). I know it: all my four grandparents were staunch Muslim Leaguers and dictrict/provincial office bearers (my late grandmother was the secy of the Delhi Muslim Women League). They left everything but the clothes on their back to move to Pakistan. And none of them ever voted for the Jamaat, the JUI, or the assorted bigot class during their entire blessed lives. Don`t tell me who created Pakistan!

Dear Godot:

Don`t you think there is a difference between state-sponsored act vs. act by a mob? Any sensible Indian will be ashamed at the destruction of the Babri Masjid. But can you imagine India is tearing down Tajmahal because it was built by a muslim emperor?

Has Taliban finished making their country before they are set out to destroy? Are all the war-widows given job? Or are they allowed to commit mass suicide. You are one of the very sensible chowkies, so it feels bad when you get involved in futile argument.

Hope you do not mind, and best regards.

re jay

``Join your ambassador with the begging bowl, from dawn of today. ``

That`s a very ill-mannered thing to say about one of the most decent, intelligent and suave diplomats ever produced by Pakistan. Dr Lodhi is only engaging in well known conventions of diplomacy even if the Jafri write-up is true.

re adnan

``Shariah is the Islamic Law. You says it is useless now, yet u profess a deep love for religion. ``

I have little to add, as I mentioned earlier, about the religious laws of communities. The Shariah between individual Muslims is fine and the state has no need to enforce it than the it does to enforce the Roman Catholic prohibition against divorce. It is the Shariah and the catechism and the talmudic law enforced by the dictates of a state that is repulisive, repugnant, and contrary to a modern polity.

As for my religion, it is a matter between me and my Maker. Yes, I do have a deep Love for Him. And such Love is entirely independent of what you and the various folks with outlandish titles (shaikh, mufti, allama, ayatollah etc) think about me. After all, I know this for a fact (and your writings show that you probably are unsure) that on the Last Day, I`ll be judged only by a jury of One as will be every other man and woman. And trust me that jury of One does not include the Sheikh of al-Azhar, Imam Ghazzali, Pope Pius X, or even the petty Pirs that dot the Sindhi landscape.

re asif n`s

``Sigalph. I`m afraid you are wrong. To rule by quran and sunnah is necessary according to Allah (in His Qur`an) , His Messenger [sal allahu alayhi wa sallam] and all of the scholars of this great Ummah from the time of the Companions to today whether we like it or not. So you might not agree but it doesn`t make it any less not necessary.``

And I believe that Allah appointed you his Special Rapporteur to tell us what He wants to be done in parliament today, right? The Roman Catholic Pope (whose predecessors said the same kind of nonsense your sheikhs are spewing about a kingdom of the righteous) thinks he is the vox dei (Voice of God) and you and your shaeikhs think each of them is. Apparently the concept of `shirk` is as alien to you as to the Pope and his reverend bishops. I have news for your types: neither the Pope nor you nor the rest of your reverend sheikhs, muftis, and maulanas are partners with Allah no matter how loud your claim is. When I want to communicate with my Maker, I`ll need only his Grace not the crutches peddled by the petty merchants of religion.

Oh, what ``Ummah`` are you referring to? The one which keeps all its money drawing interest in New York banks while the poorer Muslim countries suffer a lack of capital? Or the one which calls Muslims from South Asia ``miskeen`` and ``ajnabi``? Or perhaps the one which pays white foreigners double and triple the salary that their equally qualified brown Muslim brother make? The ``Ummah``- a more non-existent social concept has not been devised by the most evil of minds. Give me a break, brother!

Naqshbandi

You are absolutely devoid of Historical Knowledge.... Quaid e Azam said, in Dehli responding to a resolution by Dr Kazi to make the future constitution of Pakistan based on Hukoomat e Illahya, that will amount to ``a vote of censure on every leaguer``.

Yasser Hamdani

First of all Prophet Muhammad has gone down in History as a great Arab Nationalist, lets not forget that!Secondly, The ulema you mentioned, jumped on to the Pakistan bandwagon, because they could see their hegemony ending.

Jinnah made it clear that Pakistan would be Modern Democracy with sovereignty resting in the people regardless of religion caste or creed (Doon Campbell 21st May 1947), and vetoed resolutions calling for the future constitution of Pakistan to be based on the Quran (Dehli Muslim League Session

1943)....

This was repeated countless times, and I can provide you with exact details... Now in Pakistan we will take the lead from Quaid e Azam (who was by the way an admirer of the Zindiq Ataturk .. read Patna address 1938) not some Chishti or Naqshbandi sheikh.

Pakistani or Indo-Muslim Nationalism, like Turk Nationalism, is not ``Watan`` but ``Millet``. As a matter of fact Iqbal quoted Ziya Gokalp many times in his book ``Reconstruction of religious thought in Islam``.... Millet is not Ummet! Millet is true Nationhood, as defined by Gokalp and followed by Iqbal. Watan is ethno-Nationalism.

Iqbal said before he died ``Ask Muslims to pray for Kemal Ataturk and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, because Muslims still need them``. It is quite clear that to Iqbal ``Secular Nationalist Ataturk`` was not a Zindiq. You people use Iqbal to your own benefit,

but you are nothing but liars.

Read ``Reconstruction of Religious Thought``... You can believe in your outdated ideas, but dont .. and I repeat... Dont ever dare to associate the pristine names of Jinnah and Iqbal to your nonsense.

Yasser Hamdani

PS Next time you call me a Mushrik, remember you are being one too by the virtue of equating yourself to God by deciding my fate.

RE: harami hindoos on Taleban and Buddha

Are taleban doing anything worse to Buddha`s statues than what your leaders (Advani et. al.) did to the Babri Mosque?

Can`t imagine a lower life form than the bay sharam dhoti clads.

Re: Asif Naqshbandi, #263

``What is more important--being a Pakistani or being a Muslim?``

Any sane person, including Jinnah, would say: a Pakistani.

``this kind of narrow minded nationalism has resulted in the muslim umaah being divided amongst itself.``

When was the last time the ummah was united (leave that little tribe at the time of the Prophet out)?

``We [Pakistan] were created to be an islamic state``

That`s the core of the fateful debate. For some, including Jinnah, Pakistan was meant to be a homeland for the Muslims of India, not an Islamic State.

Re: Asif Naqshbandi #263

Quite right. Especially in the Punjab, the Pirs/Sajda-Nashins/other-mumbo-jumbo-artists deserted the Unionists en masse in 1946 to back the Muslim League precisely because they were afraid of the headway being made by Maudoodi and his ilk among the lower-middle classes in the urban areas. Don`t forget, in Maudoodi`s version of Islam, the mumbo-jumbo artists are as great an evil as Mr. Jinnah (ham eater and whiskey drinker that he was). However, your Sufis did not back him because he was going to impose the Sharia, they backed him because he was an alternative to Maudoodi`s wahabism. They knew that he was never going to persecute them if he won power. Don`t forget, these same people backed the Unionists to the hilt until 1946 and the Unionists were never going to impose any sort of Islam anywhere!

YLH,

you have made nationalism into a ``god`` and you worship it. What is more important--being a Pakistani or being a Muslim?! It is this kind of nationalism which you so emotionally believe in which our beloved Nabi sal allahu alayhi wa sallam warned of and even a `modernist` like Alama Iqbal has warned of it; see his nazm on wataniyyat.

this kind of narrow minded nationalism has resulted in the muslim umaah being divided amongst itself.

Shar`iat is shar`iat whether you agree with it or not. And we are ordered to rule by it as Muslims.

Not to ``modernise`` it in the name of pragmatism just so the kuffar will love you.

And please,don`t use the fact that i am not living in pakistan against me-- rutgers was not in Lahore last time i checked...

We should be worried about the plight of the Muslims WHEREEVER THEY ARE IN THE WORLD. So as a Muslim (and a Pakistani-i was born in pakistan) it is my right to worry and care about my country and the direction it should take.

BTW, it is an historical fact that without the support of the sunni ulama (barelvis) pakistan would never have come into being. Especially the sufi shaykhs -notably the Chishti Shaykhs, Hazrat Pir Sayyid Jama`at Ali Shah Naqshbandi (quds sirruhu) and Hazrat Pir Mihr Ali Shah Qadiri were instrumental campaigned tirelessly for the creation of Pakistan and if their millions of mureeds hadn`t voted for the Quaid Pakistan would never have come into being. Hazrat Pir Sayyid Jama`at Ali Shah ORDERED his murids to vote for pakistan saying he would not read the janazah of any one of his murids who didn`t. He, may Allah sanctify his secret, alone had 1 million or more murids throughout the breadth and depth of hindustan. And all these sunni ulama were clear that they were voting for an ISLAMIC Pakistan. The evidence is in many books. For those of your elk, one by Gilmartin, and another by an indian lady scholar in the USA called Usha Sanyal (who did her phd on this) (Devotional Islam and British Politics: Ahmed Raza KHan and His MOvement) are books u should read.

(Typically, it was the Wahabis like Maududi and most of the deobandis who opposed pakistan and called the quaid a ``kafir e azam``) Do you think these great Sunni ulama and shaykhs would have voted for pakistan if they wanted it to be secular? (It was Hazrat Pir Sayyid Jama`at Ali Shah rahmatullah alayhi who gave the Quaid the idea of having two flags, a green one and a black one (?) and using them in his campaign, asking people which do you want to vote for ``islam or kufr``? (ref: Seerat e Amir e Millat).

So there. We were created to be an islamic state and we will insha Allah become one. As Prof. Tahirul Qadri once put it Qur`an and Sunnah is higher than any Constitution...

Zahra #239:

You are seeing things in my reply, that do not exist there.

If someone expresses their opinion in a reply, it is their right. One can agree or disagree with it. But their is no reason to go beyond that. When someone publishes it as an article, then they are requesting a critique of their stance. That is different from a reply. Otherwise why publish it on an open forum.

``People should get your blessings before they do something for their country Or should they enroll in your database as the ones who`ve done something. Pathetic!``

Could you point out where I stated that people should get my permission for doing anything (if you cannot point it out and have just made an incorrection deduction, then I hope you will admit it. Incorrect deductions are a waste of everyone`s time, and lead to useless arguments). You have assumed this on your own, and have then come to the conclusion that it is pathetic. In essence, you have put words in my mouth, and have reached a conclusion based on the words you put in my mouth, in the first place. I cannot defend anything that I never stated.

``Well, you can certainly have rules and roles defined for yourself, but you should refrain from telling others - By doing that, you are negating your very own sermon. Care to check on consistency?)....Again, you are suggesting what they should or they should not do. This whole post sounded pretty damn hypocritical than anything else.``

You have taken this out of context, also. I think no one should go to Pakistan from North America, and preach to the students in universities, regarding their (students) own problems. This is an opinion, I have expressed, on an open forum. I would not state this opinion to a group of students or to a gathering in which I had some position of authority (like as a lecturer). I would stick to my area of expertise.

There is a big difference between expressing one`s opinion in a discussion, and preaching from a position of authority. A discussion is between equals, and thus one cannot preach. In a lecture or presentation, the lecturer/presenter is in a position of leadership, and is thus the center of attraction. People are expecting him/her to tell them something they do not know, and they are more likely to follow his/her advice. This is specially true when the audience is composed of young students. In that type of a forum, one should stick to what one knows, or where one lives. So it is one thing to discuss the solutions of Pakistan, it is another to try to preach those solutions from a position of authority, when one is unwilling to live in Pakistan himself/herself.

There is also a big difference between critiquing a piece that someone has put on a forum for critique, and attempting to critique a critique (reply). I am doing the former you are doing the later.

Your use of exclamation marks, and words like, ``damn`` seem to indicate your emotions while writing this reply. However, I am not going to make a deduction about your intentions, and will stick to the words you have stated. I hope you will stop making deductions about my intentions, and stick to the words I have written.

I have just expressed my views regarding the article, assuming that is why the writer placed the article on this website. If you don`t agree with my reply, that is your choice. It`s a free world. However, please do not attempt to read my mind, or put words in my mouth. And please remember that if you use words like, ``pathetic, ``damn,`` ``hyprocricy,`` so frequently (not to mention the generous use of exclamation marks), others could stoop to this level, and use similar words against you, as well.

A simple, ``I do not agree with what you are stating, because I think you are practicing exactly what you are accusing the author of`` would have sufficed. I hope that is not asking for too much.

In any case, you have completely missed the point I was tyring to make in my reply.

Umairr

adnan #248 AOA

``1. Proof: Well how were they organized, armed and supported financially ISI? IB? etc etc etc etc``

Please be serious. If you dont have any proof, be honest and say so. You are just presenting questions as if they were answers.

2. ``The MYC had brought the two sides together before the hanging of Haq Nawaz some sort of settlement could have been reached this was communnicated to the government but in their great wisdom they decided to carry out the execution which (I hope I m wrong) will lead to further bloodshed. My point the est. does not want peace. ``

Who will conduct out the bloodshed, and whose blood will be shed? The man was a convicted killer who was hanged after due process. While the death of any man is an occasion for sadness, what is the alternative? To allow killing of innocent people to go unchallenged by society? Society has a right to defend itself from killers.

``Ofcourse i cannot give u tape recordings etc. but u seem to be a person who can read b/w the lines.``

I dont read between lines - if I dont know, I say I dont know. You can reach any convenient conclusion you like otherwise, and that just makes you dishonest man - it does change the fact that you dont know.

``2. I disagree on ur point that trying to get into power is inherently wrong. ``

Getting into power is not inherently wrong. The question is whether you do that through violence or through due process. You are advocating violence, I am sorry to see. The mullahs ran unsuccessfully for elections for 40 years. When they routinely were rejected by the people, they changed their tune and starting saying the democracy is haram. What kind of individuals are these? Can such dishonest and power hungry individuals be given the same respect that one would normally give to a human being?

``The Prophet initially tried to convince the leaders of Qureish (recall Suarah e Abas and its shaan e nazool), ``

Is there someone among the mullahs who claims to be the Prophet`s successor? If you respected the Quran, you would give examples from there, rather than giving your interpretation of how the Holy Prophet`s actions: the Holy Prophet would be appalled by the way you people have ignored the message he was charged with delivering. His entire message is about Allah and the Judgement Day, while you only go by the way the Prophet is supposed to have lived your life.

``Btw u r not the first to put forward such arg.``

This is not relevant. Whether one man says something or a million - you have to reach your own conclusions based on the Quran. Focus on the simple advice I keep giving you: try to understand the Quran with an open mind, not one befogged by politics.

``My pont was simply to contradict ur assertion that the Mullahs do not do any social work and simply want power. This is incorrect and I gave u a first hand exp. to prove this pt.``

That is good, and I said so in my previous post. I hope you will agree that there is a lot more that mullahs, and all the rest of us, could do. Personally, I would welcome it if the mullahs tried, e.g. to visit the sick and the poor (rather than hanging around the Pajeros and gunmen of the would-be pharaohs of Pakistan); organized community efforts to improve the quality of life for the average citizen, and security from crime in our neigborhoods; spoke out for the peasants who are oppressed by the landlords; and tried to help our young people to get inspiration from the Quran in order to grow up to be honest in their dealings, interested in science and learning, true to their word, respectful of others and in awe of no man, and able to judge when a man is living according to the instructions of the Quran and when he is not and knowing to shun such men. But these are things that the mullahs are by and large not concerned with.

``4. My wish is also that u accept Islam as it has been acceted for the last 1400 yrs and ...``

We are expected to accept Islam the way it was conveyed to us via the Holy Prophet. Not to accept Islam the way it has been implemented (for better or worse) through the ages. As I said to sattar2: the Quran says that we should follow the true path even if it is different from what even our parents believe in, while remaining respectful and loving to our parents. The beliefs of the Ahmadis and of the mullahs are not very different, even though they hate one another. The only real diffence is that Ahmadis are not a political threat to Pakistan and the mullahs are.

``I also think u r sincere in ur views though misled being too impressed by wetern ideals (maybe a legacy of the Raj)``

I hope you will refrain from passing personal judgements (and insults) of this kind and stick to the issues.

``I pray to Allah to lead us to the rt path.``

I join you in this prayer. Ameen.

Re: shankar, #253

``Taliban`s behaviour in destroying historical/religious artefacts is disgusting. It is more disgusting that they are doing it in the name of religion.``

I find it quite amusing that Babri Masjid was not mentioned in your post. Is that because, for you, those responsible for the destruction of the Masjid are more enlightened than the Talebans? Is it something not worth mentioning? Or is it that you conveniently forgot it?

Now, since I mentioned it, I bet your next post will denounce the destruction of the Masjid, and you`ll call those responsible for it ``zealots`` because you`ll try to put up a face of a moderate and reasonable person. Then -- and it is quite important -- you`ll try to get back at me. Since your vocabulary seems to be limited to a level of an ignorant and an illiterate (witness your post #245 to RSaxena), you will use similar adjectives in trying to describe me! Now, pick those ``turd`` up (you seem to be quite good at it) and start hurling them!

Asif Naqshbandi,

I am sorry, but the enforcement of the laws said to be divinely revealed is a chimerical ideal. If cutting off peoples` hands, and giving women half the rights of men, is what you mean by Shariat, then I am afraid you dont understand the saliant features of Pakistan`s creation, the two nation theory, or for that matter the working of a Modern state.

Now dont tell me that all of Prophet`s dictums are applicable in the Modern Age, because in saying that you are making a mockery of Muslim beliefs, the Islamic idealism and the religion of Islam itself. Prophet`s most admirable quality is his pragmatism, and what you are suggesting is directly opposed to the Pragmatism....

I dont care what you believe in, and how you want to see Pakistan, because I dont need to care about a Tanzeem e Islami theorist living in the UK.

Pakistan was not created for any religious doctrine or any such thing. The Muslim of South Asia constituted a nation according to the paradigm of Modern Nationalism and not on the basis of 7th century Arabia. Their unification as a nation depended on Historical antecedents, and common religio-social beliefs.

If you read the Lahore Resolution, you get a clear picture of the Muslim Demand. Postulate 4 makes it abundantly clear, that the Secular Muslim Majority State(s) were to have clear constitutional safeguards for their Minorities, whereas the Secular Hindu Majority state was to have clear constitutional safeguards for their Muslim Minority.

Ziya Gokalp in his book, ``the Principles of Turkism``, extends the follwoing definition of ``Nationhood``...

``...since race has no relationship to social traits, neither can it have any with nationality,

which is the sum total of social characteristics ...social solidarity rests on cultural unity, which is transmitted by means of education and therefore has no relationship with consanguinity...a nation is not a racial or ethnic or geographic or political or volitional group but one composed of individuals who share a common language, religion, morality or aesthetics, that is to say, who have received the same education.``

Indeed, taking into account this definition we can clearly see why Jinnah was so adamant in making Urdu the sole National Language of Pakistan.Both the Kurdish issue, and the creation of Bangladesh are infront of us as evidence of Gokalp`s enlightened vision.

So you understand the creation of Pakistan has nothing to do with the creation of a theocracy like the kind you want. It was a natural consequence of a Historical problem, and I know I am going to be attacked by our Indian Friends because of this, but I can only offer them another book to consult as reference....

``Pakistan or Partition of India by BR Ambedkar

1945 Thacker and company Bombay``

Yasser Latif Hamdani

Rsuxena #240, ``I am not Muslim.``

Thank God for that. And for the respect of the Hindu community, I hope you`re not Hindu either.

I know devout Hindus who respect other people`s religions and cultures, very different from your

poisonous rantings.

Rsuxena #255, ``Why are you supporting the Taliban in this act? ``

Gawd you`re stupid. Yes I`m supporting the Taleban. I just sent a box of TNT to Osama Bin Laden. Hope this confession gives you a moment of premature pleasure.

Re: Asif

``Allah is Perfect and He created His Messenger perfect too. How dare we then have our own opinions! Astaghfirullah. Remember the Quran says it is not befitting for believers to have their own opinion when Allah and His Messenger have decided on a matter....``

You said it dude!! How dare anyone have his own opinions! Just because evolution created brains, doesn`t mean they have to be used! Allah said so!