The Mullah and the Munir Report

Rizwan, … regarding the “Blasphemy Law” article from mullah Urstruly …

I negated Urstruly’s position in the discussion that followed. I pointed out that he had omitted critical Quranic verses … while drawing incorrect conclusions.

He finally resorted to the verdict of his mullahs to support his position. One should note that these are the same mullahs who cannot agree on the definition of “Muslim” … and await a two thousand year old prophet to descend from the sky. Go figure.

In posts #186 and #246 on that board, I summarized some of my arguments … that forced Urstruly Sahib to take the vow of silence on the issue. Following link may help …

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00001344&channel=university%20ave&start=470&end=479&page=48&chapter=5&order=0#186

Pagalinsaan...

You are doing a brilliant job exposing Urstruly`s lies...

Keep it up.


ferozk...

There is a big difference between a democracy and a tyranny of the Majority... but then again maybe my Poli sci professors in College were stupid and you are the real authority on this stuff in which case I am sorry and I plead ignorance ... but in my opinion if the Majority decides to legalize the murder of a minority of the same country... by no definition will that be called a democracy...

In any event we are signatory to the United Nations Human Rights Charter... I personally won`t have a problem with a so called theocracy if it fully observes the rules of that charter... but the fact is that no theocracy, especially not the Islamic theocracy of Urstruly`s pipedreams, can ever follow the UNHCR... As for secular governments... yes I am sure the harsh treatment of the Hazaras, Shiites and Hindus under the `SECULAR` Taliban government was horrible. It is fashionable to describe Hitler`s government as secular ... but it really wasn`t...


About Jinnah ... you missed the point again as usual. Every Mullah and his mother in law invokes the `raison d etre` for Pakistan unjustifiably to make a case for a theocracy... Quoting from Jinnah papers and correcting the History is simply as a counter argument to their lie.



Urstruly...

Your arguments don`t even make sense... your logic is unsound... on the one hand you claim that Qadianis are trying to take over Pakistan .. on the other hand you are saying that they wanted the Qadiani town to be in India... And all that is compounded by your lies about Zafrullah Khan... who drafted the Lahore Resolution, was a close associate of Jinnah, and was chosen as the first foreign minister of Pakistan ... getting Pakistan`s case recognized in Kashmir... You argument has no basis or logic or sources.. quite the contrary it goes against the very facts of history... for example the fact that the Ahmadiyya Movement had infact carried out the first geographical survey of Pakistan after getting a signal from Jinnah himself...

Zafrullah Khan himself was selected by Jinnah to plead Pakistan`s case infront of the Radcliffe committee.. he was not a member of the committee as you declare him to be.


Basically you`ve once again proved that you are either deliberately trying to mislead everyone... or you really have very little knowledge ...


Here is an article I quote... I have already checked the sources of the Quotes and I have found this article to be quite balanced... but I know a liar like you will reject it off hand.


http://www.alislam.org/library/links/00000215.html


Pakistan Golden Jubilee Special

Contribution of Ahmadi Muslims in
Making and Consolidation of Pakistan
It is generally known that Mr. Mohammed Ali Jinnah (fondly called as Quaid-e-Azam) single handedly founded Pakistan. While the Indian leaders notably Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Nehru and a host of Congress leaders spent many years in Jail and launched several civil disobedience Movements, but this thin and slim outstanding lawyer called Jinnah carved out an Independent Islamic state called ``Pakistan`` in seven years from nowhere.

From Lahore Resolution of March 23, 1940 to crucial talks in June 1946, battles were won by this remarkable statesman, Mr. M. A. Jinnah. This astounded the India`s Viceroy Lord Mountbatten. He was amazed at the remarkable skills of this sharp and tactful statesman at negotiations. His determination stronger than the rock of Gibraltar and his unquestionable integrity were the sterling qualities that landed Muslims of India a homeland of their own.

Few known this fact that Mr. M. A. Jinnah had quit the Indian political scene and out of the frustration left Indian politics. He retreated to London (UK) after attending the second Round Table Conference in 1932, where he established his legal practice. It was a great loss to Muslims in India. It provided immense relief to Indian Congress, as their main adversary left the field.

He was persuaded back to India by no other person than Hadhrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, the Head of Ahmadiyya Movement. This divine figure surveyed the Indian political horizon and found no honest and outstanding Muslim figure to lead the Muslims of India, the Muslims who lost their empire in India after five centuries of Moghal rule.

Hadhrat Sahib asked the then Ahmadiyya Missionary in London (UK) Mr. Abdur Raheem Dard to get in touch with Mr. M. A. Jinnah who initially turned down all overtures. It took Mr. Dard three hours face to face talk successfully persuaded him to return to India. Mr. Jinnah was most reluctant, but he eventually changed his mind. The Sunday Times London (April 9, 1933) carried a report of a reception that was held by the Imam of London Mosque, Mr. Dard, where Mr. Jinnah frankly acknowledged the fact that: ``The eloquent persuasion of Imam left me no way of escape.``

Sardar Shaukat Hayat in his book ``The Nation that lost its soul`` mentions the following event: ``One day, I got a message from Quaid-e-Azam saying ``Shaukat, I believe you are going to Batala, which I understand is about five miles from Qadian, please go to Qadian and meet Hadhrat Sahib and request him on my behalf for his blessings and support for Pakistan`s cause. After the meeting (in Batala) I reached Qadian about midnight, I sent a word that I had brought a message from Quaid-e-Azam. Hadhrat Sahib came down immediately and enquired what were Quaid`s wishes. I conveyed his message for prayer and for his support for Pakistan. He said: ``Please convey to the Quaid-e-Azam that we have been praying for his mission from the very beginning. Where the help of his followers is concerned, no Ahmadi will not stand against any Muslim Leaguer.``

The second feat, during that crucial period after elections, was achieved when Sir Zafrullah Khan who prevailed upon Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana to resign at a time when Mr. Tiwana enjoyed complete confidence of the Punjab Assembly, paving the way for the Muslim League to appear on the horizon.

Hadhrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad was watching with dismay the unholy alliance between the Viceroy and the Congress Party, as an Interim Indian Government was formed in 1946 without Muslim participation. Mr. Jinnah threatened to launch a protest movement.

On September 23, 1946, this divine figure arrived in Delhi along with a team of advisors and remained in Delhi at the residence of Sir Zafrullah Khan for three weeks. He held high level discussions with top Indian leaders, Mr. M. A. Jinnah, Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Nehru, Nawab of Bhopal, Khawja Nazimuddin, Sardar Niashtar and Nawab Chattari. Hadhrat Sahib also wrote a letter to Lord Wavell indicating to him that the Muslim League enjoyed the total support of the Indian Muslims. A day before his departure for Qadian, Lord Wavell invited the Muslim League to join the Interim Cabinet of India. The daily Nawa-i-waqt in its issue of October 14, 1946 quoted Hindu Daily Milap ``This act tantmounts to torpedeoing of the Indian Independence Movement.``

In the crucial stages of delicate negotiations that Mr. Jinnah conducted with the British Government, the ulema led by Ahrars (the Muslim clergy) abetted , instigated and funded by the Indian Congress, opposed Mr. Jinnah at every step. The Indian Congress party had dozens of powerful leaders, they had a powerful machinery and unlimited cash was available to defeat the single handed effort of a lone figure Mr. Jinnah. Despite heavy odds, despite heavy opposition by the Muslims priesthood led by Ahrars, Mr. Jinnah won and won convincingly because he enjoyed the prayers of this divine figure who called him to India. The real tragedy of Pakistan is that this very pack of ulema who opposed the Making of Pakistan overnight became the lovers of Pakistan.

Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan - a devout Ahmadi who did his bai`at at the hand of the Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of Ahmadiyya Movement on September 16, 1907. Sir Zafrullah Khan had been a judge of the Indian Federal Court as well as the President of Indian Muslim League (1931) and had a judicial mind, he was asked to look at the draft of the Lahore Resolution (March 23, 1940) and he did do the fine tuning of the LAHORE RESOLUTION, the language and the constitutional complexity of the resolution.

When the partition of India was to take place in 1947, the Lord Mountbatten set up a Boundary Commission to determine the new boundaries of two independent states of India and Pakistan. This Commission was headed by Sir Radcliffe. The Congress party of India had already ``bought`` Lord Mountbatten by naming him the first Governor General of India. Quaid-e-Azam was fully aware of the great stakes that the Boundary Commission had for Pakistan. The main question was how to divide Punjab into two - one going to India and the other to Pakistan. Mr. Jinnah selected the best legal brain - an Ahmadi - Sir Zafrullah Khan and on one occasion described him as his son. The aggressive and forceful arguments that Sir Zafrullah Khan marshalled in presentation of the case evoked widespread praises.

A week before Pakistan came into being, in a letter dated August 8, 1947 to Sir Zafrullah Khan by the then President of the Punjab Muslim League Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Khan, Nawab of Mamdot wrote: ``Now that the Boundary Commission has concluded its hearings. I wish to express deep sense of gratitude which I and all other Muslims of Punjab feel towards you. Your unremitting toil in collection of material, your brilliant presentation of our case and your profound interpretation of law and history have won universal admiration. In this most critical hour of our history you have rendered an inestimable service to the Millat and created a lasting place in the hearts of all Muslims. We can never forget how willingly you agreed to interrupt your important discussions in London, and to return and fulfil this private mission. The knowledge that your zeal was inspired solely by your love for Islam fill our hearts with pride and gratitude.``

A distinguished Muslim, Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar, paid tribute to the work of the Ahmadiyya Movement in fighting for an independent Muslim state in India with these words, ``It will be ungrateful if we do not mention (the Second Khalifa) and his well- disciplined Community who have devoted all their efforts, irrespective of doctrinal differences, towards the welfare of the Muslims. These gentlemen are, on the one hand, taking an active interest in the politics of Muslims and, on the other, energetically engaged in promoting the unity, organisation, trade and preaching among Muslims. The time is not far away when the attitude of this organised sect of Islam will provide guidance for the Muslim nation in general and for those persons in particular who are idly sitting under the domes of Bismillah and making boastful and empty claims of service to Islam``. The Second Khalifa and the Ahmadiyya Movement were also to play an important role in securing fundamental social and political rights for Muslims in Kashmir who were ruled autocratically by a Hindu maharajah.

Soon after August 14, 1947, Pakistan appeared on the international map because of the powerful and forceful representation of Sir Zafrullah Khan in the United Nations. He was the first Foreign Minister of Pakistan. He represented Pakistan on Kashmir dispute in the Security Council in 1948. Sir Zafrullah Khan later became a great fighter of the Arab cause in the United Nations. He fought a powerful fight for the independence of Libya, Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan, Tunis, Morocco, and Indonesia during 1948-54. He was a Vice President of the International Court of the Justice at the Hague during 1958-61. He was a President of the UN General Assembly in 1962. He then became the President of the International Court of the Justice at the Hague in 1970-73.

The contribution of Ahmadis in all walks of life of Pakistan is TOTAL AND COMPLETE, one is simply amazed, how this small community of over four millions accomplished so much and gave their best. A grandson of the founder of the Movement Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Mian Muzaffar Ahmad, generally known as M. M. Ahmad nurtured the dream and vision of his uncle. He became the Finance Minister 1970-71 of Pakistan.

Two Ahmadi brothers, General Akhtar Hussain Malik and General Abdul Ali Malik, gave their best to the defence of Pakistan. There are others, like Brigadier Iftikhar Janjua and scores of others Ahmadi Colonels and majors. This bravery and selfless desire to defend the motherland was not confined to Army alone. In a book, ``Air battle of Pakistan`` commissioned by then Air Marshal Nur Khan, there are references to Ahmadi Pilots. According to Air commodore (later Air Marshal) Abdur Rahim a dangerous Air mission was planned and volunteers were asked and it was clear that it is possible none of the pilots would be able to come back, among dozens of officers only five pilots volunteered and all of them were Ahmadis and all of them returned safely after the mission was accomplished.


-YLH

rsridhar

I had a detailed discussion on this topic (this link) with HP sometimes ago. It is your great loss that you missed it but nothing is totally lost, you can still go thru the archives and see how the debate went.

re:#108 by Urstruly
You seem to have glossed over my post and conveniently chosen what u liked of it.
I hope u will read at least this article that is from The Atlantic Monthly. It talks about Holy Qoran and asks some uncomfortable questions: Is the Qoran that is read by muslims today the Original Qoran?
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jan/koran.htm

``Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., or Islam`s first two centuries -- they were fragments, in other words, of perhaps the oldest Korans in existence. What`s more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God.``

``To date just two scholars have been granted extensive access to the Yemeni fragments: Puin and his colleague H.-C. Graf von Bothmer, an Islamic-art historian also based at Saarland University.``
These ``Yemenese fragments`` are being studied by these 2 experts and results are not out yet. You can expect some commotion in the muslim world when the results do come out.

Historically, it is unlikely that Qoran as it is read by muslims today is exactly the same as it existed when it was revealed to the Prophet.

(``The Koran claims for itself that it is `mubeen,` or `clear,``` he says. ``But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn`t make sense. Many Muslims -- and Orientalists -- will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Koran is not comprehensible -- if it can`t even be understood in Arabic -- then it`s not translatable. People fear that. And since the Koran claims repeatedly to be clear but obviously is not -- as even speakers of Arabic will tell you -- there is a contradiction. Something else must be going on.``)

(Not surprisingly, given the explosive expansion of early Islam and the passage of time between the religion`s birth and the first systematic documenting of its history, Muhammad`s world and the worlds of the historians who subsequently wrote about him were dramatically different. During Islam`s first century alone a provincial band of pagan desert tribesmen became the guardians of a vast international empire of institutional monotheism that teemed with unprecedented literary and scientific activity. Many contemporary historians argue that one cannot expect Islam`s stories about its own origins -- particularly given the oral tradition of the early centuries -- to have survived this tremendous social transformation intact. Nor can one expect a Muslim historian writing in ninth- or tenth-century Iraq to have discarded his social and intellectual background (and theological convictions) in order accurately to describe a deeply unfamiliar seventh-century Arabian context.)
And, so the debate goes on. Hardcore muslims unwilling to give an inch while pragmatists are trying to figure out if there is any truth as to the inviolability of th Qoran.
Sridhar

> Question of the Millenium:



If Zafarullah and the other Ahmedis ``wanted the town of Quadian to go into Indian territory`` (#106 by Urstruly on July 14, 2004 5:18am PT), why then, after the partition, did they leave Qadian, their holy places, the infrastructure that they had set up in years, and migrate to Pakistan, to buy a barren rocky piece of land to start from scratch?



Grand Prize: 70 Hoories!

> Point of Information


Publication: Tehrik-e-Pakistan Per Aik Nazar
Year: 1946
Author: Official [Nazim-e-Aala Markaziya - JUH]
Origin: Deobandi

Quote:

``Today, Mr. Jinnah assumes the position of a Mufti, and declares Sir Zafarullah Qadiani and [Raja] Mahmud-Abad Shia, who support Pakistan, as honest Muslims; and calls such pillars of religion as Molana Hussain Ahmed Saheb and Mufti Kifayatullah, dishonest and faithless;``

rsridhar

``May be this will happen. Just as Bahais deem themselves as a seperate religion, may be someday Ahmediyas will declare themselves as a seperate religion. Urstruly and his ilk will be left to rot in their own hell of self deception and hatred. ``

Thank you. That is all we want from Quadianis i.e. to leave us alone. I don`t understand why in world Quadianis are hellbound determined to convert Muslims only, why don`t they preach among Hindus and other heathens. For cryin` out loud there are 1000 million of them living right next door and as your post suggests these heathens are quite impressed with Quadiany doctrine anyway. Leave us alone.

re:#105 by Urstruly
Typical mullah jehadi speak:
``Personally, as a Muslim, I don`t and I shouldn`t care about what Quadiani religion`s beliefs are...``

``It is also intolerable for us that followers of Mirza Sahib call themselves Muslims...``
So, this guy cares for what a prophet from 7th century Saudi Arabia said but does not care for what a modern day prophet (Mirza Sahib) says.
What was Mirza Sahib`s message?
Here is Arvind Lavakare`s take on Mirza Sahib`s message and why Islam has become such a fundamentalist religion today. Read the following relevant passage:

``Take the fate of another Muslim preacher, Mirza Gulam Mohamed, who founded the Mehdi sect in Punjab in 1890. Alternatively known as Ahmediya, the main tenets of this sect were that Mohammed was not the last prophet, that jihad should be limited to self-defence and not for propagating religion, and that the Ulemas are not required for the interpretation of Islamic laws. Those views grew amongst many Muslims. Result? The Ahmediyas were branded as heretics; they were tortured and their mosques razed to the ground, with Pakistan being in the forefront of that cleansing. Finally, the central organisation of the Muslim countries, World Muslim League, excommunicated the sect from Islamic religion.``

The question is: what is more important: the religion itself or the message? Majority of muslims today would say the former. Which is why this religion is in such a mess.
As per the article by Lavakare:
``In short, evidence shows that no change from within is acceptable to Islam, the religion founded in 610 by the one known as Mohammed the Prophet, the one who is said to have had a vision of the angels while sitting alone in prayer on a hill named Heera, near Mecca. The messages he received there from God were codified in the 114 chapters of Quran while his own sayings were recorded in four `Hadiths` -- the traditions of the Prophet.``
Saudi Arabia adopted the extreme version of Islamic teachings: Wahabism, rejecting all the reforms that came about in the last several centuries (including the best of them: the sufi version) and has spread Islamic terror the world over with money and a dedicated cadre willing to die for Islam.
Is this the version acceptable to the muslims then? How is this better than the teachings of Mirza Sahib, which rejects the idea of a violent jehad and that jehad is only for self defense and rejects Prophet Md as the last prophet, thereby allowing for change and moderation?

Hinduism is rich today because it did not reject any reforms over the last several thousand years. Vedas were followed by Vedantas, Upanishads, Geeta, Itihasas (Ramayana, Mahabharata), Puranas. The religion accepts hardcore religious fanatics as well as sufi mystics, accepts even the atheists since this religion regards spriritual journey to begin from atheism culminating in self-realization.
Bhagwat Geetha, one of the sacred books of Hindus, has been reinterpreted in modern times by a number of intellectuals, philosophers (Rajaji, Radhakrishnan) and saints (Yogananda). Thus, the teachings of this great religion has been redefined according to the needs of the modern times. Those that did not fit in (like Manusmritis, ritualistic practices of the Vedas known as Mimamsa) have all been rejected.
Ultimately what matters is the teachings and not the teacher. Even Christianity has kept pace with the modern times. If there is some fundamentalistic elements within its cadre, it has been rejected by the general public. Hence, there is a lively debate in the Christian world about religion. The book Da Vinci code elicited one such lively debate. You can say Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and get away with it. Can someone in the muslim world cast aspersions on the Prophet today and survive?
Muslim world badly needs reforms and this can be done only by a modern day prophet. Mirza Sahib was one such person. By rejecting him, muslim world only rejected change and modernity.


Our Chowk mullah says:
``All of the ``alleged`` hardships that Quadianis are facing today will go away if they stop calling themselves Muslims. They have to learn to be tolerant towards the belief system of other human beings before they demand tolerance for themselves.``
May be this will happen. Just as Bahais deem themselves as a seperate religion, may be someday Ahmediyas will declare themselves as a seperate religion. Urstruly and his ilk will be left to rot in their own hell of self deception and hatred.
Sridhar

Mantolives

``Gurdaspur district was largely Ahmadi... and your logic doesn`t make sense... it is based on your own imagination and not real history. ``

What does this statement mean? Isn`t that what I have been trying to tell you all along. My contention in our previous debate was exactly that - the Mr. Zafarullah as a Quadiani wanted the town of Quadian to go into Indian territory so that is what he did. Gurdaspur had a majority of Quadianis? That is a news to me. What is the source of this information. The source of my information i.e. Gurdaspur was a Muslim majority District is based on the census taken in 1940-41. So if we accept your contention that Gurdaspur was a Quadiani majority district then Zafarullah did exactly what he is being accused of. And conversely if, Zafarullah considered Quadianis of Gurdaspur as Muslims, as all Quadianis whemently claim to be, then according to the formula of partition Gurdaspur should have been included in Pakistani territory. Hence, based on this priciple Zafarullah should have taken a stand in the Radcliffe Award meetings, but he didn`t. Which proves that either he was totally incompetent or he was totally dishonest with the cause of Pakistan and hence he was anti-Pakistan.

Rizwan

Personally, as a Muslim, I don`t and I shouldn`t care about what Quadiani religion`s beliefs are. I (and hopefully all Muslims) do not care whether Quadianis consider Mirza Sahib a prophet or god himself. We do not care whether Quadianis worship a goat or a monkey as a god. It is none of our business. Heck, I, personally, would even be willing to consider Quadianis as Muslims had Mirza Sahib restricted himself to proclaiming being a Messiah or Imam Mehdi ONLY. I would have been even indifferent that according to the prophecies this Messiah was neither able to fight the Dajjal (anti-Christ) nor he was able to establish the rule of Allah over the Earth. I would have been indifferent that instead of being a Messiah he wrote love-letters to the Dajjal of that time - the scourge of British Colonialism - and was hand in hand with British in enslaving Muslims and oppressing them. Yep; I would have been indifferent, thinking that he was merely another dud. But going as far as proclaiming himself as the Prophet of Islam is a direct attack on the very belief system of Muslims. It is also intolerable for us that followers of Mirza Sahib call themselves Muslims. This demands a swift, harsh, and uncompromising response on our part to deal with this threat to our integrity. We as Muslims, unanimously reject the Quadiani doctrine. All of the ``alleged`` hardships that Quadianis are facing today will go away if they stop calling themselves Muslims. They have to learn to be tolerant towards the belief system of other human beings before they demand tolerance for themselves. They must first respect other people`s ideals in order to get respect for theirs. Respect begets respect.

Therefore, keeping these points in mind I am least bit interested in Quadiani interpretations of ``Islam``. I don`t care what your beleifs are and what your interpretations are. I am not an iota bit interested in knowing your interpretations and I do not care. So shouldn`t you.

But since you have asked a direct question and you are interested to know about our Islamic laws on apostasy, blasphemy, and prolstization etc., therefore, I am pointing you towards an article that I wrote on the subject, titled Blasphemy Law: An Academic Investigation. It discusses in detail the Islmic juristic procedure and how these laws came into being thru Islamic Jurisprudence.

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00001344&channel=university%20ave&start=0&end=9&page=1&chapter=1

re: Mantolives

No sir, there is no contradiction. In my opinion, democracy is the right to make a wrong choice and the people have the right to decide what ever they wish, as to a form of government in Pakistan. Yasser, true democracy means an acceptance of the people`s choice. When Germans voted the Nazis into power, they cared more about the Nazis` claim of getting rid of the Versailles Treaty of 1919 than Nazis` political ideology. The election of 1933 was about jobs, Germany`s role in Europe, end of the Versailles santions, return of the Rhineland and Nazi ideology played a very small part in influencing the German voter.

As to your question # 2; yes, democratic means can be used to limit democracy. The recent Bush administration is a good example. In Pakistani context, Nawaz Sharif and his passge of the 15th amendment is also a good example.

As to your question # 3; the best way is to find out and see what happens if there is a true theocracy in Pakistan. They can be no worse than secular govenments` record in protecting minority rights. Right now, Pakistan is mixture of a theocratic and a non-theocratic government. As to the rights of the minorities being protected, they were never protected under the secular governments either and as to the UNCHR, where in the world is it being enforced? Iraq? America? Australia? Europe? Latin America? Africa? Asia? India? China? They have all signed it and yet, the human rights abuses still exist in those countries.

Concerning your point # 4; I agree with you. There has been a systematic revision of Pakistan`s history by the clergy with the active help of academians in Pakistan. I am glad to know that the Jinnah Papers make this truth clear and may be, we should make the mullahs read the Jinnah Papers to remove this historical error. I am being sarcastic, because I do not think think that Pakistan`s problems will be solved by correctly reading and understanding the Jinnah Papers or quoting from history. :)

As to my being wrong, off course I am wrong and that is because I do not agree with your point of view. :)

Ciao

Ferozk,

Thanks for the information on Von Hindenberg or however his name is spelt...


I found your post to be contradictory and if you don`t mind my saying... wrong.


1) You say we are a democracy and a majority want a theocracy then we should allow it... Can you conceive of a democracy that is unmindful of its minorities? I think the events of the World have shown that Democracy and tyranny of the Majority are two quite different things.... If indeed it is about what the Majority of the people want... then I don`t see why we should have a problem with the National Socialists in the Germany of the 1930s... didn`t they win 37% of the total vote becoming the largest German Party in 1932... clearly little was wrong with their electoral victory... it was their ideology that was wrong... then by your logic this was the expression of a great number of the German people.


2) Can democratic means be used to subvert the democratic process? Goebells promised the elections of 1932 to be the last elections for a 100 years...

3) Do you think a theocracy will be able to provide equal rights to the Minorities? Can it guarantee fundamental human rights? After all we are signatory to UNCHR .... aren`t we?


4) In my opinion no one has the right to distort history... If the Mullahs want to argue for a theocracy they should argue not by selective quotes, lies and outright deception... Mullahs claim that Pakistan was made as an Islamic state and that they were in the forefront of the struggle for Pakistan... invocation of Jinnah is as a slap on their face... Jinnah papers make it abundantly clear what Pakistan was supposed to be and what the role of the Mullahs had been against it.


You are tying yourself up in knots...

-YLH

Ferozk,

Thanks for the information on Von Hindenberg or however his name is spelt...


I found your post to be contradictory and if you don`t mind my saying... wrong.


1) You say we are a democracy and a majority want a theocracy then we should allow it... Can you conceive of a democracy that is unmindful of its minorities? I think the events of the World have shown that Democracy and tyranny of the Majority are two quite different things.... If indeed it is about what the Majority of the people want... then I don`t see why we should have a problem with the National Socialists in the Germany of the 1930s... didn`t they win 37% of the total vote becoming the largest German Party in 1932... clearly little was wrong with their electoral victory... it was their ideology that was wrong... then by your logic this was the expression of a great number of the German people.


2) Can democratic means be used to subvert the democratic process? Goebells promised the elections of 1932 to be the last elections for a 100 years...

3) Do you think a theocracy will be able to provide equal rights to the Minorities? Can it guarantee fundamental human rights? After all we are signatory to UNCHR .... aren`t we?


4) In my opinion no one has the right to distort history... If the Mullahs want to argue for a theocracy they should argue not by selective quotes, lies and outright deception... Mullahs claim that Pakistan was made as an Islamic state and that they were in the forefront of the struggle for Pakistan... invocation of Jinnah is as a slap on their face... Jinnah papers make it abundantly clear what Pakistan was supposed to be and what the role of the Mullahs had been against it.


You are tying yourself up in knots...

-YLH

re: HP # 100

Before I answer, I was shocked to learn that you had read that entire post! :) I am truly sorry for your sufferings, which you must have endured in plowing through that diatribe of mine! ;)

There seems to be a variance of sorts in what I said and what you understood and that is was a natural reaction and only to be expected. In my opinion, Pakistani army is a part of Pakistan and when blame is shared nationally, it will have to accept its slice of the blame for formenting the problems in Pakistan. Even though, on a populist level, I can agree with you that army is proportionally more responsible for the blame in Pakistan, however I would disagree with you on the idea of treating the army as an extra-Pakistani entity. Your comments seems to suggest a division; where the army is on hand and the rest of Pakistan is on the other hand and I disagree with that idea.

When you say that army is responsible, more so than the other groups, for Pakistani problems, this is a selective argument used by the civilian society to mask its own complicity in the destruction of Pakistan. No one is denying the erosive influence of the army rule in Pakistan, but the army had its share of civilian, religious, feudal, industrialist and bureaucratic Quislings in the continuation of that rule and to aqquit all those other traitors and hold the army responsible is a flight of political immaturity. It is time, we in Pakistan stop apportioning the blame and start to accept our common role in the degradation of Pakistan. Whether it is the army or or the religious groups or the bureaucracy, or any other group, they are all equally responsible for indulging in the politics of opportunism and ruining Pakistan.

The question you need to ask yourself is this: if the army has been destructive to Pakistan and its rule was regressive, then why was it tolerated by the civilian society and why its rule was abetted and prolonged by the active contribution of the civilian society? Lets be honest and admit, that despite the uselessness of the army rule and its ill effects, it was exploited by the civilian society for its own ends and hence, the question who exploited whom remains an interesting engima in Pakistani politics. From reading your comments, it seems that civilian society did not prodouce a single human being, who was capable of resisting the army and that it was more of a victim and than a co-conspirator in the devolution of political institutionalism in Pakistan.

HP, you and I can disagree on this issue and that is a natural outcome of a honest discussion and that has to cherished and protected. I think the disagreement is more academic than it is practical; even though I agree with your compliants, I see no reason to imagine how the reality could be improved by simply blaming the army. I have participated in these debates before on Chowk, dealing with the role of army in politics, and to be honest with you, all those who have castigated the army have not offered a viable proposal to get the army back to barracks and that is what I protest.

I have no objections on the army being blamed for its role in Pakistani politics, but I see no utility in the placement of blame on the army for sheer sake of blame itself. If the army`s role in Pakistani politics can ended by simply blaming it, then I sincerely hope that army has a conscience and it will feel so bad that it will leave politics and return to its barracks forthrightly! I am more interested in a blame that is construstive in the sense that it offers a viable mechanism for the army to leave politics and return to the barracks.

You mentioned clarity of thought and the clarity of thought would suggest that the army, indeed relied on other groups for support, but did those groups also not use the crutch of the army for supporting their own brand of politics? Pakistani politics, in my opinion, is a fragile glasshouse and those live in it, cannot throw any stones because they are all guilty and none is without any sin. If this opinion of mine makes me into a dissiminator of army propaganda, then your opinion in my eyes makes you into a dissiminator of a civilian propaganda and like all propagandists, we have simply confused the truth and the only loser in this debate will be Pakistan. This what I meant by the politics of opportunity, which in Pakistan can also be known as the politics of divide and conqueror and we all use these tactics to further our own policies at the expense of Pakistan.

However, despite our disagreements on the semantics of blame, we share one other commonality and that is the hypocricy of our argument. We both claim to represent the best interests of Pakistan; on my part by holding all political groups in Pakistan as responsible and you on your part by holding the army as being responsible. In all of this, Pakistan is the only party to the problem, which suffers because you and I can endlessly debate this issue of where the blame should be put and like all good propagandists, we will twist the truth to a point, where it makes no sense and justice to Pakistan will be denied by our political arguments of escaping accountibility as long as this discussion on the placement of blame exists in within Pakistani politics.

Ciao

P.S: The basic jist of my disagreement, with you, in not on the nature of the crime, but on the individual roles of the criminals involved in the commission of the crime.

Urstruly...

In response to your lies 75, 76...

If I didn`t challenge your lies at any point doesn`t mean I agree with them. Gurdaspur district was largely Ahmadi... and your logic doesn`t make sense... it is based on your own imagination and not real history.

On the question of the signing of the form.... I thought the definition of a Muslim as per the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.... was that we have to believe in Muhammad as the last prophet... and not to declare someone else Kafir as such...

I think the whole thing is unnecessary... but the form that you`ve put up is unconstitutional and wrong. It goes beyond the definition of a Muslim. It was introduced through a presidential order by that Dictator Zia-ul-Haq... when asked to sign it last time... I wrote on the translation of the Quranic verse ... I wrote `There is no compulsion in religion`.... Needless to say I got the passport.


Hellbound....

That is a much better way of putting it... and I am sure you agree that the decision of choosing to be called a Muslim or not should be left to the Ahmadis...


Malik99...

It is amazing how you think of something and it becomes a `well known` fact...

Pakistan`s movement to the US camp had little to do with Zafrullah Khan... it was due to the efforts of Muhammad Ali Bogra, H S Suhrawardy and Iskandar Mirza... Zafrullah Khan was opposed to any such effort... and by the time Pakistan was firmly in the American camp Zafrullah Khan was a non-entity...

It is amazing that 50 years later you are so blatantly distorting history... when in the 50s.. Nasser, the champion anti-imperialist , had proudly declared If Zafrullah Khan is a Non-Muslim ... I am proud to be a Non-Muslim


As they say Malik99... little knowledge is very dangerous... between you and Urstruly ... can we say `least` knowledge... more `lies`?

-YLH

#74 by ferozk

That was a great post and very helpful, though I really have a bone to pick with you on this statement.

“There is no group or a political segment, which can be held solely responsible for the rise of theocratic politics in Pakistan, because the blame is national and it must be nationally accepted.”

I am not as prolific writer as you are but I will try to put forth my thoughts on this.

Agreed that the power of mullah is temporal in the Pakistani society but the Mullah has achieved the position of prominence because of an important force in our society, not by the deference of civilian secularists. The army has provided the mullah the opportunity and the recognition to get to the top. I am not going into last 50 years history as you are well aware of that. The continued army rule, covert or overt, has actually weakened all political and civil institutions and that has created a vacuum in the civil society in Pakistan. The army would not allow other somewhat liberal or pluralist politicians to fill that vacuum.

The current crop of the politicians in Pakistan is not the top notch also as they too were nurtured and sponsored by the army and often these politicians bowed before the Mullah under the army pressure. The army has always relied on mullah and the rightwing parties for political as well as moral support in the civil society and they have always used the pseudo western politicians as front men, as the army generals find it uncouth to have a regular social contact with the Mullah too.

When you say that the blame is national, you basically acquit the army for destroying the civilian as well as the moral fabric of the society. This approach is a reflection of the army propaganda that the civilians are responsible for the condition Pakistani society is in today. I am afraid that is a monstrous lie as the army has always controlled all institutions in Pakistan for the last 50 years.

Imo, unless people place the blame squarely where it actually rests, and have the clarity of thought to single out the army for Pakistan’s ills, the political scene in Pakistan would not change a whole lot. Some half hearted changes may occur due to international situation only.
The struggle that is going on in Pakistan needs clarity of thought and recognition of the real enemy. Once you know that; you can develop a strategy to deal or work with the enemy as the situation may demand.