Blasphemy

dost-mittar #76: ``Wrong about India! I am not aware of any religious party with any significant support in India. I have pointed out before that the BJP is NOT a religious party. It is instead a party which plays the politics of reigious identity, much like Jinnah did with the Muslim League.``

Point taken. I stand corrected. As I have always stated, I claim no expertise on Indian politics. At the same, I do find your comparison of Jinnah with BJP quite far-fetched. Jinnah would have hanged Modi, by his (Modi`s) balls. BJP promoted the guy, beyond belief. The other difference is that Jinnah pushed religion when he was a minority, as a self-defense mechanism, for his community. When he got the majority (Pakistan), he went to no ends to try to protect the minorities.

Your remarks about BJP do make sense. I had always wondered how BJP has been able to keep a progressive economic and even social (with respect to the Hindu community, at least) agenda, while simultaneously promoting Hinduvta. As you suggested, it does it by pushing a communal agenda, not a religious one.

``I have always wondered what exactly do you not like in secularism.``

I think my views on secularism are quite misunderstood on this site. I don`t dislike secularims. I am voluntarily living very happily in a secular political system. It is a perfectly fine concept. Well-suited for many countries.

I just don`t consider it the ultimate holy grail, like many people do. I think secularism is actually in its infancy, as a concept. And soon people will find many holes in secular politics, as they have in religious politics, thereby opening the floodgates of doubt. Like how to legally define marraige, how to implement secularism in countries which have have strongly believing religious populations, etc.

I also consider it to be automatically equivalent with, ``goodness,`` like many people do. Much like I don`t equate religion automatically with, ``goodness,`` like many people do. I don`t automatically assume that a secular system or leader will be more humane than a religious one, and vice-versa. There are good and bad religious and secular parties, systems, people etc.

I consider myself a humanist. Somone who judges leaders, systems, societies based on human rights. Without worrying about whether human rights originated from a particular religion or from secularism.

What I detest are individuals who automatically try to proclaim superiority of a system/leader etc. based on his/her religionism or secularism. PPP is better than MMA, because it is more secular than MMA. MMA is better than PPP because it is more Islamic than PPP. So on and so forth. These arguments never appeal to me. There are too many examples of secular and religious govts. that have destroyed people.

The reason I detest the above is because it gives people cart blanche to hide behind religion or secularism and commit their crimes. They will always have a group of fanatic secularist or religious followers, who will conveniently forgive all their other sins, just because they are Islamic or secular.

The other thing I don`t like about this is that secularists and Islamists, in Pakistan, are both obsessed with religion (not just Islamists, as many people seem to think). Islam is all they talk about. Read their articles in any Pakistani newspaper. In this site, the individuals who debate religion the most are hamidm, SameerJB, Ursturly and Naqshbandi. The former pair are super-secularists and the later are super-religionists. Yet all their replies have religion in them. One portraying it as the problem, the other as the solution. To me, religion is neither here nor there. What I am interested in is not how secular or religious a party is, but how well it defends human rights, provides education, improves the economy. In fact the party I support in Pakistan, Imran Khan`s PTI openly declares itself to be a non-secular party. Yet I am convinced it will look after the minorities much better than a more secular PPP.

The third thing I dislike is about debates, that base themselves along these lines. They polarize societies like Pakistan (and India, perhaps). It is a, ``with us or against us`` debate. When, in fact, Pakistanis, according to all surveys, do not want a theology, nor do they want secularism. They are neither with one, nor the other. They want, ``some`` religion in their public life, but detest mullahs, statistically. So people forcing secularism or religion down the throat of such a group will cause more violence than anything else.

The fourth thing I don`t like about these two groups is that their die-hard followers are fanatics. They always look at how religious or secular someone is. Rather than looking at how bad or good someone, or some concept is. And one can never convince any of them that their ideas have holes. They only get into a debate to change the other person`s point of view; never to learn something themselves.

I hope that answers your question. I suppose you could say I believe in keeping both religion and secularism out of politics. And basing it on human rights - a concept that can be as enshrined in various religions of the world as it can be in secularism.

fuzair,

``Its because of things like this that I am an eradicateur. Bad as the secularist generals in Algeria might be, the FIS will be worse. Why?``

The largest Islamic group in Algeria has supported the outcome of the recent elections. It seems like the Algerian and Pakistani Generals have discovered the same thing...

``For the Islamists, if you are not with them, you are against them and they will hunt you down...For the generals, if you are not actively against them, they don`t care about you (not that they are going to help you but they aren`t going to hunt you down either). ``

Not true, and silly. If you are not actively against anyone, they will assume that you are tacitly with them in return. This is true in Saudi, Iran, turkey, Iran, or even USA (if you are a foreigner).

Also, although the mass executions in Algeria were blamed on the Islamists, GIS in particular, a fact of the matter is that most killings occurred in traditional FIS strongholds. The difference is in sophistication. When the generals kill, they do it in a matter that they can deflect blame. When Islamists kill, they do so in the open and with little finesse.

``There is no such thing as the ``acceptable`` face of political Islam because it is a slippery slope/``camel`s nose in the tent`` argument. Once you give in to the hijab, the next demand is segregated schools, or other such nonsense. ``

Oh please, banning the Hijab IS such nonsense. There is no nice-side to the secularist generals...ban Islam in public today, then they`ll ultimately want to regulate it in your home, then finally, like the commies, try to ban it altogether. There`s the real slippery slope with historical precedence to boot...

``So, given these two choices, guess which one is `better?```

Anarchy. What say? It`s simple-minded to aim so low when even with a little effort so much better can be achieved.

dost mittar at # 76 and 77:

There are too many generalizations in your post. For one, have you taken a random survey of Pakistani, Turkish, Egyptian armies to conclude that Pakistani army is Islamist?

Some flaws in your posts:

1. President Musharraf opted to align with both moderately Islamic and secular parties. His alliance includes PML Q, which is moderately Islamic (like PML N and PPP) and MQM, which is the most secular, and most vocally so to the extent that it criticises religious parties on their narrow minded agenda, of all Pakistani political parties.

2. PPP and PML N are moderately Islamic parties, not secular parties. President Musharraf (``army``) was not able to include them in alliance because they are secular, but because they are the reason that he is power.

3. There are some secular parties that are actually nationalist parties with no public support.

(In Pakistan, MQM is perhaps the most secular national party, then comes a plethora of popular parties who are moderately Islamic and then MMA at extreme right).

4. Your claim that Pakistani army has Islamists agenda is negated by surveys that romair pointed out. If it had an Islamists agenda then a progressive `Mohajir` would not have taken over the command. This thinking is based on a perception that is a carry over from Pakistan`s support for Talibans. The support for Taliban was much more for political reasons than Islamic. Also, support for Talibans was more due to ethnic (Pakhtoon) connections rather than religious. When my JUI cousins and uncles meet (they are councillors and MPAs), they resent that Armymen do not listen to their calls based on religious emotions anymore, therefore, they have become ``bayghairat``. The actual reason for their `Baygharati`` is that army was following a political strategy in the past that Islamists took for an Islamic agenda, and now its following another political strategy that is baffling Islamists unnecessarily.

However, there may be Islamists in all the armies of Muslim countries, including Turkey and Algeria.

Please note that there is never and absolute this or that when the sample size is large.

Jinnah would have hanged Modi, by his (Modi`s) balls.

Romair Sahib, Jinnah was Modi. So, Jinnah hanging himself by the balls is not a very likely scenario.

Romair:
You have made similar statements about ``extreme`` secularists and religionists before. I still do not know what it means in concrete terms. Do you agree with all of the postulates in Solitude`s post? If not, which ones do you disagree with?
When you say that ``I suppose you could say I believe in keeping both religion and secularism out of politics.``, you are making a contradictory statement. When you keep religious beliefs out of politics, you are indeed defining secularism. Because beliefs could include atheism as well.
I think that your confusion lies in equating secularism with being anti-religion. This is clear from your example of hamidm and sameerjb as extreme secularists, since both of them are anti-religion and probably would not mind using the state apparatus to curb religion. That is not secularism.

Ahmadzai:
``There are too many generalizations in your post. For one, have you taken a random survey of Pakistani, Turkish, Egyptian armies to conclude that Pakistani army is Islamist?``
Of course, not. It was never my case that there are no islamists in those other armies; it is just that if they have not been purged, they do not hold any sway in the army (I am not sure about Egypt, though!). And I did not call the Pakistani army as Islamist, but would you deny that many of the officers who got their indoctrination during the Zia period are in very senior positions now?
`` If it had an Islamists agenda then a progressive `Mohajir` would not have taken over the command.``
The Mohajir was not chosen by the army but by the civilian prime minister. As far as I know, the Pakistani army is highly professional institution which puts seniority and merit above religious ideology. I hope it stays that way.
I agree with you that Musharraf`s alliance with the religious parties was more tactical than ideological, which would make Musharraf not a secularist but an opportunist. As has been pointed out, if his secular convictions were strong, he would have pushed through his amendment of the blasphemy law just as he changed course on his Taliban policy despite the opposition from the same elements.
[BTW I remembered you while in Peshawar, especially since my guide claimed to be an Ahmadzai, too.:-)]

dost-mittar #85: ``Do you agree with all of the postulates in Solitude`s post? If not, which ones do you disagree with?``

``Following is the oath of secular humanist pakistanis.``

I do not agree with the term secular humanist. What exactly is that? What about Christian humanists and Hindu humanist? I believe in just humanists. There can be humanists who are not secular. In fact, humanism to me is a third option, outside religion and secularism. Thus, there is no need to add an adjective to the idea of humanism. It does not require an adjective. To me that is an attempt to equate the two, i.e. secularists are humanists. This in no way means I oppose secularism. I just oppose the attempts of equating it with humanism. I would have prefered, ``Following is the oath of humanist pakistanis.``

``I affirm the necessity of separation of religion and state. ``

Neither agree nor disagree. As I stated I don`t judge govts. specifically by religion or lack of it. I myself vote for PTI, which is non-secular. My second choice is Asghar Khan`s group, which is secular. I support religious govts. that are humane, and oppose that aren`t. I support Al-Sastani over Saddam. And oppose Mullah Umar over Karzai. Ditto for secular govt.

In fact, there is no govt. in the world that completely separtes church from state. To give one example, in Canada, marriage laws and vacation laws are defined by Christian traditions.

``I affirm that in matters public reason comes before revelation.``

Agree. In fact, not only in matters of public reason, but in matters of personal reason also. I could never follow anything that did not make reasonable sense to me. I only follow Islam, after I have studied it as a source of reason. The day it conflicted with my reasoning, I would probably abandon it. At the same time, if this statement applies, that revelation, by definition, is not reasonable, then I would have to say, I don`t accept that without being provided thorough proof. If one were to accept revelation to be unreasonable, then why believe in the concept of God? Everyone should then be an athiest. Why hang around the middle, i.e. I believe in God, but I also think it is an unreasonable belief.

``I affirm the superiority of a rational, secular, common law over a religious and divine law.``

I support rational and humane common law. I don`t care where it originates from. Once again, as is the case with maulvis, equating religion with goodness, this oath has a tendency to equate secularism. with goodness. Laws can be secular and irrational and insane and inhumane, also. So, ``I affirm the superiority of a humane common law.`` Short and sweet, with no added agendas.

``I affirm that I defend and uphold universal human rights.``

Yes. Definitely. This, and not secularism nor religion, is the basis of all my stances. This statement, by itself, is all that is needed in this whole oath. Everything else is just an attempt to push one agenda over another.

``I affirm to defend scientific truths and knowledge for the sake of knowledge against religious and ethical attacks.``

Yes. Definitely. This is why I believe in Islam to begin with. Please read Dr. Abdus Salam`s writings on this. Islam compliments my science perfectly. What exactly is an ethical attack?

``I affirm that after human rights my loyalties lie with my nation.``

Agree. Though I would much rather affirm my loyalties, just with human rights. Without affiliating them with any nation or religion. In my ideal world, there would be one humane world nation (as in Star Trek).

``I affirm that after human rights I shall defend the pursuit of scientific truths.``

Agree. In fact, both should be pursued simultaneosly. I am a member of Amnesty International and various science organizations. And all my arguments on any topic, from Kashmir to Bangladesh, are based solely on human rights. While all my political arguments are based on scientific statistics.

``I affirm that I defend the right of every adult to live with or without religion.``

Agree, wholeheartedly. In fact, I use the status of minorities in a society as my criteria for judging the human rights in the society. Hence my low opinion of BJP. High opinion of Gandhi. High(er than others) opinion of Musharraf. Higher opinion of Canada vis-a-vis USA, etc.

``I affirm that I defend the right of every child to live free of indoctrination and physical abuse and mutilation.``

Without a doubt. The indoctrination part is why I oppose MMA and why I oppose the concept of ulema in leadership positions in Islam to begin with (we debated this a few weeks ago). At the same time, I oppose secular indoctrination also. As an example, trying to hide any non-secular information about Jinnah, etc.

``I affirm that my country and the general good of society come before my religious affiliation.``

Yes on good of society. No on both country and religion. As I stated, I have some issues with loyalty to countries, alongwith loyalty to religions. I think the only real loyalty should be to human rights. Loyalties to countries have resulted in far far more violence than loyalties to religion. Hence neither should be supported, if it conflicts human rights. The reason individulas in Iraq are being killed is due to loyalty to a country (USA).

``I affirm that my country and the general good of society come before my tribe or my family.``

Yes and No. They come before my tribe. But not before my family, unless it results in human rights violations of someone. As an example, if I had five dollars, I would spend it on my daughter, before spending it on a govt. charity.

``I affirm to uphold the secular and classical ideals of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment as developed in Europe and the United States of America.``

No. This one is ridiculuos. Was it written by Donald Rusmfeld. Europeans and Americans have killed far far far more people in the last century than anyone else. They have colonised, abused, and violated the rights of so many people. Some of these countries are still doing it. In fact, secular govts. in the past century have killed, by a huge margin, more people than any other type of govt. (not necessarily because they were secular). I only support those ideas of USA and Europe which are humane. Not those which are inhumane, even if they are secular. For example, I don`t support forcing Sikhs to take off their turbans in France because of secularism. I don`t support USA`s, ``efforts`` in Iraq to secularize the country, by not allowing its people to vote for anyone they want.

``I affirm to enlighten the third world with the secular and classical ideals of the Renaissance and age of Enlightenment.``

No. another attempt at equating secularism with, ``goodness.`` Much like maulvis slide in religion with goodness. ``I affirm to enlighten the third and the first world (keeping in mind that the first world kills more people, in other countries, than the third world), with the ideas of human rights.`` Nothing more, nothing less.

(sidenote: the author needs to re-study the times of Renaissance and Enlghtenment. Some of the worst human rights violations, in history, were committed during these times, including slavery, inquisitions, colonialism. The same people who pushed, ``secular and classical ideas`` also caged Kunte-Kintae, and blew locals off the barrels of canons in India. Their enlightenment only applied to their own kind, not to others. This holds true to some extent, even today. In fact, even a literal interpretation of the Quran, though somewhat out of date in todays time, was way ahead of the human rights violations of the Renaissance. The Renaissance and Enlghtenement was only enlightenment for the white Christian Europe. It was hell for the Jew, the Indian Hindu and Muslim, the black African, etc. I hope you get the idea. How in the world could anyone who supports human right support that. They could only support it, if they only look at the Renaissance as the birthplace of secularism. and ignore all its other shortcomings).

has anyone noticed any similarities between our cyber general romair and mushy ?

............. it is the use of the word ``i``......... i did this and i did that, i know imran khan and i support the archangle gabriel, i don`t accept this and i think that , i, i, i ,i...........this is a typical fauji trait - the obsession with i..........i am indispensable, i know everything, the whole world is a fool and, let me tell you, i will redefine secular humanism because i am smarter than kant .............oh, please !..........stop it!

Re #87 : Wow, Zia did a dam good job. I guess we are stuck with this type of narratives (malik99 is another brilliant example) for a while.
ferozek plz. take note.

peace.

Pmishra2 #74,

Thanks. By the way, do you know if Akbar is a Bengali ? I thought he had some
Calcutta connection (Presidency college, perhaps).

#85 by dost-mittar on April 14, 2004 12:46pm PT

Ditto! The fault lies in the Paki Army understanding of secularism. Talk about the classical ideals of the Renaissance and age of Enlightenment with these brown firangis and these guys will start scratching their ar$e$ like a monkey.

Arthur,
Thanks for keeping the issue alive here. It`s all to easy to either relegate it to the nether regions of our consciousness or resign with a sense of fatalism, when in fact what is needed is a sense of outrage. .. and of course, a commitment to do something-- anything-- to change the situation.
rgds,
PM

Romair bhai: Here are the answers to your questions. Since it is quite long I will just put up a little part here and the URL and allow you to read the rest for yourself:

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4intro.htm

Part Four
The judgements concerning those who think
the Prophet imperfect or curse him

Section Two
The proof of the necessity of killing anyone who
curses the Prophet or finds fault with him


The Qur`an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorised as an unbeliever. The judgement of the unbeliever is that he is killed.

Allah says, ``Those who harm Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Next, and has prepared for them a humiliating punishment.`` (33:57). He said something similar about those who kill the believers. Part of the curse on them in this world is that they are killed. Allah says, ``Cursed they will be. Wherever they are found, they are seized and all slain.`` (33: 61) He mentions the punishment of those who fight, ``That is humiliation in this world for them.`` (5:45) ``Killing`` (qatl) can have the meaning of ``curse``.[6] Allah says, ``May the conjecturers be killed!`` (51:11) and ``May Allah fight them! How they are perverted!`` (9:30) i.e. may Allah curse them.

This is because there is a difference between their harming Allah and His Messenger and harming the believers. Injuring the believers, short of murder, incurs beating and exemplary punishment. The judgement against those who harm Allah and His Prophet is more severe - the death penalty.

Allah says, ``No, by your Lord, they will not believe until they have you judge between them in what they disagree about.`` (4:65) He removes the badge of belief from those who find an impediment in themselves against accepting the Prophet’s judgement and do not submit to him. Anyone who disparages him is opposing his judgement.

Allah says, ``O you who believe, do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet and be not loud in your speech to him as you are loud to one another lest your actions fail.`` (49:3). Such an action only comes about through disbelief and the unbeliever is killed.

Allah says, ``When they come to you, they greet you with a greeting which Allah never greeted you with.`` Then He says, ``Jahannam is enough for them, an evil homecoming.`` (58:9)

Allah says, ``Among them are those who harm the Prophet and say that he is all ear,`` (9:61) and, ``Those who harm the Messenger of Allah have a painful punishment.`` (9:63)

Allah says, ``If you ask them, they will say, `We were only plunging and playing.` Say, `What, were you then mocking Allah, His signs and His Messenger? Make no excuses. You have disbelieved after your belief.``` (9:67-68) The commentators say, ``You have disbelieved`` refers to what they have said about the Messenger of Allah.

We have already mentioned the consensus. As for the traditions, al-Husayn ibn `Ali related from his father that the Messenger of Allah said in respect of this matter, ``Whoever curses a Prophet, kill him. Whoever curses my Companions, beat him.``[7]

In a sound hadith the Prophet commanded that Ka`b ibn al-Ashraf be killed. He asked, ``Who will deal with Ka`b ibn al-Ashraf? He has harmed Allah and His Messenger.`` He sent someone to assassinate him without calling him to Islam, in distinction to other idol-worshippers. The cause of that lay in his causing harm to the Prophet. That indicates that the Prophet had him killed for something other than idol-worship. It was for causing harm. Abu Rafi,` who used to harm the Messenger of Allah and work against him, was also killed.

Similarly on the Day of the Conquest, he ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal and his two slavegirls who used to sing his curses on the Prophet.

In another hadith about a man who used to curse the Prophet, the Prophet said, ``Who will save me from my enemy?`` Khalid said, ``I will,`` so the Prophet sent him out and he killed him.

Similarly the Prophet commanded that a group of unbelievers who used to injure and curse him, like an-Nadr ibn al-Harith and `Uqba ibn Abi Mu`ayt, be killed. He promised that a group of them would be killed before and after the conquest. They were all killed except for those who hurried to become Muslim before they were overpowered. Al-Bazzar related from Ibn `Abbas that `Uqba ibn Abi Mu`ayt cried out, ``O company of Quraysh, why is it that I alone among you am to be killed without war?`` The Prophet said, ``For your disbelief and your forging lies against the Messenger of Allah.``

`Abdu`r-Razzaq mentioned that a man cursed the Prophet, causing the Prophet to say, ``Who will save me from my enemy?`` Az-Zubayr said, ``I will.`` He sent az-Zubayr and he killed him.

It is related that a woman used to curse the Prophet and he said, ``Who will save me from my enemy?`` Khalid ibn al-Walid went out and killed her.

It is related that a man forged lies against the Prophet and he sent `Ali and az-Zubayr to kill him.

Ibn Qani` related that a man came to the Prophet and said, ``Messenger of Allah, I heard my father say something ugly about you, so I killed him,`` and that did not distress the Prophet.

Al-Mujahir ibn Abi Umayya, the Amir of Yemen, reported to Abu Bakr that a woman there in the time of the Ridda[8]chanted curses against the Prophet, so he cut off her hand and pulled out her front teeth. When Abu Bakr heard that, he said to him, ``If you had not done what you already did, I would have commanded you to kill her because the hadd regarding the Prophet is not like the hadd regarding others.``

Ibn `Abbas said that a woman from Khatma[9] satirised the Prophet and the Prophet said, ``Who will deal with her for me?`` A man from her people said, ``I will, Messenger of Allah.`` The man got up and went and killed her. He told the Prophet who said, ``Two goats will not lock horns over her.``[10]

Ibn `Abbas said that a blind man had an umm walad who used to curse the Prophet. He scolded her and restrained her, but she would not be restrained. That night she began to attack and revile the Prophet, so he killed her. He told the Prophet about that and he said he had shed her blood with impunity.[11]

In the hadith of Abu Barza as-Aslami it says, ``One day I was sitting with Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and he became angry at one of the Muslim men.`` Qadi Isma`il and other Imams said that the man had cursed Abu Bakr. An-Nasa`i related it as, ``I came to Abu Bakr and a man had been rude and answered him back. I said, `Khalif of Allah, let me strike off his head!` He said, `Sit down. That is not for anyone except the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.`

Qadi Abu Muhammad ibn Nasr said, ``No one disagreed with him.`` So the Imams take this, as a proof that anyone who does anything that might anger, harm or curse the Prophet in any way should be killed.


There is also the letter of `Umar ibn `Abdu`l-`Aziz to his governor in Kufa. He had asked his advice about killing a man who had cursed `Umar. `Umar wrote back to him, ``It is not lawful to kill a Muslim for cursing anyone except the Messenger of Allah. Whoever curses him, his blood is lawful.``

Harun ar-Rashid asked Malik about a man who had reviled the Prophet and he mentioned to him that the fuqaha` of Iraq had given a fatwa that he be flogged. Malik became angry and said, ``Amir al-Mu`minin! There is no continuation for a community after it curses its Prophet! Whoever curses the Companions of the Prophet is to be flogged.``

I do not know which of those Iraqi fuqaha` gave Harun ar-Rashid that fatwa. We have already mentioned that the school of the people of Iraq[12] is that he be killed. Perhaps they were among those who were not known for knowledge or those whose fatwas were unreliable or idiosyncratic, or it is possible that what the man said was not taken to be a curse and there was a dispute as to whether or not it was a curse or he had retracted it and repented of it. None of these things were mentioned to Malik at all. However, the consensus is that anyone who curses him is to be killed as we have already stated.

That he is to be killed can be deduced by reflection and consideration. Anyone who curses or disparages the Prophet has shown clear symptoms of the sickness of his heart and proof of his real convictions and belief. That is why most of the `ulama` judge him to be an apostate. This is what is transmitted by the people of Syria from Malik, al-Awza`i, ath-Thawri, Abu Hanifa and the people of Kufa.

The other position is that it is not a proof of disbelief, and so the person in question is killed by the hadd-punishment but he is not adjudged to be an unbeliever unless he persists in his words, not denying them nor refraining from them. To be judged an unbeliever, his statement must either be a clear statement of disbelief, like calling the Prophet a liar, or originate from mocking words and censure. His open avowal of what he said and lack of repentance for it is an indication that he finds it lawful and this constitutes disbelief, so there is no disagreement that he is an unbeliever. Allah says about people like this, ``They swear by Allah that they did not speak. They said the words of disbelief. They disbelieved after their Islam.`` (9:76)

The commentators said that this refers to the statement, ``If what is said by Muhammad is true,[13] we are worse than monkeys.``

It is said that it refers to what one of them[14] said, ``Our likeness with respect to that of Muhammad is only as the words of the one who says, `Feed your dog and it will devour you.` When we return to Madina, the mighty will drive out the weaker.``

It is said that even if the one who says this conceals it, the same judgement applies to him as to the heretic and he is killed because he has changed his deen. The Prophet said, ``Strike off the heads of all who change their deen.``

Because upholding the Prophet`s honour is an obligation owed by his entire community and anyone who curses a free man of his community is given a hadd-punishment, the punishment of someone who curses the Prophet is that he is to be is killed because of the immensity of the worth of the Prophet and his elevation over others.

dost_mittar at # 86:

My submissions:

When I mentioned Musharraf as having taken over the command, I meant his steering the military 180 degrees away from its course in 2001.

The term ``opportunist`` can be applied while describing a character showing this trait at a personal level. At national level, nations do follow certain paths because they are opportunists, but because following the path is in national strategic interest. Surely, Musharraf as an ``opportunist individual`` cannot hope to form or de-form policy that is supported by an entire institution and also by the elected parliament.

The USA supported Saddam against Khomeni`s Iran not because President Reagan was an opportunist, but because at that time it was in the strategic interest of the USA to support Iraq in order to weaken Islamic Iran.

Ahmadzais are the most widely distributed of all the Pakhtoon tribes. Amongst us you will find Ahmadzais of the Waziristan - the ardent supporters of Talibans and others like martyred Maulvi Abdul Haq, his brothers and their clan, the supporters of the USA. You will also find Mirwais Ahmadzai, the French musician, who composed Madonna`s last album that came out in 2001.

You will also find Ahmadzais like my family, divided amongst JUI/JI and President Musharraf`s supporters. When we cousin and our uncles meet, and we meet often traveling huge distances, our political cum religious debates become so heated due to the divide that it seems the ceiling of the room will fall :-)

I am glad that you visited Peshawar, but from where? I always took you for a Pakistani of Hindu faith. Is that true? Did you travel from Karachi to Peshawar or from abroad? In what country do you live?

re: Younus Shaikh

Thanks for a fine article. Millions of Pakistanis support the 4 resolutions that Dr. Younus Sheikh has presented in his conclusion.

Unfortunately, these millions are being frustrated and/or misled by the propaganda and street power of just 15% of Pakistani society. These fundamentalist forces enjoy considerable power in judiciary, press and bureaucracy. Despite being a minority, these forces are more motivated and better organized than the moderate and progressive majority.

Secular parties (viz PPP, MQM, ANP) and moderate ones (PML-Q) lack the political will and muscle to challenge the mullahs on so-called Islamic laws such as Hudood Ordinance, Blasphemy Law, etc. The mullahs have enough street power to destablize any civilian government that crosses path with them on these thorny issues.

Since a military dictator (Zia) brought these laws into the Pakistan Penal Code in the first place, only a military dictator can effectively purge/rectify these laws. Heavy handed tactics are necessary to roll back the genie of obscurantism unleashed by Zia.

#56 by Romair on April 14, 2004 6:42am PT

[The plus side is that Pakistan has never had a streak of militant violence against minorities.]

Oh yeah!!! In Pakistan, they don`t kill minorities, they convert them.


[However, Pakistani politics has moved too far to the religious right, as a whole. It is, unfortunately, going in the same direction as Indian politics.]

Hello, what are you smoking? The Islamization of Pakistan started in 1979 when Gen. Zia-ul-Haq was in power. The polarization in India started a full 20 years after it started in Pakistan, when the BJP came into power in 1997-98. Even assuming that it started after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, it is still nearly 15 years behind Pakiland. And you`re comparing the two? In any case, there are enough checks and balances in a democracy like India to prevent further polarization. That is why even Narendra Modi, widely described as the scourge of the Muslims in Gujarat, is actively seeking to woo Muslim voters. Harin Pathak, a minister in Modi`s cabinet recently visited riot-affected areas and assured the people there that the government would take steps to protect the minorities.


[At the moment Musharraf is, thus, the only powerful person, occupying the secular sphere. Once he goes, it will disappear also.]

Personality cult has been the bane of Pakistan. Can a single person can transform a country into a secular state or vice-versa? Even if it is true, then it doesn`t augur well for that country. That is why Pakistan ought to have true democracy, not the farcical democracy-tailored-for-Pakistan version that Gen. Musharraf fondly espouses.