The Meaning of Pakistan

gymnosophist you say

`` bla bla, bla bla, bla bla....``

My reply: whatever!

go workout that fat in your skull.

re harimau

``No, no; Bangladesh was added to the countries that Muslims have; after that, the word has always been `country` in the singular, referring to YLH`s sohni dharty.``

I am glad you clarified that somewhat. But please understand that one of the essential differences between Pakistan and Bangladesh is the fact that Bangladesh is NOT A COUNTRY THAT MUSLIMS HAVE. Bangladesh is a country that BANGLADESHIS have. That Bangladeshis happen to be 85 % Muslim is not much different from that fact that the English happen to be 90 % Anglican. The raison d`etre of Bangladesh is not some general-turned maulana`s interpretation of Islam unlike Pakistan. Pakistan, as a matter of history, needed a basis of statehood. Bangladesh didn`t: history shows that Bengal was a political entity way back in the eighteenth century until the last ruler, the Nawab Sirajuddowla was martyred in the aftermath of the battle of Plassey in July 1757. As I have maintained before, Bengalis were practising Islam hundreds of years before General Ayub Khan and General Ziaul Haque discovered the faith anew for all of the world.

I cannot vouch for Pakistan, but in speaking to Bangladesh, India speaks to but another secular democracy and a member of the British Commonwealth.

Harimau #673

I will not argue with you further.

But as a reader of history, Mohammed PBUH can be placed as the most influential person in human history.

Also, the sources I read (meaning Hadith) are without doubt the most authentic account of incidences in his life.

And I realized the greatness, generosity, kindness and humanity and humility which are in keeping my ideals.

And without doubt, if I was born his time, I would be a very ardent admirer of him.

And your other information regarding Aisha RZAH is also wrong.

If you can trust Encycleopedia Brittanica on Islamic history, you can also trust them on computer technology.

They are just the introduction of subjects and in some instances are far removed from truth.

Give reference. Encycleopedia Brittanica is not a reference on subject of Islam and Islamic history.

Ref ylh #: 691

[Harimau,

You dont know me, and I suggest you keep your advice to yourself. I have never communicated with you, and I dont wish to.]

I can very well see that. Now if you will stop spouting nonsense about Gandhi (not that I agree with that man), that will be good.

But I will reiterate: Pakistan is headed the way of Afghanistan. So marry a gori and settle down in Raritan, NJ. Then you won`t even worry about your daughter dating an Unbeliever.

Ref sigalph235 #: 690

[Insofar that you have pointedly added Bangladesh to the following description, I take strong exception to your

``Now, if you would take those hand-wringing Hindus also into your country, you will have a steady supply of women and boys to rape and men to convert to The True Faith.``]

No, no; Bangladesh was added to the countries that Muslims have; after that, the word has always been `country` in the singular, referring to YLH`s sohni dharty.

References to Bajrang Dal and Orissa`s tribal belt are okay with me. I can take it as well as dish it out.

Wow Aisha, you made a World Record :)

Pakistan Zindabad

Bahmad:

The reason I was hesitant to ask you the question about ``Gandhian`` was threefold:

1. I could anticipate the negativity that any positive reference to Gandhi may generate and lead to the inevitable accusation/counter accusation.

2. Peaceful resistance is descriptive enough, applying a label of Gandhian to it can open up a can of worms.

3. I was not sure if you would entertain any questions from me since I had used foul language with regard to ali1 once.

Looks like I was right on #1 and #2 but wrong on #3.

With regards to Gandhi, let us judge him by his OWN words and motivations. Let not others ascribe motives to him. That is a major problem with the Hamzai critique.

For all those who argue that somehow Gandhi ignited a strong religious Muslim aspect to politics via the Khilafat movement is to argue that Muslims had no mind of their own. Its just not tenable. Religious identites are very strong in the Indian sub-continent and neither Gandhi nor Jinnah invented them. The question as to how to proceed forward is what divided the two.

I cannot support Jinnah`s divisive policies even today - and his politics should have been designed to appeal to me as well - as a should-have-been Lahori, a citizen in the heart of his secular country. I can at least appreciate the principles behind what Gandhi was trying to do although he may have been hopelessly utopian/stupid.

In response to tantralogician (Reply # 688)
Dear Friend:

Your statement: ``It is curious that you don`t require that Mr. Alavi justify his opinions but require me to. I suggest to you that you have the wrong end of the stick.``

My reply: This whole discussion started when I used a phrase ``peaceful resistance``. Truth, came forward and linked this to Gandhiji`s approach to peaceful resistance. Ali1 then used this opportunity to release some of his anger. He also provided a link to an interview of Hamza Alavi (in Jang, a daily newspaper). I provided a link to Hamza Alavi`s own writing (in English) for the benefit of those who cannot read Urdu. After reading this piece, you also reacted in anger.

Your wonder why I didn`t require Professor Alavi to justify his opinions about Gandhiji. My answer is simple. First, I am not a Gandhilogist. Second, I am not sure if his observations/opinions are valid or invalid. Third, my intent in posting his piece was not to provide a critique of his piece. I am, however, a bit uneasy about Hamza Alavi`s opinions/observations about Gandhiji.

Now, why I asked you for a critique. Simply, because of your reaction. I hope you will understand.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Harimau,

You dont know me, and I suggest you keep your advice to yourself. I have never communicated with you, and I dont wish to.

-YLH

hairamu #687

Insofar that you have pointedly added Bangladesh to the following description, I take strong exception to your

``Now, if you would take those hand-wringing Hindus also into your country, you will have a steady supply of women and boys to rape and men to convert to The True Faith.``

I do not speak for the tribal belt in Pakistan or the Bajrang Dal in Gujarat and Orissa, but forceful conversions and sodomite perversions are more in keeping with those areas than Bengal. And frankly, when it comes to the rape of women, Pakistan (1971 in Occupied Bangladesh) and India (1989-date in Occupied Kashmir) will find no parallels in Bangladesh. Indians and Pakistanis have a lot to offer in terms of wisdom and experience but they are firmly out of place dishing out lectures to Bangladesh about religious tolerance and sexual misconduct.

Bilal Ahmedji :

Thanks for your comments. Now I have some reading to do :-)

-Arun

Response to #681

ahmadb wrote:

``However, you need to establish, showing your good scholarship, that Hamza Alavi’s piece reflects his unwarranted bias again Mahatma Gandhi.``

I shall point you to three half-truths in the article:

1) ``Gandhi was also very skillful in cultivating

and exploiting a saintly image.``

2) ``Gandhi had a flair for agitational politics but only so long as he remained in absolute control.``

3) ``But this was a political opportunity that he was waiting for. He took shelter behind the excuse that it was for his brothers, the Indian Muslims, to define the issue.``

Re. #1, Gandhi never sought the allegiance of his countrymen through fraud or trickery. Rather, he won them over by his exalted way of life and thinking. He didn`t have to and didn`t ``cultivate`` or ``exploit`` anything or anybody. His was an open life. He lived what he professed.

Re. #2, what ``absolute control`` is the author talking about?

Re. #3, same response as #1.

There are many more of such half-truths and/or falsehoods in that piece. Blanket pronouncements not supported by evidence. It is curious that you don`t require that Mr. Alavi justify his opinions but require me to. I suggest to you that you have the wrong end of the stick.

ahmadb:

``I do, however, have problem with the kind of language you used for Mr. Jinnah and for Alavi’s piece.``

Most of what I said of Jinnah are matters of fact. Perhaps ``runt`` was a matter of opinion. On this we could agree to disagree.

ahmadb:

``In sum, I suggest that you write an article for the Chowk critiquing Hamza Alavi’s piece.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad``

Thank you for the suggestion. I will think about it (writing on Chowk). Critiquing Mr. Alavi`s slapdash piece, however, is not what I would consider for myself time well spent.

Wassalam,

tantralogician

Ref ylh #: 657

[Gandhi`s objective behind playing the ``Mullahs`` against the ``educated`` elite might not entirely be based on his malicious intent, but his personal convictions about Religious illiterate masses being a better community to bring about change. Nevertheless I agree he was wrong, especially in the Khilafat Movement, which turned out to be a collossal failure.]

You have accused Gandhi -- in posts on other boards -- as the one who brought Hindu religion into the political arena and have waxed eloquent about how Jinnah was the true secular democrat.

In his support of the Khilafat movement, Gandhi was equally supportive of MUSLIM aspirations. He was thus putting Hindus and Muslims on an equal footing in HIS thinking. But pathetic idiots like you and that flaming as * * *le Ali1 find a way to twist anything to fit your viewpoint.

I am really glad that people like you got your own countries (I am including Bangladesh here, hence the plural). Now, if you would take those hand-wringing Hindus also into your country, you will have a steady supply of women and boys to rape and men to convert to The True Faith.

As for democracy in Pakistan, you can dream all you want. As for a secular Pakistan, I don`t think even Allah is going to be able to help you there. In fact, Allah is the problem, not the mullahs, because the mullahs quote Allah. The only secular democratic country in the area -- however flawed and thus giving you opportunities to point fingers -- will be India. The longer you guys think of Pakistan as ``not India``, the faster you will be sliding towards 7th century Arabia. That and the exultation some people feel at all that Arab blood coursing through their veins should give you honorary membership in the community of camel-jockeys plus the opportunity to work calling camels across the sands of Araby.

I wish you could stop this self-torture that all this talk about a secular democratic Pakistan entails. Get married, get a job and have a few children; then you can start worrying about your daughter dating an Unbeliever as opposed to the problems of Pakistan.

re: Macgupta

Dear Arun,

Stay tuned!

:)

tantralogician # 675

My dear friend! You make a wonderful argument about intellectual honesty but undercut it immediately by adopting the simplistic `I am honest, you are not` stance. Don`t you think that this stance may itself be a product of our being prisoners of particular dominant discourses (or whatever else those fancy sociologists call these things!): the limits of our discourse determine not only what we know, but also how we evaluate the veracity of what we know.

This means that we are likely to always believe that what we know is true/right (hence we are honest); and, what others following a radically different kind of discourse know is false/wrong (hence they are dishonest).

What, then, is the solution to the challenge of understanding the world around us? Is there no `truth?` Or, to ask a weaker question, is there no `way of knowing` the truth?

I think such pessimism is unwarranted. At least, such intellectual hopelessenss is not a natural or unavoidable consequence the fact that existing systems of meaning shape human understanding. I think, this is where people who take the approach that ``all is interepretation`` (interpretists?) or that ``my culture is true for me, your culture is true for you`` (culturalists?) draw unjustified conclusions. Russel and his call for intellectual honesty may still have much relevance!

So, let us begin by ALL of us becoming more honest :)

re hairamu#673

You are broaching some issues which will never yield reasonable discussion and debate with even the `moderate` Muslims, let alone the other kind. The fact is that Islam, unlike Christianity, has not gone through the Reformation yet. Notwithstanding what lurking questions some Muslims may privately have, it goes against their raison d`etre to entertain the slightest negative thoughts, never mind questions, about the Holy Prophet. We have to face the fact that, for the time being at least, Mohammad(PBUH) is above and beyond the farthest limits of discussion.

On a more academic level, I think that the mists of time, tales, and suprestition have so thoroughy clouded that period of Arab history that it will be nothing short of a miracle to retrieve actual facts from then.

So, continue if you will, but understand that this is a topis where you will most likely not get reasoned and reasonable answers. Someday, may be. But not today.