Carnage and Casuality

Ref khamkhwa. #115

[...with a name like your`s, you expect people to believe you.....mr sarkari indian muslim;) ]

Would sarkari be another Islamic sect similar to Wahabi, Deobandi, Barelvi, etc., or is it a major division like Sunni, Shia, Ismaili, Ahmadiyya, etc.?

PM Bhai...

Abhi to meray law exams ho rahay hain magar jald karachi aoon ga...:)

Waisay ho sakta hai app ko jald khushkhabri bhee doon ... don`t ask what yet :)


Dostmittar...

Agreed... Indians do have the tendency to go ga ga over Pakistanis... be it Imran Khan, be it Musharraf be it Junoon... I personally have gotten that reception on many wonderful Indian websites like Mouthshut.com etc... I hope that is representative of most Indians, and the rabidly fanatical websites are only a minority.

-Manto

Mantolives:
I agree with you completely.
In fact, I said something similar at one of the boards. One clarification, when an Indian refer to Jamiat as moderate, he is presumably referring to their stand vis-a-vis Pakistan. Not many of them are aware of the puritanism of Deobandis.
Why did Indians like Fazlu? I think one thing that most Pakistanis, including those who seek friendhsip, do not realise is the extent to which there is a desire to end hostility with Pakistan (of course, without giving an inch on Kashmir:-)). So, whenever someone comes to India and talks of peace and brotherhood between the two countries, Indians lap it up like regardless of who is the bearer of the message. People went ga-ga even over Musharraf when he came to India. And after two weeks, Indians are still as emotional about Noor Fatima as after seeing any of the sentimental melodramas of Bollywood, even though Pakistani media has totally ignored this story or even presented it in a negative light.

Dost mittar,

Thanks for sharing this article. Partition changed the politics of many parties... (though Jamiat e Ulema e Hind was never moderate.. their opposition to Pakistan was based on their opposition to the league leadership who they considered to be too westernized and non-religious) ... When the issue of shariat arose in Pakistan, Jinnah replied: `Shariat? Whose Shariat? I don`t have time for this`. Had we followed that path, a lot of this sectarian nonsense could have been avoided.

On a divergent note: I am not sure I see the angle with fazlurrahman... every dude in India and his mother in law is excited about fazlurrahman as a possible peace maker from Pakistan.. He is after all the man whose father had proudly claimed `we were not part of the sin of making Pakistan`... his party doesn`t enjoy the vote bank you think he does... his party is the beneficiary of the isolation of the secular Pakistani parties by the Government.

If you have a sense of history I think you will appreciate what I am about to say... I am afraid well meaning Indians are making the same mistake Gandhiji made in 1920... to go over the heads of secular and moderate muslim leadership and make alliances with rabidly bigoted and fanatical mullahs. Don`t make that mistake again... You can`t afford to alienate another Jinnah... don`t ally yourselves with the likes of Maulana Fazlurrahman ... the temptation is there... I understand... he is cosying up only because he thinks India is a lesser evil than America...

Tommorow... JUI and JUH might join forces for the reunification of the entire subcontinent... but have you given any thought to the motivation behind that... these are the same people who dream of conquering Dehli ...according to them if Muslims could rule India when they were only 5% of the population, couldn`t 450 Million Muslims overwhelm some 900 million or so Hindus? Do you really wanna make peace with them? Don`t be misled by Asghar Ali Engineer... conservative and religious muslims are only secular if they are outnumbered by more than 3 to 1.

I suggest you reach out to proud Pakistani nationalists, and those who are successors to the original Muslim League and the leftists.... only then will there will be legitimate peace between our two nations.

-Manto

Hey Manto,
It`s cool the way you live and learn. The way we all do!
Karachi kab aarehay ho?

stuka,
Despite appearances sometimes, for what it`s worth, I learn a lot from your posts. You`re not the last one I`d want to share my lunch with on a schoolyard bench. :)

rgds,
PM

Mantolives:
You may want to read this article:
http://sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=314131
Excerpt:
``It was the Muslim League’s contention that the Muslim Personal Law — then known as the ‘Anglo-Mohammedan Law’ — would not be respected in a future ‘Hindu’ India. A moderate group of theologians, the Jamaat-e-Ulema-e-Hind — incidentally, the same chappies who recently invited Pakistani Jamat-e-Ulema-e-Islam leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman to India — took it upon themselves to convince Muslims that the new Indian government would not pull the plug on the Muslim Personal Law.

The Jamaat had reasons to believe so. For one, both Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru had assured them that independent India would not press for a uniform civil code. For another, the British Indian government had left personal laws relating to matters such as marriage, divorce and inheritance more or less untouched. But it had been the same British Indian government which had thought of a uniform civil code and a uniform criminal code to replace India’s multiple system of laws based on Hindu and Muslim laws.

In 1861, the Indian Penal Code supplanted Hindu law(s) (32 years after sati was outlawed despite many Hindus not being ‘ready’ for its abolition) and the Shariat with neither community protesting. This itself should have convinced the leaders of post-Independence India that there was nothing blasphemous about supplanting religious laws by a secular civil law. But the political compulsions in 1947 made its imposition unsuitable.``

Stuka,

Let me reaffirm your post. Nothing in BJP`s manifesto suggests any similarities with SSP. BJP is a political party which seeks its inspiration from a hindu past... No where does BJP decry the religious freedom but has its own twist on things ...

This is why I am beginning to think that while Hindutva was a real threat, had the founders of Pakistan been introduced to SSP and MMA, they would have preferred to embrace the Hindutvists.

-Manto

Stuka,

Let me reaffirm your post. Nothing in BJP`s manifesto suggests any similarities with SSP. BJP is a political party which seeks its inspiration from a hindu past... No where does BJP decry the religious freedom but has its own twist on things ...

This is why I am beginning to think that while Hindutva was a real threat, had the founders of Pakistan been introduced to SSP and MMA, they would have preferred to embrace the Hindutvists.

-Manto

Faruk#97
...with a name like your`s, you expect people to believe you.....mr sarkari indian muslim;)

Re: Romair in response to your post #99

kAABA, THE CRATOR, AND THE QURAN ARE ALL ONE
WOULD IT NOT HAVE BEEN GREAT, IF THE MUSLIMS WERE ONE

IN SOME PLACE THERE IS SECTARIANISM AND IN SOME NATIONALISM
IS THIS THE ONLY WAY TO PROGRESS IN THIS ERA ?
IQBAL

KAFIR FOR A DAY

When Ali Bin AbiTalib, became the Caliph of the then Islamic world, he appointed Maalik Bin Ashtar as the Governor of Egypt. Bin Ashtar was summoned by Imam Ali and given the following instructions before leaving for Egypt:
``You will govern two kinds of people, Those that are your brothers in faith, and those that are your brothers in creation - be equally fair and
just to both``
This is the just Imam I follow, and for this reason a section of militant Muslims crazed with the Wahabi ideology and financed by petro dollars, want to declare the Shias as non-Muslim or ``kafirs``
There is another Muslim community who has already been declared as kafirs by the Supreme court of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (a.k.a. God almighty) This is the Ahmadi or Qadiani community. The fact is that you have to condemn them in order to get a Pakistani passport.
On July 6, 2003 I decided to spend the day with these brothers and sisters to share in their ``Jalsa Salana`` in Toronto. The event comprised of Quran recitaiton, speeches by religious and non-religious personalities, recognitions and a delicious lunch. Prayer arrangements were excellent for both ladies and gents. Administratively, I have yet to attend a better programme.
Over lunch, I sat with a Qadiani gentleman and his guests. We talked at length on commalities and differences in our belief system. He explained that they DO believe in the finality of Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family), and that Mirza Ghulam Mohammad of Qadian was a messiah (the final reformer or Mahdi)
I totally disagreed with him, as this is contrary to my belief as a Shia. However, I did not grab his collar and try to burn his clothes while he was still in them (Ahmadi killings near Lahore 2000 while trying to pray in a Sunni mosque). He did not threaten to kill me while I pray in my mosque (Shia killings in Quetta mosque 2003). We parted heaving learnt from one another of the beauty of diversity in Islam, and mutual respect for each other and our views.
I felt proud in associating with the Ahmadi community. I know it was something to be proud of, for I found that it is better to be perceived a kafir and still struggle to find God, than be a Muslim from a MAD-ressa and graduate in the only subject they teach - HATE!!!
Read Reflect and distribute

Syed Sohail Raza
Toronto

re #88

Manto,

i missed the documentary, but i caught the last 15 minutes of salman ahmed`s interview on npr. do u know if they`re going to re-air it on pbs?

Faruk:

Man, I am sorry. I mean sincerely so, not to make a political point or anything. Was your grandfather`s younger brother alive when this happened? Must have been a terrible shock to him.

re. Ahemdzai #93:
I agree that, by and large, Pakistanis are peace loving, though second to none in retaliating against perceived injustice.
However, I wonder how much truth there is to your contention that ``A good example of our non-violence is that not a single terrorist has been arrested from Pakistani origin despite all out efforts by the West/USA``
If you are referring only to acts of terrorism committed on U.S. soil, ok, you may be right. What about terrorism agaisnt perceived Western targets IN Pakistan. I am talking, of course, about the attacks on churchs and missionary schools. Are you suggesting that none of those invovled are Pakistanis?
rgds,
PM

Well, well, well...he`s back.... welcome, welcome...

Dear Dost mittar,

I was under the impression that You had perhaps inadvertantly replaced `no` with `any` at a certain part of it... but I could be wrong... or maybe that was someone else.. though it did create some bad blood between us..

But I agree ... let bygones be bygones... despite our slight disagreement on history most of our views especially on current events ... like SC judgement... are so similar ... why bother with something that old anyway.

I have decided to stay on.

-Manto

stuka#105
``Man, I thought you were Indian. Is there sectarian violence in India as well? Never heard of it before. ``

There was, but not to the same extent. The friction was restricted to Lucknow. For many years, the shias there were not allowed to take out their Moharram procession because of the threat of violent clashes with the sunnis there. Believe it or not, peace between the two sects was brought out by the BJP when it came to power in UP. The BJP always considered it as one of its major achievements there.

Re : Stuka # 105
I am Indian. My grandfather’s younger brother was based in Karachi at the time of partition. He decided to stay there. One of his sons my uncle was a brilliant doctor. He was an FRCS and doing well in England, then one day he packed up and went back to Pakistan to serve ‘his people’. He and his wife both doctors were shot right outside their clinic. For some reason the extremist had something against shia doctors. A few months later another relative was shot while coming home from work, he was a doctor too. After that my relatives just packed up and left Pakistan for good.

Faruk

Ahmadzai:

I just noticed your response. Okay, we are getting closer to at least understanding where we are coming from..

``You asked:
``Fine. I agree that is the only issue. Now how are you going to get it?``

My response:
Your satire aside, I have responded to such questions before. I have always said that we need to wait, but keep raising the issue at each and every platform. ``

Llook, the ``You`` in this case was rhetorical. I wasn`t asking your personal opinion. I meant the Pakistani establishment in a generic sense. Will they restrict themselves to raisng the issue as they did from 1971 TO 1989 or will they continue active support since 1990 onwards of relying on Jehaids.

``The connection of this individual could be there, but you are going for an overkill. ``

Maybe at present Ii am. But if the Jjehad continues, then the virulent form of Jehadis Islam, that is negligible today, will become dominant tomorrow. And fundamentalist Islam will always be sectarian because it is not open to variance.

``1. Simply because few Afghan Mujahideens of yesterday formed Al Qaida and became terrorists later on does not mean that all Mujahideens were wrong.``

Not at all. But again, those Mujahids who fought on basis of ethinicity (Masood) were not linked to Al Qaeda. Those who fought on Islam were. The chances of JKLF being sectarian are zero, but Lashkar e Taiba being sectarian is possible or even probable.

``If there is an Al Badr connection here then this is only 1 example of its kind. The fact is that this is the first example that a sectarian terrorist has come from Al Badr. The sample size is too small to make any scientific analysis and to come up with a conclusion. ``

I disagree. I put forth this example because it was readily available. But in the Ppakistani media itself I have read about earlier reports of connections as well. There are specific ties between specific groups. You can do independent research on this if you like.

Romair:

``The ex-PAF Chief was Shia. As is and was the Interior Minister``

India has had two Muslim presidents and one Mmuslim Chief of Air Staff. That puts paid to your theory of Shias being integrated into Ppakistan more than Muslims in India.


``Sapah-e-Sahaba manifesto is nearly identical to that of BJP``

I did check out the website. . Can you tell me where on the manifesto BJP calls Muslims non Indian? Or any caste non Hindu? You are a firm believer in Goebbels speak I see. Tell a big enough lie and ppeople will believe it.

As far as Kashmir is concerned, why don`t you ask your own Jehaids if they happen to belong to multiple groups at the same time. For example, LeJ AND JeM..or Al Badr and HuA.?

You don`t have to come to Kashmir to ask these questions. The answers are in Pakistan itself.

Faruk:

``This is very personal because three of my relatives were assassinated for being shias. It is amazing how people all over the world can be divided into us and them, does not matter who is us or them. ``

Man, I thought you were Indian. Is there sectarian violence in India as well? Never heard of it before.

Mantolives#102
Thanks for that quote from Khushwant Singh`s book. I don`t recall your quoting this earlier. What I said was based on one of his columns and not the book which, as I said earlier, I have not read.
To be frank, I do not remember what exactly I had said. It would be possible for me to go back to my old chowk posts to find out exactly what I said and to Khushwant Singh`s old columns and dig out the one on which I based my statement. But it`s not worth it. This is your new incarnation. So, let`s not start it by digging out dead bodies.
And please reconsider your decision to leave again. As I said earlier, I think you have matured well. Part of the maturity lies in developing a bit of a thick skin and not getting too emotional when our pet ideas, heroes etc. are attacked, even unfairly. And not leaving the kitchen when it gets hot!
Hope you stay on!

ahmedzai:
Thanks for the thoughful reply.
rgds,
PM

Dost Mittar...

I have no problem with you believing whatever.. that is entirely your own point of view which may or maynot be justifiable... but may I say that you shouldn`t attribute your own views to other writers ? Is that fair...

Direct quote from Khushwant Singh`s Autobiography `Truth Love and a Little Malice`:

``Mr Jinnah had sent word to my father... to persuade me to stay on in Lahore. The indication was clear; he wanted to consider me as Judge of the High Court.... Evidently he had neither wished nor forseen that in Pakistan there would be no place for Non-Muslims. `` (Khushwant Singh, Truth Love and a Little Malice, an autobiography Page 116)

Hopefuly you will recant on your claim that Khushwant Singh agrees with your point of view...

-Manto

Romair,

Just to add to your post:

1) As far as major public figures go we know that Jinnah was a shia, and Benazir Bhutto was a shia... So was Iskandar Mirza, and then Yahya Khan.

2) Shias and Ahmadis hate each other. Since I have both in my family I know of this abundantly.


-Manto

When I was in high-school in Pakistan, the class, one level ahead of me, had made up its mind that it would subtly ex-communicate anyone other than Sunnis in there group. They were all Sunnis, except one, in a group of around sixteen. That was a strange surprise to me, since, while I had seen anti-Ahmedi incidents like this, I had never seen one against Shias. Within our own class, we had quite a few Shias, and never had any issue.

I don`t think Shia-Sunni relations are bad in Pakistan, at the general level. In fact, I would go to the extent of saying they are alright. I suppose, one would have to be Shia to get a better perspective.

There is definitely terrorism against Shias, though. But I think it is from one tiny terrorist organization, located in Jhang, which has come into existence due to certain odd features in feudal politics of Jhang. But, as far as terrorism goes, this organizations has been extremely successful. It has no popular base in Pakistan, amongst Sunnis. You can talk to 100 Sunnis, anywhere in Pakistan, and while many will say things here and there about Shias, I doubt any of them will support Sapah-e-Sahaba.

Sapah-e-Sahaba manifesto is nearly identical to that of BJP. Go to BJP`s site and check it out. and then check out the SSP manifesto. SSP is convinced that Shias are non-Muslims. So through some religious, ``fudging,`` they seem to have ruled that Shias are wajib-ul-qatal, can be killed, for insulting the Prophet or something. Hence any L-e-J member killing Shia actually thinks he is committing a great dead for protecting Islam.

However, this is by no means the mainstream or even the extremist Sunni view in Pakistan. It is only the terrorist view. The current govt. has actually caught some of them. And I think only a handful of L-e-J guys were carrying out most of the killings. I believe Riaz Basra and a few close colleagues have been caught.

Shias are far too well-integrated into Pakistan mainstream to be sidelined. Far more integrated than, say, Bengalis were in Pakistan, or Muslims are in India. So, I don`t think Shias have to fear that. The ex-PAF Chief was Shia. As is and was the Interior Minister. As are many other leading figures. And no mainstream or even right wing religious party considers Shias outsiders.

What Shias do have to fear are tiny groups of terrorists, like L-e-J targeting them. This targeting had stopped, after the arrest of some of its main members. But it has started off again. Though the Al-Qaeda factor maybe involved in it.

I think much of the Sunni-Shia battle being fought in Pakistan, is actually Saudi Arabia and Iran fighting their war in Pakistan, through extremist groups.

It is quite ridiculous to associate the Shia-Sunni violence to Kashmir. I wish all people so, ``worried`` about the deaths of Kashmiris, to the point of becoming the spokespersons of Kashmiris, would take the trouble to ask the Kashmiris themselves who is killing them, and who they consider to be terrorists. Until, they ask them, all this concern about Kashmiris being killed is all opportunistic nonsense. If anyone asks the Kashmiris who is the terrorist in Kashmir, i am quite sure they will say at a minor level, certain out of control religous groups, coming from Pakistan, and overwhelmingly the Indian Army. If anyone doesn`t believe me, then they should have the courage to ask the Kashmiris. If they don`t have such corauge, then I have very little respect for their opinion. Since they have no credibility.

I think if the L-e-J is taken out militarily and the SSP is taken out politically (i.e. end feudal system in Jhang), anti-Shia violence will come to zero. After that, it will be back to the normal non-violent bickering that exists amongst all sects in any religion.

P.S. I have always wondered, since there are some groups who consider Shias to be non-Muslims, what exactly do Shias think of Ahmedis. One would think Shais would be sympathetic towards Ahmedis, since in a much smaller way, Shias face the same situation. Anyone?

#96 by einsteinwallah on July 27, 2003 2:48pm PT
``Some other identity such as language?``

How about just calling ourselves Pakistani (i`m assuming ur Pakistani) or better yet...Human Beings??? I thought that was a very good suggestion by `sac`... people really do need to realize that before they were Muslims and Hindus and Pakistanis and Indians...they were just human...plain and simple.

Re : Article
Patrick must compliment you on raising a very valid issue and putting it really well. This is very personal because three of my relatives were assassinated for being shias. It is amazing how people all over the world can be divided into us and them, does not matter who is us or them.

Regards,

Faruk

[#26 by sac on July 24, 2003 2:36pm PT
All this wahabi and deobandi talk is armchair intellectualism. I bet 99.99% of Pakistanis have no idea what the terms mean. ]

You are making it sound as if quoting from a Pakistani Gallup Poll. This is nothing but Statistical Sophistry. Or, Armchair Statistical Lying-ism. ha ha ha ha. gotcha.

[The Shia-Sunni divide is as much of a problem on the Shia side as it is on the Sunni side. The Shias are not as vocal because they are in a minority. The problem will become less pronounced if the masses learn to think of some other identity first before religion. But that would be a tough sell. ]

Some other identity such as language?

[Links would be welcome from lovers of tft,daily times and other esteemed publications. ]

Agree.

(AP) Pakistan has banned the latest issue of Newsweek`s international edition, saying an article on new interpretations of the Quran, the Islamic equivalent of the Bible, is offensive to Islam.
The information minister said Thursday that customs authorities have been ordered to seize copies of the edition.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/25/world/main565035.shtml

re. Mantolives #89:
I don`t know whose quote that was, but those interested in answers to the question of ``undue`` importance havign being given to masculinity and phalluses as opposed to forms that celebrate the female, might find the first two chapters of Camille Paglia`s Sexual Personae quite fascinating!

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

In response to Urstruly:
``By your logic 9/11 should be irrelevant to Americans also and it should have been American government that should be responsible to protect its citizens``

I don’t think 9/11 and the anti-Shia terrorism in Pakistan are really comparable. A key difference, of course, is that Al-Qaeda was not an American-based organization and even if it were, as Patrick pointed out, the American response to it would NOT have been ambivalence, or even worse, unadulterated apathy. Shias being massacred in mosques by indigenous gangs of Sunnis is a domestic problem and is MANAGABLE. 9/11 is “blowback” from a foreign proxy war and a far more complex problem to deal with militarily/geopolitically.

That there are forces which exist who are anti-Pakistan, or at least are willing to pursue their own agenda to the detriment of Pakistan’s well being, should be taken for granted. Plans must be made to counter them. Invoking these forces for the sake of absolving ourselves of responsibility is not an effective way to deal with domestic problems, even IF foreign meddling agitated these problems.

Anyway, it WAS/IS the responsibility of the American administration to protect the people of the United states. They failed. Condi Rice, (whom I think was responsible for homeland security prior to 9/11), should have had her arse fired a long time ago. The entire intelligence apparatus in the States should have been overhauled. Heads should have rolled.

``Keep in mind that these madar chods have been doing 9/11 in almost every country of the world for the past 60 years from south america to korean penninsula......so..``

I understand your grievance, but what are you suggesting? I`m afraid Pakistan does not have the luxury to deal with foreign threats by taking the fight to them. The ONLY way to deal with such problems is to fight them out on home turf. Although I`m not fully convinced that the anti-Shia nonsense is a problem manufactured from abroad, I argue it is nonetheless a problem that Pakistan can easily deal with...if it wanted to.

PM at # 83:

I agree with you on misunderstanding part, but I also believe that us Pakistanis by nature are peace loving people. We really don`t want to get into any conflicts. Therefore, even though we may have misunderstandings, we will not take up arms to kill each other. Another reason could be that although Sunnis may be a majority, there are many schools of thought within themselves - Deobandees, Barailvis, Ghair-Muqallids (followers of Maulana Maudoodi), Ahle-Hadees and from sufi school of thought.

A good example of our non-violence is that not a single terrorist has been arrested from Pakistani origin despite all out efforts by the West/USA. The much quoted example of Aimal Kaansi is wrong, because that was a murder crime on the issue of professional matters rather than terrorism.

Pakistanis have been arrested on terrorism charges only to squeeze Pakistan on deciding on few matters. This has not worked. All those arrested have been set free later, but after much maligning Pakistan.

On other occasions, Pakistan has been negatively projected e.g. by quoting Mr. Reeves as Pakistani initially. It was later that Pakistani authorities retaliated and corrected the matters to the embarrassment of Western media.

Mantolives:
Regarding (mis)quote from Khushwant Singh`s book, I haven`t read it though I have read his columns. But I do remember that issue. I dont think we will ever be able to resolve it. So, let it stay buried.
I don`t have your addy but know from where to get it if I need to.

``There are structures in this city that celebrate the male form; structures that declare male power. Military structures that shout out their masculinity - that celebrate the phallus. National symbols that kiss the sky in their entire erect splendor. There is no structure for its’ female counterpart. There is no structure that celebrates the vagina or that celebrates women and womanhood. And it saddens me that while these will stay, this one effort at salvaging female space will fade away.``

Yes, there are. A couple of hangars at the Moffett Naval Air Station near Sunnyvale, California.

No, I don`t have a dirty mind. The local newspaper once described them as ``yonic`` in their appearance.

Maybe I should send in a picture!

BTW Did anyone catch the `Rock star and the Mullahs` on PBS?

It shows the conflict between traditional Pakistani Islam (sufism) and the imported Wahabi version ... Salman Ahmed being the sufi rockstar taking on the Mullahs of NWFP... At one point he goes to a Madrassah and sings a Quranic verse to the Guitar and gets into trouble...

I was wondering if anyone saw it ?

ahmedzai #72. Good points raised, though I would have to caution that perhaps one reason there has not been communal riots in Pakistan (apart from the fact, as you state, that on a people to people basis there is no hatred [though lots of misunderstanding]) is the sheer numerical domination of the Sunni/Muslim, which would makes any form of retalliation tantamount ot suicide.
....Then again, people don`t think rationally anyway when driven by the passions of hate or religious fervour, do they?....

re. Mantolives #70:
Very pertinent post that, highlighting why there MUST be separation of Church and state in any country driven so easily by religious passion. Wish there could be some way of actually bringing this about!
But thanks for the well articuated thoughts anyway.

saxena #78:
tsk, tsk... still reading/ after all these years (x2)

re. Urstruly#81:
``_digit: By your logic 9/11 should be irrelevant to Americans also and it should have been American government that should be responsible to protect its citizens Whereas I agree with second part, the first part defies plain common sense.``
Forgive my intrusion, but it is not clear to me how anything in _digit`s original post renders 9/11 irrelevant to Americans. And while the United States govenrment must surely share the responsibility of (not) protecting their citizens (which is what the many congressional hearing and commissions are about), a recognition of this responsibility does not preclude their seeking to bring to justice the perpetrators, or even seek revenge. (That they are going about this in an unduly high-handed manner is not really germaine to the argument here.)

Manto,
Could you really be...?... NO!!...Then again, there was that reference to a book you`ve read throughly...
Welcome back!
When`re you visitng Karachi?

His excellency,

An addition to my post 70 addressed to you:

Iqbalian Concept of spiritual democracy has a direct parallel in the Gandhi`s vision of the same... the original inspiration might be different (Quran vs Gita)...

However we see that while India continues to celebrate Gandhiji as its father of the nation, it is really the chacha of the nation they have followed. Nehruvian secular democracy, not Gandhian spiritual democracy, forms the grundnorm of their nationstate, which is the reason why their state is so successful. Khushwant Singh, while a Gandhi admirer, also holds a similar view... he feels nehruvian secularism is what has made India what it is today. So this `spiritual` democracy business is not unique to Allama Sahib... it has been suggested by many different intellectuals of the subcontinent...

I agree with you that Iqbal was a very fine intellectual... but that was a different age.. an age of giants... imagine Iqbal, tagore, Manto, Faiz, Krishan Chander .... to place one over the other as the greatest intellectual of South Asia is hardly fair...


-Manto

_digit

By your logic 9/11 should be irrelevant to Americans also and it should have been American government that should be responsible to protect its citizens Whereas I agree with second part, the first part defies plain common sense. Keep in mind that these madar chods have been doing 9/11 in almost every country of the world for the past 60 years from south america to korean penninsula......so..

dost mittar,

Thankyou... for welcoming me back..

There is still one unresolved issue between us ... perhaps your inadvertant misquote of a sentence from Khushwant Singh`s book `Truth Love and a little malice`...

Perhaps we can talk about that sometime... if you remember my former incarnation, you might also remember my email addy, and if that is the case, I hope you will contact me through the MSN messenger?

-Manto

New to Chowk. Seems a good site


SameerJB, 31

`Both Pakistan and India are perhaps only two countries where well-known criminals are not only roaming free but also running the governments.`

Beg to differ. Many many more countries have same problem. In my opinion majority of the countries in the world has this problem.

Otherwise, you have put such a potent case (and so eloquently) against organised religion, its very very difficult to refute. We hidoos had Shaivas and Vishnavas fighting tooth and nail for no reason. We have `famous` caste system. In my native language there is a saying `jat kahi jat nahi (castism will not go away)`.

Jesus is followed and loved by catholics and protestants. Both love Jesus, but hate each other (at least used to). Patrick says Muslims too have sects.

May be, we all should embrace Budhism (at least not aware of religious infighting there) !!!

You won`t believe, I have two people working with me who tell me they are muslims. I do not doubt it at all. BUT, all other muslims we work with privately disagree with this.

nazarhayatkhan, 32

In India you can use/specify your religion while getting married and in case divorce. Optional but available.

Also, in case one wants to use reserved quota for education or election, you need to prove your sect (within Hindoos)

Yogiraj Patil

re: patrick

{The church massacres, heinous as they may have been, must corretly be viewed as `retaliatory attacks` for the US`s war on the Taliban (at least in the perverse logic of the perpetrators.) }

...tsk tsk tsk...the dead must be turning in their graves....

Mantolives#70
Welcome back in your new incarnation. Boy, you have matured and wonderfully so. Congratulations!

Mantolives:
I had responded to the same question on the `Hey Ram` board and am reproducing it for your benefit (hope you dont mind PM!):

veeresh#44
``What are your, and other inter-actor`s, views on the implementation of a common civil law regardless of religion, in India?``

I think that the framers of our constitution messed up big time on this issue. They should have implemented a civil code right then. And one should not blame Muslims for this. They were too shocked from the trauma of the partition and did not have the strength then to raise a protest on this issue. In any case, the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly that I have read show that this issue was discussed at length during its proceedings and that the representatives of the minorities actually supported a uniform our civil law. But Nehru (maybe under the influence of Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad) supported separate civil codes, perhaps in a misplaced attempt to provide a sense of security to the Muslims of India. I think he would have encountered less opposition to a uniform code from the Muslims at that time than he would have from the Hindus, whose civil code was revised more drastically.
But that was then. Now, I think this has become an issue of prestige among Muslims. I still believe in a uniform civil code but I also think that a lot of ground has to be prepared among the Muslims by their own progressive elements before it can be implemented without major opposition from the group which would be most affected by the changes.
Incidentally, people usually think of civil code in terms of polygamy and alomony, but it also affects other areas. Back in my civil service days, I realized that Muslim immigrants to Canada had a great difficulty sponsoring their adopted children to Canada. The Canadian High Commission in Delhi would not accept their claim as legitimate as they were not supposed to have adopted children under the Muslim Personal Law.

re. HE #48: Good post! Very informative. ditto #63
re. _digit #49: Well said! saved me the trouble, and did so with your trademark eloquence.
re. rsaxena #whatever: Sure... send it over. Actually, I`m flattered you still read my posts (at least enough to decide where they belong! `sup? still haven`t been able to get yourself a life?)

re. intolerance of and violence against religious minorities in Pakistan.
Whatever the degree of ``intolerance`` (perhaps a more decriptive, precise word/phrase is needed) towards non-Muslims I cannot think of any instances where Pak Christians or Hindus have been killed, as have been Shias, for purely, or even primarily, ideological/theological reasons. The church massacres, heinous as they may have been, must corretly be viewed as `retaliatory attacks` for the US`s war on the Taliban (at least in the perverse logic of the perpetrators.)

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

Dear His excellency:

On Secularism

You wrote:

``I understand secularism as the state`s decision not to seek guidance from religious scriptures... ``

Why and how do ancient religious texts become important in how modern states are run? Why should the Government of any country take guidance from these often contradictory mythical books? Why isn`t our collective human experience good enough a model to guide us?

And how is saying that the state should be neutral in matters of religion and religious scriptures, an extreme position? None of this makes sense... In my view separation of church and state is a necessity for modern states like ours, and this is a considered opinion.

Meanwhile as Pakistanis we can only pray that Allah saves Pakistan from the `Islamic Ideology`.


On Iqbal:

You wrote:

`Before you debunk his ideas, you should at least know what he actually said.`

Aren`t you being a little too hasty in your judgement about me? Did it occur to you that I probably own the `reconstruction of religious thought in Islam` the book? Just maybe that I am well aware of his intellectual acumen.

I remain an admirer of Iqbal (and even more so of Jinnah) and the Iqbalian thought, but that doesn`t mean I agree with him on everything... perhaps had you known my previous ultra-nationalist incarnation (I will let you and others guess which one) on this board, you would have hardly accused me of this.

The truth is that Pakistan was merely born out of a fear of Hindu domination and not some idealistic notion of an Islamic utopia as you would have us believe. Perhaps that fear was somewhat justified given the rise of Hindutva and Soft hindutva within the secular Congress, but I also think that if magically one was to bring a time machine to Mohammed Ali Jinnah in 1940 showing him the theocratic abyss Pakistan has fallen into today, he would have gladly embraced Nehru and Gandhi for whatever his differences with them, they were nothing compared to the humongous gulf that existed between him and the thinking of the Mullahs. Advani is right... Jinnah had made many tall claims of Pakistan being a secular democratic state before and after independence.... today due to his followers, it is none ... neither secular nor democratic.

Now coming to the concept of `spiritual democracy`... great as it maybe, the whole idea is unworkable... and I am sure even Dr. Javed Iqbal, the keeper of the flame of Iqbal, knows it very well.

Here is my contention as a Pakistani secularist:

Pakistan has to realize that there is no point in looking west wards towards the so called Ummah for guidance in matters of governance... no need to look towards the taliban, iran, saudi arabia or even Turkey! The only model suited, the only model preferred by our founding father, Mr. Jinnah, is the `Indian Model`. Indian Democracy and the Indian secularism remain the only workable systems that can be applied to a state like ours... and that is the system we need to closely follow and adopt!

We need to realize that Pakistan was a Vedic/South Asian/Hindu nation before it became Islamic and that even today our unique position in the world is because we are the mix of all that... something of a sufistic nation, a mixture of Hinduism and Islam... and we must realize that as in Jinnah`s words `Blood is thicker than water`.


This is my view, it might be correct, it might not be... only time will tell.

-Manto

#62 by HisExcellency on July 25, 2003 3:35pm PT

That was a really good post, I`m glad there are at least some sensible Sunnis around, and I agree with you about the removal of the Taliban government, they do have a very deep rooted hatred not only towards Shias but towards anybody who doesnt follow the extremist version of Islam that they are so convinced is the right way.

#65 by UmerMurtaza on July 25, 2003 4:45pm PT
Like `bat` said, The taleban are responsible for the recent Shia massacre. OBL is also supposedly supported (financially) by the Saudi Arabian government, which is very strongly opposed to Shias because most of the leaders of Saudi Arabia belong to the wahabi Sunni extremists.

#29 by stuka

I regret the delayed response.

You asked:
``Fine. I agree that is the only issue. Now how are you going to get it?``

My response:
Your satire aside, I have responded to such questions before. I have always said that we need to wait, but keep raising the issue at each and every platform. I have gone as far as saying that trying to solve Kashmir issue under current backlash against Muslims is not in our favor. So we should wait for the better times, but enough hue and cry has to be made to keep the issue alive.

You wrote:
``Fact remains you need those Jehadis because your generals know you cannot win Kashmir in open war. If it involves the killing of Shias and the Talibanization of Pakistan and the marginalization of liberal society, so be it. Your establishment does not care and you are too dumb to notice the connection. By the way, would you like to comment on the Al Badr connection of the suicide bomber of Quetta? ``

My response:

The connection of this individual could be there, but you are going for an overkill.

1. Simply because few Afghan Mujahideens of yesterday formed Al Qaida and became terrorists later on does not mean that all Mujahideens were wrong. An overwhelming majority who participated in Jihad of the 80s is inactive now. Several of them are still pro-Americans.

2. Similarly, because CIA provided mis-leading information against tyrant Saddam`s Iraq to the Americans does not mean that whole CIA will be banned due to its inefficiency on this one count.

3. Closer home, just because few Indian soldiers have shot each other in Kashmir out of frustration does not mean that India would ban its Army by claiming that all Indian soldiers are regularly killing all other Indian soldiers.

If there is an Al Badr connection here then this is only 1 example of its kind. The fact is that this is the first example that a sectarian terrorist has come from Al Badr. The sample size is too small to make any scientific analysis and to come up with a conclusion.

Any person who comes up with a conclusion that freedom fighters of Kashmir are sectarian terrorists on the basis of this sample size would be dumb.

The truth is subsequent to 9/11, lot of Jihadi organizations have called off their Jihad. Therefore, thousands of their followers have given up Jihad as well. Any one attempting to go in a different direction would be a terrorist. If these thousands of people had any thing to do with sectarian terrorism, then whole of Pakistan would have been up in arms against each other. This has not happened. OTOH, a complete reversal has happened. The Mullas have jointly condemned such acts of terrorism. Although I am a anti-Mulla, In respect them for doing this.

The armed wings of sectarian parties have not participated in Kashmir. Lot of matter has been posted on sectarian parties by Faisal, His Excellency, Romair and more recently Urstruly has also expressed his viewpoint that these could have been formed by CIA to counter theocracy in Iran.

Pakistanis should feel comfortable in that there are no communal riots between any two communities despite killings. This proves that there is no sectarian hatred on people to people basis.

General Comment : If people were for once concerned about their own salvation than spending hours after hours writing posts quoting sheikh flah flah from Syria just to prove that shias are kafir, then perhaps Pakistan would be a much better place to live... infact the whole world would be a much better place...

What is this obsession with `kafirs` anyway?


`La Deen u kum wali u deen...`

Perhaps the people like the `Mainstream non-wahabi sunni` guy on this board should try and translate this Quranic Verse for once... or maybe they need a sheikh whatever from Kefaya land to translate it to them...

-Manto

Ref UmerMurtaza #65

[I was in the impresssion that Muhammed Daud, just before his overthrow by Taraki, had decided to accept the Durrand Line.]

Did Daud sign a formal treaty with Pakistan? If not, your government doesn`t have the fig leaf of a piece of paper to prove its claims.

Why is it that some Pakistani writers are now claiming that the original treaty was not for 99 years but forever, if Daud had agreed to a settlement of the frontier?

Has Hamid Karzai agreed to the Durand Line? Has the Loya Jirga of Afghanistan done so? How about the only ones who count: the tribes that are divided by the Durand Line?

UmerMurtaza:
OBL`s fed has shia groups ?! The taleban are responsible for the mass murder of shia hazaras among other things...i seriously doubt he has shias under his wing..

HisExcellency:(62)
Thanks for that post. It gave me some valuable information..it is very heartwarming to see so many concerned sunnis...

bat#64
[You said you cant pray behind them, i find that a little extreme but i understand it..]

heck! they don`t pray behind any one who isn`t barelvi and vice versa. they have divided the muslims into god knows how many sects and still have the cheek to claim to be the one on the RIGHT path.......

HE,

Can you explain why OBL`s terror fed has a number of shia groups if he is so anti-shia. Thanks.


Harimau,

`It cuts both ways. Afghanistan has never recognized the Durand Line and it is well-known that the Pak Govt`s writ doesn`t run in the tribal areas.`

I was in the impresssion that Muhammed Daud, just before his overthrow by Taraki, had decided to accept the Durrand Line.

Umer M.

re: #56 by bat

Thanks for your post. I am Sunni and have Shia friends who endorse the clarifications in your post. Here are some facts that might interest the chowk interActors...

During the second Benazir Bhutto government (1993-96), the federal government formed a task force to tackle the Shia-Sunni problem. As part of that task force, my father helped launch a media campaign on Pakistan Television and Radio Pakistan. (I assisted him with some research.)

In this campaign, the government introduced a special 1-hour program that brought together Shia and Sunni scholars to advise people on zakat, social and personal problems. The scholars would receive letters and telephone calls from anonymous people and then discuss the solution in the light of Quranic teachings. The purpose of this program was to dispel the propaganda that Shia beliefs are different from Sunnis. Since PTV and Radio are the most effective media in Pakistan, this program really helped in reducing the number of sectarian incidents between 1994 and 1996.

However, the extremist Sunni organizations are very well funded by their Wahhabi benefactors in Saudi Arabia. In 1995, they arranged for a jail-break in Sukkur Jail. About 23 convicted sectarian terrorists escaped (including Akram Lahori and Riaz Basra).

Since the PTV media campaign had already dispelled misconceptions about Shias, the only plank available to Sunni extremists was Misconception#6 i.e. Shias disrespect the first 3 caliphs.

Thus to protect the honour of Abu Bakr, Usman and Umar... the Sunni extremists formed Anjuman-e-Sipah-e-Sahaba (Conference of the Army of Prophet`s Companions). In Islamic context, the word ``Sahaba`` refers to Companions of Prophet Muhammad. The ass (sic!) was later renamed to Sipah-e-Sahaba-Pakistan (SSP) with Maulana Azam Tariq as chief.

The SSP gained momentum during the latter months of Benazir`s government. Quite a few Shia mosques in Thokar Niaz Beg area of Lahore were attacked in broad daylight. The escaped 23 convicts played a critical role in this sectarian resurgence. In 1995, the Commissioner of Sargodha (a Shia) was murdered while playing tennis in the Police club by Riaz Basra.

In retaliation, the Shias got Iranian money to set up the Sipah-e-Muhammad. The two organizations started attacking the various propaganda offices of each other across Punjab and Sindh.

During all this time, the SSP used Saudi money to print inflammatory material against Shias and used their Jhang headquarter as the distribution point. However, the weak PPP government of Benazir needed Maulana Azam Tariq`s support (he had four MNAs) in the National Assembly. So Benazir couldn`t move against the Maulana but still wanted him to restrain himself and not embarrass her government. At her behest, my father met Riaz Basra and the SSP chief Maulana Azam Tariq in an attempt to convey the message. Although Azam Tariq was still amenable to some sane advice, my father found Riaz Basra to be utterly fanatic. He even invited my father to leave government service and join SSP in its ``quest to rid Islam of its Shia cancer``! When my father conveyed the minutes of this meeting to Benazir, it was decided that SSP should be split.

Maulana Azam Tariq was arrested and then convinced to expel Riaz Basra from his party. He complied. The pragmatic Azam Tariq decided to pursue a political career instead of a sectarian one at that time.

But Riaz Basra formed his own faction called Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (the Army of Jhang). Since SSP was formed in Jhang, Basra wanted to remind SSP members that his party was the real Sunni extremist party... so they should join him instead (many did).

When Nawaz Sharif became PM, Riaz Basra assassinated a Police DIG in Gujranwala. The same month 60 Shia worshippers were killed in Karachi. Nawaz Sharif formed a committee to formulate a policy against sectarian violence. But before this committee could do anything, Riaz Basra began to threaten judges, police officers and even federal ministers of retaliation. Atleast 4 judges of Lahore High Court refused to accept cases against LJ activists because of telephone threats from Riaz Basra. In 1998, Nawaz Sharif`s motorcade passed over a bridge in Raiwind... the bridge blew up after 30 minutes. Nobody got hurt but Basra effectively sent a message to Nawaz Sharif.

Riaz Basra was able to do this because of the sanctuary provided by Taliban in Khost. Given the anti-Shia hatred of Osama Bin Laden, Riaz Basra was welcome in Afghanistan. As a result, Basra would plan an attack on some Shia mosque, send money through Hawala to an operative in Karachi, and then execute the attack from Afghanistan.

The removal of Taliban government is therefore a blessing in disguise for Pakistan. Pakistan needs a major intelligence operation backed by Police and Rangers to destroy the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. These people have deep pockets and incorrigible hatred for Shias. They cannot be reasoned with.

re: #61 by arjun_m

Peace talks will at least reduce the conflict to manageable levels (i.e. pre-1999) where the two countries continue to talk tough or engage in diplomacy without triggering war.

Mobilization or war does not suite Indian interests either because it will scare investment away. Remember the travel advisory for India issue by U.S. last year? Perceived country risk is as bad for India as for Pakistan. Only Jihadis don`t understand this concept.

There is an interesting article in SA Tribune by Balraj Puri.

http://www.satribune.com/archives/jul20_26_03/opinion_balraj.htm

Basically he is arguing that India should explore a relationship with Pakistan in between the two choices of romanticized brotherhood and chauvinistic outrage. Successful talks do not mean permanent end to violence in Kashmir or removal of all differences between India and Pakistan. And failed talks also do not mean that India and Pakistan must go to war.

Whether peace talks fail or succeed, both countries will have to live with their differences without destabilising the region. For Pakistan, this means preventing infiltration (or atleast reducing it to acceptable levels). For India, this means preventing a war.

These peace talks will only lead to conflict management... not conflict resolution. Perhaps we will have to wait for another generation to resolve the conflict. For now, conflict management will do.

Re: Naqshbandi..

You dont have to agree with what shias believe in. Similarly, noone can say who a kafir is and who isnt. Thats for God to decide.
Just be tolerant and accept the differences.
We dont preach and we dont begrudge people who dont share our views, then why should that treatment be meted out to us?
I dont know of such an extremist shia group that you talk about, but im sure there must be because quite frankly and unfortunately theyre everywhere - then again there are wahabi sunnis right? thats the sunni extremists..
The bottom line is there are differences but its important to be ok with that. You said you cant pray behind them, i find that a little extreme but i understand it..

re: #53 by Mantolives

Spiritual democracy and politics were never given a fair chance in Pakistan. An essential element of Islamic democracy is education.

Iqbal was perhaps the most brilliant Indian intellectual of his time who wrote in Persian, Arabic, Urdu, English and German. Besides a Masters in Philolosophy from Punjab University, he also studied at Cambridge and finally got a Ph.D. from Munich University. To eludicate his ideas, I am providing a link to Iqbal`s masterpiece ````Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam``:

http://www.allamaiqbal.com/works/prose/english/reconstruction/

Before you debunk his ideas, you should at least know what he actually said.

In a country where 50-60% people are still illiterate after 57 years of independence, democracy and spiritual guidance cannot find true expression. Illiterate/semi-literate people can be easily be swayed by political demagogues and religious fanatics.

Nevertheless, the slow spread of education is bearing fruit. Twenty years ago a military dictator could imposed naked dictatorship in the country. Now, a veneer of controlled democracy is necessary. Musharraf was compelled to share his powers with Zafrullah Jamali.

The same Mullahs were happy to let Zia-ul-Haq wear his uniform. Now they are pressurizing Musharraf to quit as Army Chief. The only difference is political maturity. Elected politicians are answerable to the masses. And the masses expect some sort of constitutionalism and rule of law.

So I am very optimistic that Pakistan is slowly progressing towards the destination outlined by Iqbal and Jinnah. Settlement of Kashmir issue and regulation of madrassahs will remove the remaining obstacles in this journey.

..patrick, dude, can it..

Though most Shias do not believe in these `myths` there ARE certain Shia extremist factions who DO have some of these beliefs. More importantly though the main religious books of the main Shia sect, the Ithna Asharis aka as Jafaris, such as those by Mullah Baqir Majlisi who is considered one of the greatest of all Shia scholars and whose books werre recommended by Khomeini and which are taught in Shia seminaries all over the world such as in Qum, and also the Shia book of hadith and alleged sayings of the Blessed Imams (alayhimus-salam) of the Ahlul Bayt, known as al-Kafi DOES have such beleifs written in there about the tampering of the Qur`an, the `kufr` (nauzubilllah) of Hazrat Abu Bakr radhi Allah anhu and Hazrat Umar radhi Allah anhu and most of the Sahaba etc.

That is why I, though like most sane and civilised Sunnis, totally abhor the killing of Shias and condemn it, I consider most of them today to be ahlul bidah and misguided deviants whom I would not pray behind.
Here is the official verdict of mainsteam--non-Wahabi Sunni ulama about Shias in general:

Question: i would like to ask you if Ithnaa Asharis are kaafirs? They do slander the Sahabah, the Umm-al -Moamineen and they do consider us kaafirs. They also do alot of Shirk like saying: `` Ya Ali``, ``Ya Hussain``,etc.

Answer [by Shaykh GF Haddad (of Syria) referencing traditional Sunni sources]

Calling out their names is not proof that they worship them together with Allah so it cannot be called shirk; nor do we have to reciprocate their takfir of us; nor does slander of the Sahaba entail kufr but only fisq, except qazf of `A`isha, which is kufr. However, some of the Shi`as are kafir according to the conditions detailed below.

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_.

[The questioner continues:

Also sir, even if we were to assume all Ithnaa Asharis are not kaafirs, and are just innovators, in which there is no doubt. Then does their innovation amount to kufr or not?

Answer: When it meets the criteria of kufr in specific cases then it amounts to kufr, otherwise not.


Q: Also sir, is it true that they doubt the authenticity fo the Qur`an, as was proved in the book Faslul Khitab fi Tahrif Kitab Rabb al-Arbab by Husain al-Nuri al-Tabarsi.

A: Yes, you notice this extremism and blatant apostasy **in their Ulema**, and to Allah Most High is our return.

***********

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

#54 by arjun_m on July 25, 2003 11:25am PT

13 years is not really a long time in the Jihadi calender.

Moreover, even if Jihadis do not hold territory, their incursions inflict a heavy cost on their opponents. Mahmud Ghaznavi raided India umpteen times and never held territory. But his raids still had a devastating effect on the economy of India.

In defense of my theory, let me point out that India has also not been able to quell the insurgency in Kashmir despite such a large defence outlay. In fact, 700,000 troops are unable to control just 3,000 Mujahideen every year. China won its freedom from the capitalist Kuomintang in 1949 and has surged ahead of India in economic development and manufacturing capability. Both countries have roughly the same population but Chinese GDP per capita is better.

Why do you think this is?

China hasn`t fought a war in over 42 years and doesn`t face any insurgencies within its borders. Its economy is not burdened by any insurgencies.

Clearly, India is paying an enormous price in terms of economic development due to the Kashmir insurgency. In the event of instability and erosion of central authority, the Jihadi militias will replicate the Kashmir scenario everywhere along the international border.

Even if they fail to hold territory (which they probably will), their incursions will be a perpetual nuissance for the bordering states of India... thus necessitate a costly and continuous military mobilization by India.

Thanks everyone for your feedback especially Temporal, ally, RZaidi, ahmedzai

PM:
<>
My first instinct was to laugh..and then cry! How can you believe such things? I have no idea how and why these myths spread. Im sure it was some version of chinese whisper,but how can people believe them ..
I have compared Korans with sunni friends so i can confidently say that there is NO difference. The difference may be in the interpretation of certain verses but thats the extent of it.
heres a link if anyone wishes to explore this further: http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/islam/0000161.php

<>
Blood?! i guess since we beat ourselves up (not others mind u :)) they associate blood with our food...pretty imaginative i`d say! but honestly, i`d like to know who spreads these and how too...

here are some more misconceptions refuted:
http://www.hansot.com/discuss/_discuss/00001365.htm

Misconception #2: Some Shia consider Ali as God. Response: Not true. It is disbelief to even think of such a thing. During the time of Ali, some pagan groups called Gholat did consider Ali as Lord. When he found out, they were burned to death.

Misconception #3: Shias have different declarations of faith and they add to the call to prescribed prayer. Response: The declaration to become a Muslim, as administered to non-Muslims, is the same. Some Shia add to themselves, ``Ali is a friend of God (PBUH) or Ali is a spiritual leader of God,`` after the call to prescribed prayer, but not as part of the call to prescribed prayer.

Misconception #4: Shias do not perform sunnah prayers. Sunnah prayers are non obligatory prayers performed by Prophet Muhammad. Response: Shias do perform non-obligatory prayers, 36 cycles per day in total, but call it nawafil and not sunnah.

Misconception #5: Some Shia believe the Angel Gabriel made a mistake and prophethood was meant for Ali and not Muhammad (PBUH). Response: Not true. No Shia thinks of such false claims. ``Only demented minds think of such questions.``

Misconception #6: Shias slander and ridicule the first three caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman) and Prophet Muhammad`s wife, Ayisha. Response: Shia consider the first three caliphs as great companions and good Muslim administrators, but not spiritual leaders (imams). Imam Jafar Sadiq, whose mother and grand mother came from the line of Abu Bakr, said of Abu Bakr, ``He gave me birth twice.`` Ayisha is respected by Shias as the ``Mother of Believers,`` as Ali respected her when he sent her back from Basra to Madinah after the Battle of the Camel. If some Shia do slander the three caliphs and Ayisha, they do it out of ignorance and should ask God`s forgiveness.

Misconception # 7: Shias combine all five prayers into one prayer in the evening. Response: Not true. In Shia mosques, whether in Iran or the USA, all five daily prayers are performed. Some working Shia do combine noon and afternoon and evening and night, but Shia scholars recommend performing them separately. Such combinations may not be ideal, but better than not praying at all. How can a Sunni who does not pray at all be better than a Shia who combines prayers? Misconception # 8: Shias do not pay zakat (poor-due). Response: Not true. They not only pay 2.5% left over from savings as zakat, but also an additional 20% as khums or general charity. However, they prefer to pay directly to the needy rather than corrupt government (in Pakistan, Gulf and western countries).

re: #51 by stuka

In the hypothetical scenario that a Western nation threatens pre-emptive strikes against Pakistan, the Pakistanis would threaten India and Afghanistan with retaliation. This will be done to dissuade these countries from providing air bases or missile pads to the Western nation.

Most probably, the Western nation will launch strikes from the Indian ocean to avoid violating the airspace of India or Afghanistan. Even in that scenario, Pakistan can deploy nuclear-tipped missiles against the Western fleet.

Given the unpredictability of such a wargame, the situation may never arise. Given Pakistan`s economic dependence on aid and market access to U.S./Europe, the Western nations don`t even need to eliminate the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. Economic leverage essentially gives them control over Pakistan Army and even the Mullahs. Any Maulana who wants to become Pakistan`s Prime Minister must keep America happy. And privately they know it.

Maulana Fazlur Rehman is the most vocal critic of America in Pakistan today. But when it comes to power politics, the Maulana will have no qualms adopting President Bush as his elder brother! Unlike Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden, the Pakistani fundamentalists are an extremely pragmatic lot. They only pick fights that they can win.

#43 by Mantolives

The term ``liberal Muslim`` is rather misleading. I should instead use the term ``modern, rational Muslim``. A modern, rational Muslim is someone who has first-hand knowledge of the Quran, understands its teachings and embraces them in his economic, social and political interactions. The key distinction between a rational Muslim and a retrogressive Islamist is:

a) Revelation vs. Reason
Retrogressive Islamists believe that Revelation (and not Reason) is the only source of knowledge. Only religious experts have the knowledge and authority to interpret these laws. Rest of society must respect and follow the lead of these spiritual leaders. Legislation and and decision-making is therefore done by the theocratic leadership, not the masses (through the ballot).

Modern Muslims on the other hand believe that Revelation guides Reason but does not replace it. In their opinion, Quran and Prophet Muhammad`s sayings only establish a destination. Society must collectively (and democratically) decide how to reach that destination.

b) Religious Knowledge vs. Liberal Education

Retrogressive Islamists believe that religious knowledge is sufficient for living a righteous life and liberal education is not necessary. Therefore, most madrassahs never teach children about mathematics, natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology), social sciences (economics, psychology) and literature. Arabic and Urdu are the only medium in these schools. English is never taught.

In contrast, Modern Muslims believe that you cannot become a true Muslim unless you have a liberal education. A liberal education teaches you how to use your brain and think critically. Without these critical skills, one cannot truly understand the essence of religion. Therefore, all acknowledged Muslim jurists and modernists pursue religious knowledge and liberal education simultaneously.

c) Concept of Jihad

Jihad in Arabic means ``struggle``. There are many forms of Jihad in Islam. The highest form is spiritual Jihad in which a Muslim fights temptation to indulge in sin. The next form is verbal in which the Muslim teaches fellow humans about virtue and vice. And the last form of Jihad is militant... in which the Muslim takes up arms to defend faith.

Retrogressive Islamists believe that verbal Jihad (2nd form) and militant Jihad (3rd form) can be undertaken by anyone under any circumstances and against anyone. Thus, a maulvi is justified in scolding a stranger woman for not wearing a burqa. And a Taliban soldier is justified in killing a Shia in defense of his own faith. Retrogressive Islamists base their views on certain excerpts from the Quran, without taking into consideration the context and collective message of the Quran.

Modern Muslims believe that verbal and militant Jihad can only be undertaken under specific circumstances. Just like a police officer has jurisdiction over a certain district or town, every Muslim also has a specific jurisdiction (i.e. his immediate family). A police officer from Karachi cannot arrest people in Lahore. Similarly, a Muslim cannot interfere in the jurisdiction of another Muslim (or non-Muslim). Verbal jihad is only allowed within the jurisdiction of a Muslim. In other words, a Muslim is only expected to teach his own children and spouse about vice and virtue. Otherwise, such advice must only be offered when explicitly solicited by another person. Unsolicited advice is interference, not verbal Jihad.

As for militant Jihad, the Modern muslim believes that only a state can declare Jihad against another non-Muslim state. Individuals, religious factions or political groups do not have the authority to declare Jihad on anyone. Moreover, militant Jihad can be undertaken either in self defense or against a state that purposefully discriminates against its Muslim (or other minority groups). This means you can`t declare Jihad against another state just before it is non-Muslim.

Example: Islamists consider Iran-Iraq war a Jihad against Shias. Modern Muslims consider it fratricide and war, but not a Jihad because it was conducted for political reasons (not religious) and against another Islamic state.

Example: Islamists consider Kashmir struggle as Jihad. Modern Muslims consider Kashmir a legitimate political movement and insurgency but not a Jihad. This is because the state of India does not purposefully discriminate against Muslims. Just because certain groups (VHP, Bajrang Dal, etc) indulge in pogroms of Muslims, doesn`t mean that all of India adheres to the same policy. Hence, the liberation movement in Kashmir cannot be described as ``Jihad``.

Urstruly wrote:

``The source of this evil (carnage of shias) lies elsewhere and not in Pakistan. The anti-shia terrorist groups like Sipah-e-sahaba and Laskar-e-jhangwi were created in early `80s by big Satan...``

Somewhat true. Also irrelevant. Keep in mind that the Pakistani government was complicit in said act, and in any case, it is the sole responsibility of the government to ensure that the rights of minorities are protected. The cure for this evil does NOT lie ``elsewhere``, whatever and wherever the source.

The fact that these groups have not been obliterated, nor has an attempt been made to do such, means that the battle to combat this threat to Pakistan has yet to be waged. The fact that your average Pakistani seems to be apathetic (to say the very least) is in itself quite shameful.

Assigning blame is one thing, and it is not to say you are necessarily wrong. However, the problem itself is solely Pakistan`s. What`s called for is taking ownership of this problem, even IF it is a problem foisted on the nation from outside. Otherwise, who is to deal with it?

``I think a time has come that a shia sunni open dialogue must start;``

In general a good idea, however for the shia carnage inflicted by our fellow Sunni`s, (I`m assuming you are Sunni), the onus is on us to fix things....what`s there to talk about?

Ref HisExcellency #45

[Unlike the Pakistan government which recognizes international borders with its neighbors, the new state will look at Durand line, Wagah, Line-of-Control, and Karakoram Highway as artificial, man-made boundaries.]

It cuts both ways. Afghanistan has never recognized the Durand Line and it is well-known that the Pak Govt`s writ doesn`t run in the tribal areas.

[They will seek to ``liberate`` the Sikhs and Rajhastani Rajputs from their old ways and introduce real Islam (read: Wahhabism) to them under the gun.]

The Sikhs will not take this lying down. They will do what Ranjit Singh did to cleanse Peshawar of Pathans: any Pathan caught near Peshawar was killed and his head mounted on a post on the fort. You seem to forget the Sikhs still carry their kirpan.

Get over the ``1 Pakistani = 10 Indians`` delusion.

His Excellency:

Good Post. I think your second point is valid.

A clarification on the first point. India will not launch preemptive strikes on Pakistan simply because of the risks that you mention. However, I was talking about a pre-emptive strike by western powers (read US) in a situation akin to North Korea.

Do you believe that Pakistan would launch its remainder nuclear arsenal (no matter how good the strike the chances of some weaponized warheads remaining are high) on Iindia EVEN if the preemtive strikes were launched solely by the US? If so, why?

Again, I would like to emphasize that these are merely rhetorical questions and I do not imply anything beyond what I ask.