Towards Greater Tolerance

Urstruly sahib
``Monkeys`` have now got access to Iranian military bases in case of outbreak of tensions. Read and simmer....
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr030129_1_n.shtml

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

...ouch, this is going to rattle some jehadi beards in pakistan BIG time...hahahahah...eat your heart out hamdani...


from Jane`s (not some Indian publication):

{Strategic shift in south Asia

In an effort to garner international support for their side of the endless Kashmir dispute, both India and Pakistan have been doing their best to attract the friendship of the United States since the beginning of the `war on terrorism`. The US is seen as the only third party that could intervene to solve the Kashmir dispute. While Pakistan holds US President George W Bush`s immediate attention, India seemed to be winning the long-term battle, at least until now. We reveal what is going on.

India surprised both Pakistan and the US in the signing of its recent accord with Iran. This strategic agreement, which will allow India the use of Iranian military bases in the event of any outbreak of tensions with Pakistan, affects the future of the sub-continent.

The revelation by India of the pact not only heightens tension in south Asia, but also leaves the US with a dilemma: how to react to India`s alliance with Iran, which remains part of the US `axis of evil`.

The pact was signed a week before the visit of Iran`s President, Mahammad Khatami, to India to join the celebrations for India`s national day on 26 January. Signed in Tehran by the Indian naval chief and the Iranian minister of defence, the pact marks a complete turnaround by Iran, which used to be a close ally of Pakistan. How the pact fits in with India`s defence relationship with Israel is unclear, but the threat this can pose to Pakistan is all too real.

Iran benefits by gaining access to Indian military expertise, which will include upgrades of its fighters, as well as new tanks and artillery. India will also help train the Iranian army and navy. India will be allowed to deploy troops and equipment in Iran during a crisis with Pakistan and gain access to Iranian ports.

It looks very much like an encirclement of Pakistan by India. The pressure on Pakistan`s defences would be almost overwhelming. We expect Pakistan to respond. Much will depend on the reaction of the Bush administration. }

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

28 Pakistanis caught by Italian police. Charged with linkage to Al-Queida.

The thing that caught my eye was as usual the following sad commentary:

That all were innocent as per Pakistan foreign ministry and, get this,
they mention they were trapped because the lodging they stayed belonged to the (italian) mafia. Comme on...

By the way, the police found explosives, fuse laced with chemicals, newspaper clippings from Pakistani newspapers, islamic ``jehadi`` teachings, etc besides, maps of naples with locations of bases, harbors, embassy location, etc.....

Why would the mafia cause physical harm to their own country? what will they do with islamic literature?

It is amazing to see the official pakistani institution such as the pakistani foreign office supporting all these people. unless, one assumes, that
the foreign office knew about it, which is even more scarry because it would mean al-queida infiltration via mma influence in foreign ministry and isi encouragement.

it won`t be surprising for bush to include pakistan in the axis of evil pretty soon because a lot of these intended targets were us interests.

PM #55

{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.``

Well said. I have never understood what makes SOME people so terrified of the idea of multi-nation theory and political autonomy. Could it be the awareness of innate insecurity in their nationalistic premise? ... I suppose it just isn`t as fashionable to define nationhood in terms of basic beliefs and lifestyles as to demarcate boundaries by language!}

Alright, what makes *any* territorial unit the right size to be a nation? Why not continue the process of subdivision indefinitely? Where does it stop? ``My village for its villagers?`` Or is it to be ``Every man/woman is an island?`` Provide a method, an unambiguously defined procedure, to determine what the `correct` political map of the world should be - and prove its correctness.

The same question can be asked about `basic beliefs and lifestyle`. In reality these are not monolithic and indivisible, no matter how insistently SOME systems of belief are presented as such by their proponents. Each belief system - religion - has perhaps as many shades as it has adherents. Even if you restrict yourself to named schools or sects, the number is very large and constantly increasing. Nor is there a sharp demarcation between supposedly different belief systems; particularly in the Indian subcontinent.

So in particular one might ask why the claims of subcontinental Islam to its own nation should supersede the rights of Shias, Sunnis, etc to form their own nation, and so on; Shias in turn could be further subdivided, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

So exactly where does one draw sharp new boundaries, territorial or societal, and why?

Further, why is an individual`s belief system (real or nominal) to take precedence over all other personal attributes in determining civic identity or `nationality`? What if different people assign different weights to different attributes - for instance, one wants to associate with others who share the same language, another with coreligionists (as he sees them), a third with those who share both language and religion, and a fourth simply wants to be left alone in peace and would prefer current political boundaries to remain? What about those who`d rather be small fish in an ocean than big fish in a small pond? What about nonconformists who don`t want to be confined to a small country whose discourse is dominated by linguistic chauvinists who speak the same language as they do, or by religious fanatics whose religion they nominally share? Whose desires *ought* to take precedence, and why?

The case when the belief system selected as the primary basis of nationhood is a religion (and thus basically a matter of faith, not susceptible to reason) is especially problematic. It is difficult to prevent a nation defined in such terms from regressing into outright theocracy. It also preempts the personal choices of all future citizens in the matter of religious faith (or indifference to religion, or outright rejection of religion), a domain which is basically private and should be purely a matter of personal choice. Why is this considered acceptable?

Do votaries of the `true meaning of liberty` have any sensible and practical answers?

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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.]

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.

#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?

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.

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.