Towards Greater Tolerance

when questioning pakistan`s ideology, pakistanis would say `how can one question one`s existence?` as a way to scrape any reason question the basis for a country.

but really, there`s no reason to have ANY ideology. the only ideology should be to give a better life to a people- and just as a people. Qaid-e-Azam, Gandhi, Nehru, and the rest of the leaders played their roles- we don`t have the onus to defend or perpetuate their visions. They had their points but what of it? Their only point we need is that of tolerance for each other. Everything else is mere triviality.

Ref Romair #78

[Certain minority communities have done very well. Parsis are probably the most successful group in Pakistan - more successful than even Muslim majorities. Ahmadis probably have the highest literacy rate. Christians have done well in places like the military. And Convent and Christian schools are the elite schools in Pakistan.]

What happened to the Hindus of Pakistan, the largest group amongst minorities? I suppose they are wandering the desert in Balochistan.

Hello Umer, here is some more to turn you green wrt faloodas & UK laws:-

a) The bestest faloodas were, for some reason, those with a mixture of green (khus), white (milk badaam) and orange (saffron). This time around, there was a version with Blue Curacao added. This is a True Fact.

b) In UK, people of all three genders can have sex with their windows open even if these windows are on to streets or for basements . . . but they cannot have sex in public places. Ponds where ducks swim are not public places. Eating ducks in public places is illegal. Eating everything else in public places is legal, as long as you do not spi it out. True Fact.

+++

Indian Geography 101. Kerala is a coastal State in India. It has amazingly lovely waterways, great Ceylonese Parathas at Jose Junction, as well as strong matriarchal society fundamentals across religions. As on date, it also has 395 applications from Pakistanis seeking refugee status pending with the Indian Central Government. The guards in the Cochin Jail can only speak Hindi. (The guards in the Delhi Jail can only speak Tamil). True Fact.

To Romair bhai
As to your general question the Muslim world is split generally into a number of sects the main, in our time, being Sunni (i.e. those on the aqida of Imam Ash`ari and Imam Maturidi AND who follow one of the 4 madhhabs of Sunni fiqh (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, Hanbali) --including the Sufi tariqats within the Sunnis; the Shias (who are divided in subsects: Ithna Isharis[`Rafidis---but see quote below], Zaydis, Ismailis) and the Wahabis/Wahabi-influenced groups (eg some Deobandis, Ahle Hadis) and other ghair-muqallids (those who do not follow a single school of thought). About 90% of the Muslims by the above definition are Sunnis.


regarding ``Rafidis``


The following is quoted from Shaykh Gibril Haddad (a Sunni Shaykh from Lebanon who converted to Islam and is also a Sufi):

``
The Ithna `Ashari (literally, ``Twelvers``) are the largest group of the Shi`a and are also called Imamis after their doctrine that their twelve Imams are immune from sin (ma`sum). The Shi`a are also known as Rawafid, or Rafidis, or Rafida, although strictly speaking the Rawafid are only one extreme group among them. However, if we should take Ruhullah Khomayni as an accurate representative of the Ithna `Asharis, it would seem that most of them today are actually Rafidis although they do not show it at all times, but Allah knows best.

Below is an answer from Imam Muhammad Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi, given in his Fatawa al-Haramayn (Waqf Ikhlas offset reprint p. 10):


Question Three: What is the Status of the Rafadah?
Answer: The Rafidi, if he prefers Amir al-Mu`minin `Ali to the Two Shaykhs [Abu Bakr and `Umar] - Allah be well-pleased with all of them - is an innovator (mubtadi`) as stated in al-Khulasa, [al-Fatawa] al-Hindiyya and other books; but if he denies the validity of the Imamates of Abu Bakr and `Umar or the validity of the Imamate of one of the two, then the jurists (fuqaha`) declared him kafir while the theologians (mutakallimun) declared him an innovator - and the latter ruling is the more precautionary one. If he claims (1) to correct Allah Most High [i.e. in sending the Revelation to the Prophet rather than `Ali] or (2) that the existing Qur`an is defective or (3) that the Companions or anyone else altered it, or (4) that Amir al-Mu`minin [`Ali] or any other of the pure Imams is better than the Prophets in the sight of Allah - upon them all blessings and peace - as openly claimed by the Rafadah of our regions [India] and as stipulated in our time by their Mujtahid - he is definitely a kafir and the ruling that applies to him is that of apostates, as stated in al-Hindiyya quoting the Zahiriyya and in al-Hadiqa al-Nadiyya and others of the Fiqh books. We have enlarged upon this question in our epistle _al-Maqala al-Mufassira `an Ahkam al-Bid`a al-Mukaffira_. ``

(from his ``living islam`` website).

****

jaishemuhammad #75: I have heard and read a lot of BS in my life. But I have to say the article you have presented rates the highest on the BS meter.

As someone who has actually volunteered to risk his life for his country, i.e. me, let me ask you a question: Why is it that all these sectarian groups try to protect Islam (of their variety) by fighting each other? Has any of them actually fought, ``for`` Pakistan, as a whole. Where the hell are they, when Pakistan gets threatened by India?

Where are all the leaders of these parties, the Qazis and the Fazls and the Azam Tariqs and all else, when they are needed on the border? Anoyne can go and shoot an innocent doctor at an intersection, how many of them are willing to stand in front of an Indian tank?

The current Cheif of the PAF is a Shia. He is responsible for protecting the whole airspace of Pakistan, including nuclear installations, homes, schools and all the Sunnis and Shias etc. He did quite a good job, when the Indians recently piled up the biggest force since WWII on any one border. If it wasn`t for him, the Sunnis, Shias and whomever else would be rubble.

How many Sunni countries came to Pakistan` aid when India was threatening it? Not one Shia country, but not one Sunni country either.

I have been saying for a long time, that this whole concept of Ummah, in the present day world, is a pipedream - I wish it weren`t, but it is. No country, Muslim or otherwise, is going to come to Pakistan`s aid. I think Pakistan, at a national level, needs to stop coming to their aid either, until they get their priorities straight -Shia or Sunni or Christian or Jewish or of any other faith.

#75 by jaishemuhammad on January 31, 2003 7:18pm PT
//....Well said brother Naqshbandi.....Beaware of the shia learn their religion like u learn the religion of the kafireen...//

(Sunni)Muslims are openly threatening other(Shia) muslims. Forget about tolerance for other faiths - they can`t even tolerate people of their own faith.

Mr Hamdani - there goes your case for ``tolerance`` in Pakistan. Also the case for great Ummah.

Yasser, dear boy, your plea for greater tolerance has come too late for these Pakistanis affected by 55 years of Pakistani intolerance and 23 years of jihad. As usual, it is the poor, the undocumented, the illegals, who pay the price. The sons and daughters of generals have the visa officer in Islamabad granting them green cards under special category for foreign leaders and their families. As usual, the Pakistani Army has managed to stab the people once again in the back.

How many families in Pakistan will now lose their monthly remittance that was their sole source of support?

The sins of the fathers are supposed to be visited on the sons. The sins of Jinnah are indeed being visited on Pakistanis.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/31/canada.border.closing/index.html

Canada turns away Pakistanis fleeing United States
Crowding in advance of INS deadline forces policy change
Friday, January 31, 2003 Posted: 8:32 PM EST (0132 GMT)

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Canada has begun sending back Pakistanis from the United States who arrive at border crossings seeking refuge.

The crackdown began Thursday, one day after CNN and the Washington Post reported hundreds of Pakistanis, many carrying all their belongings and leading small children, were walking in subfreezing temperatures across the U.S. border to ask for amnesty in Canada.

Men from Pakistan face a February 21 deadline to register with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service under a new program that tracks their whereabouts.

Many of the immigrants have visas or full residency in the United States, but they have been panicked by stories that Pakistanis who show up to comply with the new INS requirements have been detained for months on minor technical violations, then deported without their children.

At some border crossings, Canada had been accepting the Pakistani immigrants` asylum applications and letting them enter the country within hours. As of Thursday, though, all border crossing began sending them back to U.S. immigration authorities, said Rene Mercier of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

They are given appointments to return to Canada, where they can be considered for asylum, but U.S. immigration authorities can choose to detain or deport them if they find cause to do so.

Mercier said Canada`s policy calls for immigrants to be sent back with appointments to return when border crossings become overwhelmed by one group. The border crossing between Plattsburgh, New York, and Montreal, which had seen about 100 Pakistanis last year, has seen about 200 since January 1.

Ronald Blanchet, who runs that border crossing and implemented the crackdown Thursday, said he sent back 39 Pakistanis that day and another 33 Friday afternoon.

Salvation Army Capt. Dennis Cregan said his Plattsburgh office was packed with Pakistani families sleeping on the floor. He said he was asking agencies in nearby Vermont for help.

He said many of the Pakistanis said family members were detained and deported by U.S. immigration officials after being sent back from Canada. Those who did not have a family member detained planned to return to Canada for their appointments to apply for asylum.

``It`s very sad,`` Cregan said. ``They are all over the floor of my church. There are small children.``

In Buffalo, New York, an immigration rights group called Vive La Casa had been giving Pakistanis legal representation to help them cross over to Canada and sheltering hundreds as they awaited an opportunity to make their case. Thursday, that group announced: ``Immigration laws have been amended in Canada. Overcrowding has also forced us to change our housing policy. Refugees who travel to Vive should be prepared to find independent housing in hotels or hostels.``

The refugees began showing up just over a month ago, when Pakistan was added to the list of countries whose nationals must register with U.S. immigration authorities when they are in the United States.

PM #56: PM To The Rescue :-)

In this debate and competition on rights of minorities, I think your opinion holds a lot of weight, since you are the sole (or one of the only) Pak minority reps here. You can tilt the debate either way.

I have never been to India, but having read whatever I have read, I would say in the pre-BJP days the condition of minorities in India was better than that in Pakistan. Now in the BJP days on the Indian side, and Musharraf days on Pakistan side, the situation is better on Pakistan side than the Indian side.

There are two groups that Musharraf has done a hell of a lot for (at least in comparison to any other leader in my lifetime). One is women and the other is minorities. The ratio of women now in Pakistan`s elected assemblies at any level is higher than many, if not most, first world countries. In local assemblies, at least 33% of the seats are reserved for them. Infact, there are almost more seats than women candidates available. Musharraf had three female ministers and one minority minister, out of a total of around fourteen ministers.

Religious minorities in Pakistan are now more enfranchised than Muslim voters. They have reserved seats as well as can stand on open seats.

However, the condition in Pakistan for minorities is far from good. If I were a religious minority, on average, I would probably leave Pakistan, if I could. There are some discriminatory laws against them. And some laws that are not targeted towards them alone, like Blasphemy law, but are used against them a lot.

At the same time, there are some good things also. I cannot think of any time in my life, where Pakistani majorities have targeted minorities in mob street violence. The only violence has been through terrorist attacks and that to from foreign organizations like Al-Qaeeda. In my wildest dreams, I cannot imagine BJP type mob violence taking place in Pakistan.

Certain minority communities have done very well. Parsis are probably the most successful group in Pakistan - more successful than even Muslim majorities. Ahmadis probably have the highest literacy rate. Christians have done well in places like the military. And Convent and Christian schools are the elite schools in Pakistan.

The one place where I have seen the best conditions for minorities is the military. Pakistan military, contrary to the picture everyone paints, is actually more secular than the rest of the Pakistani society - at least what I remember. Rank is the only thing that counts. I simultaneously had a Christian, Parsi, and Ahmedi instructor and bosses and seniors. I didn`t even know for a year that the Ahmedi and Parsi guys were Ahmedi and Parsi. Nobody really cared.

However due to civilian politician`s influence, now religious minorities cannot become COAS - I don`t think the soldiers would care if a non-Muslim became the Chief. After all, there are thousands of soldiers being commanded by Christians and Parsi officers etc. right now. Religious minorities do go to the rank of General however.

In the 65 war, there were six Christian fighter pilots in the PAF. Five of them recieved the Sitar-e-Jurat medal. That is amazingly high ratio. The most highly decorated war hero in the PAF ever, is a Christian (died in 71).

However, the Pakistani society leaves a lot to be desired for minorities. I don`t think this has anything to do with Islam. It has more to do with economics. I have always felt that conditions of minorities in any country is not tied to secularism. After all, India is technically secular, at the moment. It is related more to respect for human rights, which really has nothing to do with secularism or religionism.

I think Pakistanis and Indians can argue over which country treats its minorities worse. I don`t think they can argue over which country treats them well. Neither treats them well.

#69 by Naqshbandi on January 31, 2003 5:57pm PT
//...this revelation about the Iranian deal with India is bad news for Pakistan...the Rafidis have always stabbed Muslims in the back ..//

Sadly - that is not the only bad news for Pakistan.

But don`t blame the Rafidi` for that - who would want to associate with a terrorist-infested rat-hole?

From the article:

{By no means are the doors of History closed to further redrawing of borders whether here in South Asia or in the world. All effective cases for political autonomy should be entertained.}

Along these lines, it is fascinating to observe how frequently those advocating the further division and subdivision of India into new nations, happen to be Pakistanis. They are motivated, of course, by a purely disinterested desire to spread sweetnes and light. Perhaps they could lead by example, and show other `South Asians` the true benefits of redrawing of national boundaries, by starting at home. Free nations of Baluchistan and Sind might be a good place to begin.

Naqshbandi # 69

Well said brother Naqshbandi. These descendents of Jews will stab Muslims before other kafirs can. Muslims learn about them.

http://www.islamzine.com/ideologies/sects/shias/she3aa.html

Shia`s

Aboo Ibraheem
Salam Aleukum to the Muslimeen

Beaware of the shia learn their religion like u learn the religion of the kafireen .

Of all the many characteristics whereby the Shi`a group differ from the Sunnites, what makes the Shiites worst is the fact that they bear the creed of Hurufi. Those who are excessive in the creed of Rafidi become disbelievers. Rafidis were few and were about to perish, when Shah Ismail, one of them, established a state; so they increased in number. The creed infiltrated into our country, too; almost all the Darwish convents came into contact with it, and many innocent people caught this contagion and tumbled down into eternal death. May Allahu ta`ala not let us dissent from the right, pure belief of the Ahl as- Sunnat. May He protect us against the perils called Shiism, which instigate faction among Muslims! Amin. It is written on the initial pages of Tuhfa-i ithna `ashariyya: The founder of Shiism was a Jew from Yaman, namely, Abdullah bin Saba, who was exiled to Madayin by Hadrat Ali because he called him a god. [It is written in Munjid that he was a Jew who came from Egypt to Medina in 34 A.H. (657) and became a Muslim.] This group of heresy took a different shape in every century, was put into a definite shape during the time of Shah Ismail, and books were written. Shiism was established during the time of Hadrat Ali. Its spreading among people began afterwards. In the sixtieth year of the Hegira, the Kisaniyya sect, in the sixty-sixth year the Mukhtariyya sect, and in the hundred and ninth year the Hishamiyya sect appeared, yet they could not catch on and perished. The Zaydiyya sect, which has been distracting Muslims from the right way for centuries, appeared in the hundred and twelfth year, and all the other sects appeared later. We may say briefly that all sects of bidat which have been instigating faction among Muslims appeared after the deaths of all the Sahaba. The beliefs of all the Shia sects come together in three groups:


1) Tafdiliyya: they say that Hadrat Ali is the highest of the Sahaba.

2) Sabbiyya: they say that the Sahaba, with a few exceptions, became cruel disbelievers. They speak ill of them.

3) Ghulat-i Shia: they say that Hadrat Ali is a god. So do the groups of Sabaiyya and Nusayriyya. They do not practice any worshipping.


These people have always gathered around one of the grandsons of Hadrad Ali and Hadrat Abbas and differed into various sects. When Imam-i Zaynalabidin passed away most of them came together around his son Zayd and while enroute to fight Yusuf-i Saqafi, who had been assigned the governor of Iraq by the Amawi (Umayyad) ruler Hisham bin Abdulmalik, some of them dissented from Zayd. Zayd called them Rafidi. But they named themselves Imamiyya. Those who remained with Zayd were called Zaydi. Both groups said, ``After Rasulullah, the caliphate belongs to the twelve imams.``

The Twelve imams are Ali bin Abi Talib, Hasan, Husain, Zaynalabidin, Muhammad Baqir, Jafar-i- Sadiq, Musa Kazim, Ali Rida, Muhammad Jawad Taqiy, Ali Naqiy, Hasan Askari Zakiy and Muhammad Mahdi. Attaching themselves to various sons of these twelve imams, they parted into different groups. Today the majority of them are Imamiyya and hold the first of the three main kinds of creed, yet there have been changes in their beliefs over the course of time. They now call themselves Jafari. There is lengthy information about the Jafaris in the entry Jafari Sadiq, the hundred and eighty-third entry of the word list at the end of the Turkish origin of the book.]

Naqshbandi #69: ``After all, the Rafidis have always stabbed Muslims in the back when it comes to the crunch``

The more I read your replies, the more complex Islam starts to become for me. Could you explain, once and for all people, exactly how you divide the various sects/groups etc. in Islam. Where exactly does a Rafidi fit it? Shias Sunnis, I know about. Now where exactly does everyone else fit in, and what does one gain from having so many different division?

Ref PM #55

[Good stuff, Yasser!
Liked this very much:
``What makes the imagined geographical unity of South Asian subcontinent more special than the other two? What makes it the right size anyway? By no means are the doors of History closed to further redrawing of borders whether here in South Asia or in the world. All effective cases for political autonomy should be entertained. The unity of the world lies in constant decentralization of authority, till effective governance and equality is finally achieved, and true meaning of liberty is realized.``]

I finally understand what is causing Pakistanis periodic bouts of acute verbal diarrhea when it comes to the political unity of India.

It is that while Muslims are waxing rhapsodic about The Greater Ummah, the only real unity so far has been amongst Hindus scattered across the Indian subcontinent. This is why these folks are imagining separatist movements in Tamil Nadu, Hyderabad, Goa, etc.

What these folks fail to understand is (and this includes Sohail Rabbani who long ago published an article about the desirability of the break-up of India into several countries and that normally sober -- despite the Macallen -- gentleman hamidm) that Hinduism DOES knit the people of India together. Otherwise, you wouldn`t see the poorest UP bhaiyya making a trip all the way to Rameswaram (nope, he is NOT visiting the birthplace of the current President of India in an acute attack of patriotic fervour) nor would you see Maharashtrians, Kannadigas, Telugus and Tamils going all the way to Benares, Gaya and Prayag to perform shraddha ceremonies for their ancestors. You wouldn`t see pilgrims from across the country in places as far removed as Vaishnodevi in Kashmir, Nasik in Maharashtra, Puri in Orissa, Guruvayoor in Kerala, Tirupathi in Andhra, Udipi in Karnataka or Sri Rangam in Tamil Nadu besides places like Mathura, Dwaraka, Hardwar, Ujjain, Kalighat and a thousand other villages, towns and cities. Nor would the world have witnessed the greatest gathering of pilgrims in its history at one place during the last Kumbha Mela. This is the land across which Rama walked, where Krishna played and where the Hindu legends were acted out. That resonates among all Hindus despite the veneer of modernity that they have acquired through Western education. That is why you see vehement opposition from all Indians to the idea of break-up of the country. They LIKE the idea of being able to go where they want to in India without having to have a passport and a visa. So please keep that advice to yourself about breaking up India and then over a period of centuries evolving into a borderless EEC type community. Here is a clue for the clueless Pakistanis: India is ALREADY the multi-ethnic, multi-lingual federal state that the EEC has been trying hard to become.

We Indians do not covet Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bali, Guyana, Trinidad, Jamaica , Seychelles, Fiji, parts of Manchester/Bradford/London/Toronto/Silicon Valley/New Jersey or any other place where Indians have settled in large numbers. That ought to explain to The Clueless why Nepal or Sri Lanka remains an independent country.

If this repeated suggestion for a break-up of India followed by an EEC type of arrangement including Pakistan and Bangladesh is an expression of a subliminal longing for a united India, nothing actually prevents you guys from petitioning the Indian Parliament for admission to the Republic of India. Since you already have a champion of such an idea in Lal Kishan Advani, it should be smooth sailing through the Parliament. You would then have a Karachi-born native as the Prime Minister of India and who knows, Pervez Musharraf might even become the Chief of the Army Staff, though he will find that his penchant for dictating to elected political leaders would get him cashiered at a moment`s notice.

[What makes the imagined geographical unity of South Asian subcontinent more special than the other two?]

That dear boy Yasser Latif Hamdani ought to look at an atlas carefully. Maybe he even needs to go back to Rutgers for a course in geology. The GEOGRAPHICAL unity is a fact of geology that cannot be wished away. He probably means the POLITICAL unity.

PS. Let me anticipate your next question. Is India then for Hindus only? No. Like the Parsis who, when they landed in Gujarat showed the local king that there is still room for sugar in a full glass of milk, all those who add sweetness to the Indian milieu are welcome. Those with hatred in their hearts and bitterness on their tongues need to seek ask where they got those traits.

this revelation about the Iranian deal with India is bad news for Pakistan...then again it doesn`t really suprise me that much. After all, the Rafidis have always stabbed Muslims in the back when it comes to the crunch....

Ref UmerMurtaza #49

[Harimau #38,

Ha ha. Gotta give it to you. I had that coming but you were being very predictable. I knew some Indian fella was going to do that. ]

Well, you must admit those clues at least got you thinking.

The fact is that Indian Criminal Procedure Code is modelled on British law. The Pakistan CrPC is the Indian CrPC with amendments as dictated by Islamists.

British law recognizes the supremacy of the Parliament and as there is no written Constitution, all laws passed by the Parliament are constitutional. Indian law provides for the review of acts of Parliament unless the parliament chooses to exclude a specific act from review by the Judiciary. Thus it is possible to challenge the tyranny of the majority (the illusory ``threat`` used by Jinnah to demand Pakistan) in the courts and receive justice. In fact, the Indian Supreme Court has ruled that the government has no power to overrule fundamental rights of citizens and so it is not possible, for instance, to declare Islam illegal.

Re the blasphemy situation in the UK: Britain evolved from being a country with no difference between the State and the Church (remember that the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church and one of her titles is `Defender of the Faith`) to one where the Church has been practically removed from having any influence on the affairs of the State. Pakistan has progressed in the opposite direction and that would explain the introduction of the blasphemy law in Pakistan.

Ref PM #55

[I wonder if the Jay`s and Sadna`s are half as vehemently opposed to the Quebecois` call for partition as they are of any suggestion of a subcontinental TNT. I suppose it just isn`t as fashionable to define nationhood in terms of basic beliefs and lifestyles as to demarcate boundaries by language!]

So when are you guys going to grant independence to Sindhu Desh? That would be boundary demarcation by language.

I remember you guys strafing the camel caravans from helicopters in Balochistan. So it wasn`t very fashionable to define nationhood in terms of basic beliefs and lifestyles in Pakistan either.

If East Bengal hadn`t been 1500 miles away, we wouldn`t have you or Romair singing the glories of self-determination.