The Mullah and the Munir Report

YLH:

Let me quotec some verses from Iqbal:

Sher mardon seu hua besha-e-tahqiq tahi
Rah gaiye Sufi-o-Mullah kay ghulam aay Saqi

(The field of intellectual investigation is emptied of the lion-like people
O Saqi, the ones who are out there are the slaves of Sufi and Mullah)

From ``Mullah and Paradise``:

I too was there and couldn`t help but speak
When the Mullah got God`s permission to go to the Paradise
I said, may I be excused, my Lord
He will not enjoy houri, wine, and the edge of the green fields
Paradise is not the place for disputation
And disputation is the nature of this creation of yours
Disparaging the peoples and other societies is his engagement
And there is neither a mosque, a church, nor a temple in the Paradise

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Hey there yasser! Don`t let barking dogs get to you! they are a bunch of fools! Most of the enlightened, educated and sane chowkies agree with you. :)

I wonder: Justice Muhammad Munir, is it the same disgusting Munir who introduced “doctrine of necessity” in Pakistan?

Thank you, Yasser. Excellent analysis. If something like this had been written by an Indian (an Indian, not a Hindu only, an Indian, please) then the baying hordes would have been at the doors already.

Your question is:- ``Will we still not learn a lesson?``

My answer is:- ``Yes, Pakistan will. When it stops taking religion so seriously.``

All the best, Yasser. It is a tough job. At the same time, I know one more thing:- the change, when it comes, in Pakistan, will be rapid.

Now what direction that change shall be in, depends?

hamzan...

Doctrine of necessity was introduced till much later under Nusrat Bhutto case...

However Justice Munir had endorsed Ghulam Muhammad`s decision to dismiss the assemblies but that was an interpretation of the Government of India Act 1935... for this Justice Munir was full of regret and he wrote the same in his book `Jinnah to Zia`, which is an excellent book published by Najam Sethi.



Veeresh,

Thanks for your encouragement as always. I am encouraged by your optimism about change... and I am optimistic about direction. Pakistan is an integral part of South Asia ... and there is only so much the extremists can do here....


haroonelahi,

Thankyou... long time no see... where are you?


Freethinker

Thankyou for your support and wishes...

That was a beautiful verse and a poem... once again it proves that Iqbal was never the Islamist that some on chowk want him to be.

-YLH


PS: I am glad that the unwanted elements have stayed away from this board. No point it getting polluted by those who are the victims of narrow thinking.

Although many self-respecting chowkies will stay away from interacting with Mantolives because he has the habbit of attacking other people`s sisters when he runs out of arguments. But since he has posted these lies, he must not go unchallenged.

- In 1953, Maududi was sentenced to death by the martial law authorities on the charge of writing a pamphlet on the Qadyanis. His freedom of speech was usurped by the undemocratic entities. Of course, Qadiyanis, just like they sided with British before 1947 in oppressing Muslims, once again rejoiced. For the record, Maududi resolutely turned down the opportunity to file a petition for mercy.

- Qadiyanis themselves broke relations with Muslims in accordance with their teachings. They organized themselves independently, as if they were a non-Muslim minority as affirmed by their own writings. Their founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed had openly declared to British that he had a list of `insurgent Muslims` who were causing trouble for the British rule. He promised British that he would provide such list, if the need arose. Given this, Maududi advocated that Qadiyanis be recognized as a minority and be given seats in the parliament and protected like other minorities.

Here are some of the writings of Qadiyani leaders advocating separation from Muslims:

--``The promised Christ made it clear that Ahmadis should not be led in prayer by a Muslim. Many letters come questioning this matter. My answer to them all is that no matter how many times you repeat the question, I will answer that it is not right, not right, not right to be led in prayer by a non-Ahmadiyan``. (Anwar Khilafat by Mirza Bashir Mahmud pp. 89)

--``We must neither believe in non-Ahmadiyan Islam, nor be led by them in prayer, because in our opinion they are disbelievers in one of Allah`s prophets``. (Ibid. pp. 90)

--``If a non-Ahmadi`s son died why ,we do not pray for him though he does not disbelieve in Ghulam Ahmad as the promised Christ! I myself ask those who have questioned me why we do not pray for the son of a Hindu or a Christian when they die....The non-Ahmadi`s son is one of the non-Ahmadis and for this reason prayer for them is not right``. (Ibid. pp.93)

--``The promised Christ was loathsome of an Ahmadiyan who wanted to let his daughter a non-Ahmadiyan. The man asked him many times, but the promised Christ ordered him not to do so. Then the man allowed his daughter marriage after the death of the promised Christ, so the caliph drove him away from his religious position and did not accept his penitence though the man repeated it many times until six years elapsed``. (Ibid. pp. 93-94)

--``The promised Christ did not allow any transaction with Muslims, except those permitted to be so with Christians and Jews. He distinguished us from Muslims in prayer, prohibited intermarriage with them, and prayer for their dead, so what is left to connect us with them? Interactions between people depend on two things and have two forms; a religious and a worldly transactions. The greatest means of religious transactions is to pray together and to intermarry. These two kinds are prohibited in our religion, and if you say that we are allowed to marry Muslim girls, I say that this applies to Christians, too. And if you question me why it is right to greet non-Ahmadis, my answer will be that according to a true prophet`s Hadith, he returned the greetings of Jews``. (Word Of Demarcation published in Rioy av Religinter, pp. 69)

Justice munir was greatest Butcher of Democracy. It is fashionable to blame religious orineted political people namely Mullahs. Munir gave justification for and laid golden path for future strong mens of pakistan starting with A to z and then to M. The mullahs or religious oriented politicians never led coups or carried out the killings in Bangladesh. All so called seculars are bogus and Lafangas talk is cheap. When the action is needed all seculars flock around strong men`s of Pakistan. One may like or not like religious people but they are not controlling part of govt. If govt followed the policy they liked they supported. The Buture of Bangladesh or Buture of balo.stan were not mullahs but the seculars of PPL. Mullahs did not carried our killings in Karachi but it was carried by Gen. Babar and his secular bosses. The ethinic killings were made by MQM of sindhis in Sindh , same way some famous sindhi nataionalists ( with great leaders calling themselves doctor Q M carried out killings in Hyd. bad they were all seculars damn good seculars. Seculars single heartedly supported killings in B.Desh. Except W.Khan of NWFP all were sad dogs looking to ``strong man`` for actions. Honestly secularism is of no significance when minority population is not there. Secular thought has value or relevance if there is thriving minority population. Its knod of passe subject. Its time was there at time of partition when Karachi and lahore had 50% ( plus minus) minority hindu and sikh population. They were ousted and with that secularism and it relevance was gone for EVER. ITs dry dead animal of no significance.
Secularism so dead and buried that we do not have to worry,. It is fatricide which is hovering our land. Shia doctors are slaughtered oner 200 Shia doctors were MURDERED no problem. Front. Post press was burned as for blasphemy.

The our PM in waiting is very pragmatic. To clear air he declared `` openly`` he is not minority and he is Sunni Muslims a us trained and Us green card holder. He is sure great secular to declare `` I am not minority and Sunni Muslim``. Now is he secular or Mullah ? or both. Our education lady headmaster declares I am fundamentalist. Our strong man is secular. All farce.
Secular shouting is joke. They do nothing. Religious bodies collect money and start religious schools. All seculars say they are horified and pack bags to usa or what not. They never stand upp collect funds as religious to start schools. They are lazy whining Lafanbebaz. Mostly seculars look for leftovers from army and hide themselves to do dirty work for army and declare great innonance.
Mullahs had never been power like secular PPP or ML but they are blamed by seculars.
Seculars have always supported army take over. Even well educated people like Manto lives, YLH and others have supported the present strong man. I can recall YLH going out of way to support General Sahib. or secular Bhuttos and what not. XXX Zindabad etc use to be exit line if i remember correct. Seculars are educated impotent , hitting at dead horse , mean , jalous of mullahs. Their argument is impossible to argue. They do not do little things like schools , social things like mullahs as they are too small and they do not do big things as they are afraid of strong man, total useless. Too much reading makes more foolish and frustration boils out on some stupid nonexiatant things like secularism etc. That J B Sameer is good man , atleast he does not change principles to suit situation.
Anyway this subject is beyond my mental capacity due mental inadequacies and combined with depression and anxity.
I ask for forgiveness for being wrong.

The only ones who ran out of arguments were Atif1, Escapist and the Mullah brigade... their arguments were exposed and hypocrisy was for everyone to see....

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00003740&channel=gulberg#interact

The Liar and Loser brigade is in full swing....

Atif 1... learn to spell `habit` ok? You misspelt it on unplugged the other day as well and now you are spelling it wrong again.

As for attacking other peoples` sisters... I was only inspired by your brilliant ilog in which you attacked dostmittar in the crassest vocab:

http://www.chowk.com/show_interactor_page.cgi?membername=atif1

....


Madani...

You are wrong.

Besides what about Kiyani... who was fired by Ayub for speaking out against Martial law?

-YLH

Hey YLH.

Just for the heck of it, also paste your dialogues on unplugged with my replies as well. :P

So people know how bad of a charb zabaan I am. And it would be good idea to let them see how easily it is to inspire you.

Question still remains.
If Mullahs are all bad, and power always stayed with the englightened secularists, who is to be blamed?

Mullas, Pundits & Priest are very much a part of the society provided they confine themselves to Mosque, Mandar & Church.

Historically, the Muslims get this periodic fetish of REFORMATION which creates a bigger mess than providing any answer - be it Emperor Aurangzeb, Saudi Phenenomenon, Taaliban or the MMA.

In our case, the 2-nation theory provided the perfect trigger. And after creation of Pakistan, this theory was never officially buried stating that now it was ONE NATION based on its history, heritage, land, rivers, different nationalities, different religions, languages, cultures.

So the Mulla in politics will continue to be recurring phenomenon unless this confusion is officially cleared, put in the text books, into our Constitution & into our Law.

There is a good chance that if undiluted mainstream political process is allowed to go on, Mulla with political theories will automatically get purged out. There is no other way.

NHK

Re: Mantolives

It is nice to know that warnings were sounded years before, but it would be even better to know, why they were ignored. It is nice to know what the justice said half a century ago, but it would be even better had their advice been followed. The problem in Pakistan is not the lack of foresight; it is the lack of willingness to listen to the words of wisdom.

In Pakistan, we have a multitude of reports, which are always classified and whose conclusions are always ignored. Justice Munir and his report pale in comparsion to the question, why nothing was done, when the reality was so clear to behold?

In Pakistan, we have developed a sad tradition of bolting the doors after the horses are no longer in the stables and we act without realizing the long term consequences of our acts. We are responsible for creating the very disasters, which have harmed Pakistan and yet we learn nothing from our past follies. It seems that in Pakistan, such reports as Munir Report and others like it are nothing more than a feeble by a mute person to preach to a deaf person.

In Pakistan, we can write all the reports we wish and they will amount to nothing, because we never read their conclusions and in hindsight, they are as good as not being penned in the first place. The problem is that quoting people or reports in Pakistan is wont to do nothing, because at the end of the day, it is the lack of implementation of those words, which dooms all good ideas in Pakistan.

Ciao

PS: Frankly people I still don`t see Wajahat`s point... What does he want? Does he want all the liberals to shut up? What personal responsibility does he talk about? How am I responsible for the mess of the Mullahs, the sectarian violence, the religious intolerance that has been created by the Mullahs?? When have I attacked mosques with grenades? When have I carried out sectarian killings? When has any liberal done any of these things? Where have the liberals called for the indiscriminate killing? The liberals only stand for an un-hindered democratic process with equal rights for everyone... how is that contributing to the mess? Read the damn piece as a bit of history... if nothing else. Is it a crime now to speak of the Munir Report? Jinnah`s 11th August speech? calling for a separation of church and state? How does it hurt the Mullahs? And where in the name of God have I called for the indiscriminate genocide of the Mullahs ?

Though I have given numerous solutions on numerous occasions including the last post... but say I didn`t... does that mean that outlining the problem is not important? Should all the liberal writers around the world shut up? The solution to the problem of Religious extremism is NOT complex. One really needs to be a total duffer not to see what the simple solutions are... It is implementation that is complex and suffers sadly at the hands of political expediency... And say this whole exercise is worthless as Wajahat says.... then what is his contribution... criticizing another worthless article... I find the audacity of these expats really amazing... they preach about the ground realities of Pakistan while sitting thousands of miles away... as if we who lived here are buffoons or something.



How may I ask are these issues not related to the ground realities? Are Sectarian killings NOT the ground reality of Pakistan? Are Shiite doctors not getting killed in Karachi? Are ordinary professors not being jailed for blasphemy? are the christians of Pakistan who form a significant minority not being discriminated against? Are women of Pakistan not being oppressed under Hudood laws? Are they not being denied their equal inheritance? Are young minds of our nation not being brainwashed into mindless fanatics? Aren`t the jehad factories now churning sectarian terrorists?

And expats like Wajahat have the nerve to tell us about ground realities?

Wajahat...

Just because you didn`t bother to read carefuly, doesn`t give you a reason to go around bashing me like this or to claim nonsense about me... besides I never saw any solutions from you. This is what I call retrogressive nonsense... I challenge you to show me where I called for Mullahs to be Shot?

Do you even know me... or what personal efforts I have made for the solution of this problem? It is rather sad that people like you take it upon yourself to interpret as you please anything I write... if you don`t know me, how can you accuse me of anything...


In any event even on chowk I think I have presented multiple solutions to these problems... The solution to Pakistan`s problem with religious intolerance lies in the following:



1) Implementation of all the proposals of the Munir Report ... Separating Church and State completely in Pakistan.

2) Continuation of the democratic process

3) Review of the existing legislation in light of the fundamental rights of the constitution

4) Abolition of the CII, or at the very least CII to be filled up with scholars of modernist ijtehadi outlook on Islam.

5) Education reform... not just more education, but better education. Reform of the curriculum. Textbooks etc.

6) Promotion of Art, culture and music ... promotion of media, free speech and international channels. Access to Internet ...

7) Making Pakistan an integral part of the the global economy so that the Mullah is marginalized to a point where he is no longer a player nor can he afford to be a player.

8) Allowing for a liberal left movement to gradually re-emerge after going into hiding

9) Marginalizing the Mullah within the faith, by rejecting organized priesthood.



The question was never of Solutions as Wajahat keeps harping on about uselessly and without any real basis... We know what the friggin` solutions are... Who the hell is going to implement them is the question.



-YLH

Mullah Bashing United.....

So how does a problem get solved?

You blame it on someone and than blame it some more. That is the modus operandi of some of the writers here at Chowk. Of recent there has been a lot of Mullah Bashing going on this Site, some deserving, others too simplified and bourgeosie in its conclusions. Although pseudo intellectual debate has little effect on the ground realities, it creates a potent pool of information for the uninitiated, which goes on to creates perceptions based on pure prejudice. After detailed discussions about this issue with these liberal Flag Bearers, it is easily seen that there is no sense of personal responsibility in the equation. They almost have an illusive halo around them, which somehow puts them on a higher moral cloud from which they can sit and preach and point fingers. Much like what there bearded counterparts in the opposite camp do from their high preaching stations. The problem is that too many of us are focusing to chant the differences and throw the stones of diatribe at each other. They keep missing the point that Solutions are not part of the blame game, which is merely a point scoring game for all those Laptop warriors.


YLH is a perfect example of this elitist pseudo intellectual debate, the guy has build up a knowledge library of all the ways a liberal can blame the Mullah without coming up with a single solution. The closest he came to a solution was when he said that all of them should be shot. Put a beard on him and sit him high on Preacher’s Mantle in a mosque and we would stop seeing the difference. Thus proving that the Problem in Pakistan is NOT just a mullah problem but equally shared with the Liberal bourgeosie who keep getting the knickers in a twist without ever really coming up with any form of a Solution.

Mantolives - nice try. But I am not atif1.

ahmedmadani - Amen Brother!!! It is about time these hypocrite, liars and so called ``secularists`` are castrated for selling our beloved nation for the last 60 years. It is chumchas like Mantolives who, as ill-equipped as they are in arguing a case because of their sub-standard education at Rutgers, spread hatred. Mullahs are less hypocrite than people like Mantolives who attack other peoples` sisters behind the cloak of `secularism`.

As for Qadiyanis, Maududi had campaigned to get them seats in the Parliament on minority basis. Why minority basis? Because Qadiyanis THEMSELVES had historically categorized themselves as such. Qadiyanis had ACTVELY worked to suppress Muslims throughout the British occupation. If anything, Maududi should be given credit for his tolerance towards Qadiyanis given their historic allignment with British in subduing Muslims.

Madani...

Please show me where I have said Musharraf Zindabad in my famous `exit` lines.

Madani...

Please show me where I have said Musharraf Zindabad in my famous `exit` lines.

NHK...

Quite correct...

The two nation theory was clearly not valid in an independent Pakistan ... as Ayesha Jalal puts it succinctly : ``Two Nation theory could only exist on an all India level.`` This is true because ``nation`` as per Benedict Anderson is an imagined idea.

Under the Independence of India Act... two geographical nations replaced the two warring religious communities. Even before 1947 it was more of a banner... but the complex demand for Pakistan itself was not as easy or simple as the TNT... TNT definitely did not mean Pakistan, and Pakistan definitely does not mean TNT... And TNT never stated at any point that Muslims and Hindus could not live together in one mighty multinational state of India... infact quite the contrary the TNT was emphatic in saying that Hindus and Muslims are two eyes of a beautiful bride... if one eye is smaller than the other ... the bride will look ugly.


In the post 1947 scenario, when League itself had failed to secure its real purpose i.e. safeguards at an all India center, and the reality being that India had still had a significant Muslim minority ... Pakistan as a Muslim-Majority state could not afford to be anything but strictly secular. This is why Jinnah repeatedly and consistently said that Pakistanis are one nation regardless of religion, caste or creed, a remarkable reversal from the position taken in United India... but a logical one nevertheless.


In any event the irony is that those who were opposed to Pakistan, and were supposedly the champions of `composite nationalism`.... came to Pakistan and starting agitating for an Islamic state. The truth is that the complex game of power struggle within South Asia, the Hindu-Muslim conflict, and the clashing ideas of modernity and tradition, had little to do with `ideologies` and `theories` whether it be Muslim Nationalism, Islamism, Multi-nationalism, Composite Nationalism or Hindu nationalism... but more to do with practical politics. The more I delve into Jinnah papers, I realize that the traditional view of history as being Congress vs Muslim League ... United India vs Independent Pakistan ... is not true. It is quite clear that the `Pakistan` was a vague idea, and at most it meant a great confederacy of India ... to satisfy Muslim League`s base in Punjab... it seems to me that the League leadership ... starting with Jinnah were unprepared for the separate state...

Look at some of the leaders who had rallied around Jinnah... Iftikharuddin, Barkat Ali, Abul Hashim, Jahanara Shahnawaz and even Faiz Ahmed Faiz who chose to become the editor of Pakistan times before Pakistan`s actual creation.

Could we imagine them to be strict TNT theorists?

Ladies and gentlemen...

The figures are staggering....

From 1947-1979 (32 years)... there were only 6 of blasphemy cases registered under the British made 295 A ... all 6 were acquitted ... and the petitioners were laughed out of the court.

From 1979-2004 (25 years) ... there have been more 600 cases... most of them sentenced... though only a few have been sentenced to death.

It turns out that whosoever wants revenge abuses the blasphemy law.

Excellent debate going on here! Always so much to learn on chowk.
Thanks, YLH, Madani sahib and MaududiLives!

Since 11th September 1948... the power has never been in the hands of any enlightened secularists... there were ofcourse secular machiavellians who made alliances with the Mullahs and they are despicable...

But ultimately it is the Mullah that is to be blamed... Since all of your pathetic little arguments were completely destroyed on the Hotel Mohenjodaro board... I suggest you stay away from this board. You have nothing new to offer... nor does your brigade of fanatical losers. I certainly don`t wish to talk to hypocrites like you who rant about Islam being non-theocratic, but when asked if they would work for their own `Non-theocratic Islamic democratic state`... they have no answer.

So why continue.. your kind has been discredited enough....

-YLH

Dear YLH

Just wanted to buck up in taking up this so-called intellectual combat against these `true` Pakistanis. I can see you`re doing a great job although I`ve reservations when it comes to any impact on these (I don`t seem to find a suitable word that actually describes all the qualities possessed by these ppl). My heart does shed tears when I look at my country`s half-a-century history and the brutality of most rulers and then, of course, the Mullahs in tearing apart the actual concept of non-theocratic state laid down by the Jinnah. But don`t you think this ought to happen they way we have been inscribing hatred among various vertical divisions of the society...especially the relgious? And then these `supporters` of the Pakistan movement have been brought to front who so often used to called this idea a pros#$%^&* of somebody`s thinking (and of course I hate to recall these words against my country, just like any sane patriot would do), and the way actual supporters have been sent to back quaters of the country...not to miss the only religious sect that supported Pakistan movement. But then, this Allah has made this world very fair. The way Pakistanis and Muslims` identities have shaken over the past decade due to various scenes happening at the international level, I think this is enough for any wise man to start questioning the major policies we as a society/country have been proliferating. But I don`t see any positive change in the foreseeable future...so the condition will probably further detoriarate. For that, personally, I do only submit to and look towards Allah for peace in this world of beasts lurking everywhere.

Kind regards
Bilal

p.s. I have no mood to indulge into the useless points bring sent forth about by ahmedmadani, MaududiLives blah blah....I wonder, haven`t ppl got tired of repeating the same issues for ever and ever and ever, with no gain. Give me a break yar.

YLH, keep it up!

Post 21 was addressed to Maudoodilives...


Maudoodilives...

You continue to blurt lies... please back up your allegations with some sources. Maudoodi was a liar and a fanatic... he was also the enemy of Pakistan. He admitted it on a number of occasions.

If you think `Qadianis` were oppressing Muslims by joining with the British then you must also agree with conspiracy theory that British made Pakistan since the Lahore Resolution was also drafted by a Qadiani....


bajwabilal,

Thankyou for support and kind words.

You are absolutely right about not engaging the irrelevant nonsense being blurted out by some of these so called Islam-pasands...


Sincerely

YLH

Manto:

You keep on bringing up the point about Mullahs being against Pakistan. But are you aware of WHY they were against Pakistan?

Stuka...

The Mullahs were just like anyone else... not a homogenous group... it was more about a complex power struggle than any real ideology...

Ahrar Party had infact tried to join the League provided League agreed to an Islamic state... Jinnah refused in 1944 and Ahrar went back to being a congress ally...

Maudoodi was critical of the Pakistan idea because he felt that the league leadership was too secular...

JUH had been built up as an opposition to the League within the Muslim community by Nehru and Azad... they didn`t have a political future with League firmly in saddle of the Muslim comunity. The so called nationalist Ulema were hardly secular protagonists of Indian nationalism... a closer view will reveal that they were basically after their own goals of political power and had their own power play interests...

I think enough has been written on it by some very credible Indian Historians and writers... including A G Noorani and Kuldip Nayyar.

Do you have an alternative explanation?

Manto:

Well, In India we were taught that Mullahs were against Pakistan because it would bifurcate the Muslim population of India. They were not against Pakistan in principle but felt that all Muslims of India are one Qaum and to divide the qaum would be to weaken it.

Since that is what happened, it is easier to understand their objection and it should be held against them.

Also, it is said that they had a dream of all of India becoming a Muslim nation. Not realistic maybe but again understandable from their persective.

Amazing chaps these Pakistani Muslims are!!

First, they carve a state on the basis of Islam. Then, they decide what the definition of Islam is (and declare some of their sects as Kafir in the process)? Next, they decide to keep out Islam from political process, confine Mullahs to Mosques and so on.

As if this is not enough, they also start a movement to declare Pakistan a secular state; off course, after driving out all the Hindus and Sikhs and forcing the others to convert. Even ethno-nationalism is on the rise. So, Sindhis and Punjabis now want to learn their own language. There was a time when they dumped all these languages for an Urdu Muslim identity. Now they`ve realized that Urdu is not their mother tongue.

You guys are a terrible box of contradictions.

Point of Information:


Re: In India we were taught that Mullahs were against Pakistan because it would bifurcate the Muslim population of India.


After the Khilafat Movement (the primordial opportunity of Mullahs to enter politics) Molana Abul Kalaam Azad issued a Fatwa supported by Molana Abdul Baari, urging the Muslims to leave the British Governed India and migrate to Afghanistan, playing havoc with the lives of tens of thousands of Muslims, supporting their point of view with the example of the migration of Prophet Mohammad. In 1947, when the issue came under debate again, the same Ulema proved their loyalty to congress by opposing the idea of Pakistan, bringing in the bifurcation argument, and resorting to emotional rhetoric.

ardeshir: why does every new indian coming to chowk come in with sarcastic remarks like the one you started with? are you people really suffering from such poor personalities that you consider this to be the normal form of introducing yourself? as i said before, the smart ones among you learn soon enough the big difference between pakistanis and indians (Pakistanis dont carry chips on their shoulders like most indians i have seen on chowk) and start to behave like normal people. the stupid ones continue their routine ``pakis are this, pakis are that`` tune year after year - thus providing evidence that snide remarks and petty insults are considered the normal form of social interaction in many indian cultures (not the panjabi culture though, since so far only panjabi indians like dost mittar and stuka have been exceptions to the above rule).

What we need is an anthropological study to understand why you people are like this.

stuka #27

We aren`t taught any of those reasons.

The first one makes no sense because the British weren`t dividing Muslims Qaum into two; they were dividing the people living in the area into a Muslim Qaum and a Hindu Qaum. So if the Mullahs were concerned about the weakening of the Muslims Qaum, the formation of Pakistan was their best bet. They could collect all their Muslim Qaum in one area and completely purge the powers of other Qaums.

The second reason that they saw themselves as the rightful heirs to the Mughals and ruling over/converting the the whole of India runs very foul of the `Romilla history` we are taught. You may find it unrealistic but in the history of mankind, tiny and forceful minorities have always ruled over larger less aggressive majorities. However in `Romilla history` very many things are simply are not said.


Manto

Man, your persistence amazes me. When you were returning to Pakistan, in my mind I didn`t give you more than four or five years before you would give up. But you may still surprise all of us. My sincerest best wishes. Don`t let anything I or other Indians, or even Pakistanis write get you down.

On Mullah the Menace.

The non-Mullah leadership has let everyone down time and again with corrupt and selfish policies. But why is it that we are so much more infuriated at the menace of the Mullah?

Alot of people ask this question- on chowk and elsewhere. Why are liberals so against Mullahs when they have never been in power?

I would like to offer an explanation. Apart from the obvious destructive force the Mullah is, there is the issue of what the `association` of the Mullah with religion.

Recall the recent controversy of the Catholic church priests in America. The whole country was disgusted at finding out the extent to which the priests were involved in sexually molesting children. Many renounced their faiths. People were utterly disgusted. They would probably have not been half as disgusted at the crime had it been the `average` criminal. But it was a holy PRIEST.

Similarly, we get infuriated at the Mullah`s actions more than if it was an average politician doing this.

Anyway, Mullah the Menace is a real and growing threat. And it needs to be tackled head on with ideas and by supporting democracy. In a country where the overwhelming majority of Muslims think that only their religious view is right and that their religion is a sacred cow, it offers the Mullah lots of room to manipulate. Non-manipulative democracy is important because the Mullah lives off of slogans. A continious process of democracy pronounces those slogans dead. All one needs to do is look at the consistent decline Mullah parties have faced in the democratic processes of Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Malaysia.

Stuka...

Please read my post addressed to Nazar Hayat Khan... It was a power play ... Mullahs couldn`t care less about the bifurcation of the Muslim community.

-YLH

ardeshir haider...

Yaar you suffer from a very simplistic understanding from history... but good for you anyway...

1) Implementation of all the proposals of the Munir Report ... Separating Church and State completely in Pakistan.

C`mon Manto, putting aside the passionate diatribe for the moment, do you really think that in the current environment this is possible. With the likes of MMA brought into power to the serve the very secular Musharraf and destabilise the Crooks of PML and PPP. Infact Musharraf has brought the state more closer to the Church with the current political setup.

2) Continuation of the democratic process

Democracy in pakistan is a cosmetic cover for Army rule, which is the only form of government that is in place at the moment.

3) Review of the existing legislation in light of the fundamental rights of the constitution

With MMA in the Senate, any review that will take place will only be based upon shariah, something that would further enforce the medieval practices from Islam`s History. The Shariah itself is a perfect source of code, but it is proven that the devil is in the interpretation.

4) Abolition of the CII, or at the very least CII to be filled up with scholars of modernist ijtehadi outlook on Islam.

Where will you gather these Ijtehadi scholars from, where the society has lost its moral balance and is towards two extremes. The Liberal Flagbearers who feel that capitalism is the answer to all plights or the extreme fundoos who preach religious hate.

5) Education reform... not just more education, but better education. Reform of the curriculum. Textbooks etc.

I agree completely on that, but then you will have to look at the extreme difference that has been created over the last 30 years between the local and foreign education standards and answer that question as well. Govt vs Private education

6) Promotion of Art, culture and music ... promotion of media, free speech and international channels. Access to Internet ...

Isnt this all happening already, right here at chowk to all the international channels like ARY etc.

7) Making Pakistan an integral part of the the global economy so that the Mullah is marginalized to a point where he is no longer a player nor can he afford to be a player.

The bourgeosie in Pakistan have been trying this one for 5 decades and look where this has got us too, a marginalised, bigoted, hatefull Mullah repressed out of mainstream social development and sent to obscure madarassahs and allowed to hatch into a potent political force like the MMA. Nice one YLH.

8) Allowing for a liberal left movement to gradually re-emerge after going into hiding

Houses, Corporate Jobs, Western Lifestyles ; the Liberal left is kind of morally bankrupt itself to reclaim religion from the fanatic.

9) Marginalizing the Mullah within the faith, by rejecting organized priesthood.

Maybe in the Vatican, but isnt this a tad little impossible for Pakistan.

Organised Preisthood; maybe you oight to write an article about this as well.


On a personal note, chill out a little bit dude, dont take it so personally all the time. I respect the passion that endears your write up, i just feel that all the firework & aggression in your words is misplaced.

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

wajahat #35

An effective way to counter Manto is to tell everyone what your approach to making things better may be. Manto`s solutions might not work. So what will?

Point of Information:


Re: [Modudi`s] freedom of speech was usurped by the undemocratic entities.

Section 298 C of the Penal Code of Pakistan suggests an imprisonment of upto three years, and a fine for an Ahmedi who ``preaches or propagates his faith, or invites other to accept his faith, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations or in any manner whatsoever.`` This is a direct violation of Article 20 of the Constitution of Pakistan which grants every citizen a right to ``profess, practice and propogate his religion``, and Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This violation of Human Rights was brought about in the Martial Law Ordinance XX of 1984 by President General Zia, who qualifies to be called an undemocratic entity.

Wajahat...

Mind sharing your solutions with us sometime? It seems like that you will accept nothing but a marxist critique... I personally could care less about capitalism or socialism... but I do admit that with a strong leftist movement Pakistan was much better of... I am a bit of a sympathizer myself if you know what I mean... In any event Remember what theory said... the creation of a Liberal Bourgeoise National Democracy is necessary for the move towards a Marxist state... so even if you are a marxist you should hardly be throwing stones at the Liberal Bourgeoise for now... If we talk in terms of such development... let me remind you that we are stuck in a stage where we haven`t emerged out of feudalism completely nor have we rejected the church as of yet... an attempt to make a marxist state will be not only futile... it will be dangerous.... and don`t give me Shariati`s Islamic Marxism mumbo jumbo... look what that brought Iran to ...

As for your post.... That was my point exactly... We know the solutions... the question is implementation. The reason why we keep repeating and harping on this issue is to keep the dissent alive... because we fear the Mullah is about to shut us permanently.

Look at ARY... granted it has channels after channels dedicated to Indian Music for which I can care less... but really have you seen some of the `religious scholars` and `political views` aired on that channel? Have you had the chance to see Dr. Shahid Masood...The Mullah is more than visible there than anywhere else... they are the modern mullahs continuously spreading lies and conspiracy theories amongst Pakistanis... same goes for channels like Geo... etc... though Geo has hope ... because it is run by a progressive liberal and an extremely patriotic man ... Imran Aslam... But even a left leaning channel like Indus TV is the victim of Mullah Mentality... every week atleast twice they repeat a verbiage against the theory of evolution ... holding it responsible for Nazism...


So the Mullah is sitting in the senate... and the Mullah is sitting in the national assembly and he is ruling two provinces.... what are your solutions? My solution is to allow the democratic process to run its course without interference... and hope for the Mullah to be kicked out of office, which I am sure he will be. You will probably settle for no less than a Marxist revolution... something I think it counterproductive at this stage of our national development...

Also when I said review ... I meant a judicial review... but for that to happen you will have to find judges like Kiyani again.

-YLH

I agree with wajahat on the rhetoric part. The munir report is dead. It is good historical reference and should be looked as such only. The circumstances and politics have changed since then. Politics is cyclical. Nothing stays the same and things keep moving.
Wars are fought and justified on ideologies. Economic interests are hidden behind ideological rhetoric. The current rise of fundamentalism in Pakistan is related to the Afghan event in the 70s. The US and Pakistan had to fight communism and the only plausible platform they had, was the religion. Consequently, the Mullah v/s the liberal struggle in Pakistan changed from the one in the 60s and the 70s.
Nobody gives up power and benefits of powers easily. Mullah is no exception.

So, Pakistan will have to go thru this struggle. The handicaps are there but giving up this fight would be suicidal. The problem is with the army. Any economic progress in Pakistan directly helps the army and it is not going to choose liberals as allies until liberals give up the demand for democracy.

There are currently two major groups of liberals in Pakistan. One wants to help the army and the US in its fight against the mullah and the terror that Mullah supports. The other group doubts army’s commitment to this cause and feels that the army will never totally severe its patronage of the mullah. Interestingly, the group that opposes the army is behind Nawaz Sharif. Though Nawaz Muslim league itself is not fully anti army. But the liberals need political patronage and they are getting that from Nawaz League. The group that wants to work with the army, travels with the PPP more.

The real struggle for the democracy in Pakistan is going to come from the smaller provinces and that’s why we see currently sindhis are being arrested all over the province. People who just rely on newspapers are being misled again by the media into believing that Sindhi and Baluchis are into some narrow nationalistic struggle. That is not the case. The democrats in Sindh or in Baluchistan have to create some ideological ground to rally people around them.
Recently, The daily times, otherwise a worthy newspaper ran an editorial condemning the democrats from the smaller provinces. This shows that even the most liberal media in Pakistan has army infiltration and as the battle intensifies more and more so-called liberals are going to switch sides.
Yasser is perhaps from the group that wants to work with army and expects that the army would change things. I doubt that is going to happen. Aggressively going after the mullah is good but until we condemn the army equally, the liberals would end up playing in the hands of the army.

I recently heard that the PPP is going to support a Hindu candidate to run against Shaukat Aziz in Sindh. I think it would be a good move and this will further help liberals in Pakistan. The results of the elections are known but the PPP move would send a very good signal to the international community.

re: #28 Ardeshir_Haider

A Chinese proverb says, ``Believing same at 40 what you believed at age 20 means wasting 20 years of your life``. Pakistanis are third generation removed from partition and 5 generations removed from Muslims (read Punjabi Muslims only, becasue Bengali, Sindhi, Balochi and Pashtun Muslims never opted for Urdu) opting for Urdu. We are changing as the evolution of nation, society and cultures we live in are changing around us. Your post is naive, simplistic, weak and worth garbage. Based on your logic, Americans should own slaves because founding fathers owned them. You have no idea how different Pakistanis are now from 1947 and language politics of 1920s. The three-way religion based group intrests that motivated Punjabi Muslims to opt for Urdu no longer exists and the politics of partition ended with the creation of Pakistan. Due to Punjabis Muslims opting for Urdu, evolution of Punjabi language among Punjabi Muslims was arrested for 6-7 decades but now on fast track of evolution to catch up with the needs and with more developed neighboring languages like Sindhi. Changing and adopting with time is actually hopeful sign of Pakistanis who are ready and open-minded.


Manto:

Like rozaiba`s post, I dont disagree with the degenerating and retrogressive role urban mullahs have been playing on the evolution of rational society and influencing society evolution just as much, if not more, as they were to be in power like Talibans in Afghanistan. However, if mullahs are idiot, then sizeable urban public is stupid as I laid out the case in my article. Pakistani urban society has failed to limit the role and power of mullah as rural society has successfully done. One can argue that mulah is able to make inroads due to pryng on public sensitivity to Islam and the importance they grant to religion in all affairs of social conduct. I would tend to blame public for letting the genie out of the bottle than othe way around. A good 20-30 percent urban population in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad supports mullahs in political matters. The percent is much higher if the role of mullah is tabulated on his role on non-political social conduct and added to political conduct. It is public. However, since it is politically incorrect to lay blame at the doors of public, the blame is passed on to the next best group available as the direct consequence of bad public choices for leadership in political and non-political social conduct. Mullahs are not blameless because they have taken the advantage of public delusions.

What can you say about a public who votes 20-30 percent for pan-Islamic platform parties and not happy to live with their neighbors. Large number of these people dont want to be called Sindhis or be part of Sindh despite living there for three generations and then voting for pan-Islamic platform. Is this speaking from both sides of the tongue (or mouth it is?) or what? Not only mullah but every tom, dick and harry including the dismissed and unemployed general for 3-4 hours who grabbed power by using his connections to invade Islamabad and was determined to hang another elected prime minister on trumped up charges, would thrive in this confusing, hypocrite, principleless environment. There is powerful army who will back mullahs whenever it deems necessary; there are Pashtun and Balochi nationalsits, who would be more than happy to join hands with pan-Islamists than neighboring Punjabis. Then there are people who claim Punjabis are really three distinct ethnicities and in the same sentence talk about Punjabis domination of middle and lower rank government employments. Idiots dont realize that both of these arguements contradict each other. If Punjabis are really Sariaki, Punjabi and Potowari, then there is not even remote case of Punjabi domination in government employment and if Punjabis dominate, then they must be one ethnic group.

So, Yasser, mullahs are the product of favorable conditions provided and produced by a combination of factors with Islam and army leading the way.

HP...

Dude... have you not read my articles posts etc?

I am a die hard PPP Wallah...

-YLH

Ralph...

Thanks for your compliment... but it hasn`t been 5 years yet... However I don`t think I will move for another 60 years ... I love it out here... though I am often irritated by the growing Mullah presence...

But the chowk crowd out here is pretty cool... You should come visit us sometime...

Kaurasuch...

SAW is an abbreviation for an arabic term of reference used in Islam for the Prophet.

Ahmadis believe that the word `seal` means perfection... that Prophets can still come but none of them will ever bring a new `sharia` because Muhammad (SAW) was the last prophet in that respect... As for marrying pretty girls off to make more Muslims Ahmadis ... I don`t think so... for one thing, I really haven`t seen a pretty Ahmadi girl ... no offence to Ahmadis... secondly they are very conservative, always in Purdah and are often married within the Ahmadiya sect...

The Ahmadi community suffers from its own problems... one of them is that they follow the sunni mazhab to the letter when it comes to religious practice... they are usually very resentful of Shiites for some weird reason...

They are however educated and high-achievers... and this is the real cause of resentment by these Jamaat-e-Islami wallahs... it is quite clear when one reads Maudoodi`s life history and the life history of other Ahmadi-Bashers... that they were trying to pull another Hitler in Pakistan... the name `Ahmadi Problem` sounded a lot like `the Jewish Problem`... and the accusations and vocabulary that is used by these fanatics is quite similar.

In 1970 Maudoodi`s son visited Rabwa an Ahmadi city near Sargodha... what he said to Mirza Nasir Ahmed, then leader of the Ahmadiyya community was `It is a given that the Jamaat-e-Islami will sweep the polls... but if you promise us your support, we assure you safe passage out of Pakistan`...

This was what caused the Ahmadis to come out in great numbers to support Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and the Peoples` Party... the rest we know is history... the Ahmadis were ultimately betrayed by Bhutto himself... however it was out of Political expediency and not out any ideological commitment and therefore Ahmadis were spared the concentration camps promised by the Jamaat-e-Islami...

I have no doubt that if any of the Mullahs... these enemies of Pakistan... ever came to power they would do to Ahmadis what Hitler did to the Jews...

-YLH

MaudidiLives (#7):

Here’s a different take on the Ahmadi/non-Ahmadi prayer issue.

Praying behind an imam is tantamount to accepting his views of Islam. Ahmadi view of Islam accepts continuation of prophethood and belief in prophets of Allah is an important belief of Islam. If a Muslim refuses to accept Promised Messiah … it is fair for Ahmadis to refuse to pray behind him.

This issue came to a flashpoint as threats of violence, as well as violence against Ahmadi-Muslims started to rise in the sub-continent. There were hundreds and thousands of Ahmadis living side by side with other Muslims in town and villages all across the country. Several Ahmadis were thrown out of mosques (and their seats washed, to make them holy again!), they were declared kaffirs and even wajib-e-qatal (deserving death) by Islamic scholars.

As the conflict escalated and threats of violence became imminent, the jamaat leadership took a stand in this regard. Rightfully so. It seems that a lot of violence and bloodshed has been avoided by this simple and firm decision of the jamaat. Do note that … to this day, lives, mosques, and property of Ahmadis continue to be attacked and destroyed in “the land of the pure” … at the incitement of mullahs in villages across Pakistan. And by no coincidence, perpetrators are never captured or brought to justice. And this supports the position of Ahmadi-Muslims, that their fears were not unfounded to begin with.

And one more thing … the charges against Ahmadis … that they conspired with the British to suppress Muslims … is based on bogus propaganda.

In short, Ahmadi-Muslims rejected calls of jihad against the British … since the jihad pre-requisites, as specified in Quran, did not exist. From what I understand, there was an on-going debate among Muslim scholars … with little consensus on this issue. Ahmadi-Muslims interpreted Quran in a way that called for peaceful resolution of the political conflict, and hence their reluctance in picking up arms against the British.

YLH.

Aap kay unplugged pay farmoodaat bata rahay thai kay aap PPP kay hi ho saktey hain.

It is no wonder that ``secularist qadiyanis`` like Mantolives are rejoicing at the butchering of Iraqi people. We should be very aware that Qadiyanis strengthened British occupation.

Qadiyanis chose to connect themselves with British Colonial govt in India. They know so well that it is in their interest to support foreign occupation because it suffocates Muslims and helps them achieve gains and destroy Islam. An independent and free Muslim nation is a hateful unfruitful land which they abhor greatly.

We can quote many texts taken from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad`s assertions and from his followers` declarations, but it suffices us to quote some and without commentary.

--``The English Government has bountifully rewarded, helped, and favored us to the extent that if we leave this country neither Mecca, nor Istanbul would shelter us. So how came you to doubt its goodness``.
(Ahmadiyan Talks, vol 1 pp.146)

--``I am unable to perform what I wish in Mecca, Medina, Domascus, Persia, Kabul or Rome except under this government`s protection for whose glory and victory I do pray God``. (Conveying the Message by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, vol VI pp. 69)

--``Oh, just think a little which land all over the world will shelter you, if you leave this country. Mention one government that will welcome and shelter you. All Muslim countries detest you and wish to kill you because, in their opinion, you are disbelievers. So estimate well the heavenly favor (the favor of British occupation) and be aware that Allah had not
brought the British into this country except for your welfare and interests. If catastrophes befall the British, you will not escape their dire effect and if you demand a proof of what I say, go and find shelter under any other regime and when you do this you will
see what happens to you. The British are Allah`s mercy and blessing, and a citadel for your protection. Estimate the British well and love them dearly because they are a thousand times better than Muslims who oppose you. It is sufficient to convince you with only
one thing: the British do not wish to humiliate or slaughter you``.
(Ghulam Ahmad`s valuable advice in conveying the message vol 1, pp. 123)

--``It is well known to all those who study the historyof nations how the Persian government maltreated Mirza Ali Mohammad Bab, the founder of Babism and his followers. It destroyed Babism for nothing else than religious disputes. It is as well known how the Turkish government ill-treated Bhah`Allah, the founder of Baha`ism and his followers between 1863-1893. It imprisoned them in Istanbul first, then in Edranovel and Acca. We also not know any other three countries which demonstrated religious fanaticism and narrowness
and which do not cope with the age of civilization and culture. Our knowledge of these three countries leads us to the conviction that the freedom of Ahmadis is closely related to the British throne.

All true Ahmadis who believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a holy prophet sent by Allah to people do believe, without any little bit of flattery, that the British Government is Allah`s favor and the shade of His mercy. They also believe that the life of the British
Government is theirs``. (Al Fadl 13 Sept 1914)

These above mentioned assertions quite clearly certify to the fact that this gang of pretenders are aware of the benefits of disbelievers` occupation of Muslim counties because under the protection of occupation they can achieve their aims. If Muslim got power into
their hands, these pretenders will be crashed because free Muslims will not abide with those who destroy their religion and split their society.

Maududilives: You got that wrong too. Maudoodi is dead. And no doubt paying for his sins in the next world. As you will too, in due course (unless you stop worshipping your god Maudoodi).

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

MaududiLives (#47),

You have shown that you know how to “google” and copy-and-paste. Impressive. This however, is no substitute for quoting excerpts in their proper context. Some background here may help.

From what I have understood, the British did not allow persecution of Ahmadis … and that was surely a good thing. How can one argue against it? Do note that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) also enjoyed protection of an infidel … his own uncle … who was a tribal leader, and never accepted Islam. The enemies of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tried to have the uncle remove his protective support of Muhammad … but the uncle did not budge. There is nothing wrong with enjoying protection of a third party in a conflict. If it is for a good cause, it is indeed a divine blessing.

This is further supported by the fatwas of death … issued by the fanatic mullahs all over the world against Ahmadis. Indeed, the British rule put an end to the evil designs of the “ullema of Islam”. However, when it was time to struggle for Pakistan, Ahmadis fully supported the effort for a state where Muslims and others would be able to practice their faith.

Here’s more to consider: Before the arrival of the British, Sikhs ruled in parts of Punjab. The Sikh government had strong anti-Muslim sentiments, and it often acted out these sentiments … in much violent ways. Muslims were not allowed to offer congregational prayers, and if a Muslim gave aazan, his tongue was cut off. The British put an end to the misery of Muslims … by granting them the right to freely practice their faith. This is one more reason why it was not appropriate for Muslims to carry out fighting jihad against the British.

Now, re-read the excerpts you posted. Hopefully they will make sense.

It will be interesting to see what will happen if maulvi parties, continue to win democratic elections. What if MMA wins in Punjab and Sind someday, and becomes the majority party. Will it be allowed its day in the sun, by the people who keep arguing for election after elections?

Currently, to the best of my knowledge, Turkey is the only country that has elected an Islamic party into power. Iran would be another one, but people tend to doubt the way elections are held there. The other factor being that Iran reached its religious peak, a few decades ago, and is now moving towards the middle. While Turkey has made a clear shift from fanatically secular policies, supported by the guns of the military, to a religious party, which was banned once before, even though it had won the elections.

If free elections are held in Iraq (easily the most secular state in the Arab world), the religious forces will win power and will be in the opposition also. In Algeria, religious parties have (had) won also, and the Army forcefully kicked them out. In Egypt, religious parties are being kept at bay, by the dictatorship. In Saudi Arabia, if the monarchy goes, the resulting govt. will be heavily religiously influenced (even the monarchy is). So on and so forth.

And, of course, in Pakistan, the religious parties have won unprecendented seats, this time around. To the point that people can no longer use the old saying, ``maulvis never win in Pakistan.``

This should give a good indication of the trends in the Muslim world. The more democratic the govts. are becoming, the more and more religious parties are coming into power (or into opposition). It would be extremely naive to write this off, simply, as a, ``mullah and his voter friends gone nuts`` phenomenon. It is obviously much more than that. It is a change in the thought processes of the populaces, across the Muslim world.

One can hide one`s head in the sand and lay the credit of the success of mullahs on, ``other`` factors. Or one could just say that the voting population consists of nutcases. But the whole basis of democracy is that people know what they want for their own good - specifically in the cities, where they are not under feudal control. If, ``20-30``% of the people in Karachi are supporting the mullah, then are they all idiots? All 3-4 million of them? If they are, then the whole concept of democracy goes out the door, since Karachi has the most literate population in Pakistan.

Those who want to put a brake on the rise of the mullah, will not be able to do so, by conveniently blaming it on the CII, or the Supreme Court, or the Army, or on certain lines in textbooks (who remembers those lines, anyways), or on ARY, or on Two Nation Theories. Even if their argument is accepted, how does that explain the rise of the maulvi, in Muslim countries, other than Pakistan - specifically where elections of some sort are being held? Should that be blamed on Zia-ul-Haq also (he died over 15 years ago. Isn`t it about time, people opened their eyes, and realized that he cannot control the current social situation, any longer?)

This rise of the mullah needs to be studied in much more depth than this. For starters, it has to be accepted that his parties have genuine democratic following in so many countries. And the people who are following them aren`t idiots. Maybe they are following him, because despited all his faults, they actually see him as the best options out of a lot of poor options......His are the only parties, which allow the poorest of the poor a chance to have his/her voice heard.

Maybe people need to look at the fact that the whole Islamic world voted for non-mullahs for forty years, after WWII, everywhere. What exactly did these non-mullah parties (be they civilian or miltiary) do for the welfare of the poor Muslim? They did a lot for the tiny Chowk crowd (myself included), but their is a Pakistan beyond Defence, Clifton, Islamabad also.

That is where they will find the answers for why the mullah`s graph is rising.

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

nikki: I assume you mean the p for ``people`` (as in ``you people``). Sometimes in the heat of battle one cuts friends as well as foes - I didnt mean ALL Indian people, I meant only those who introduce themselves on chowk the way this man did - he could have said ``I am Ardeshir Haider, from the great province of Maharashtra, and how are all of you today?`` He could have said, ``I am the man from fine city of Mumbai, Pray tell where are you from meray bhai?`` He could even have said a simple ``Hail fellows, well met``.

But no. He starts off with abuse. So need need to drown your sorrows. Glad you agree with everything I wrote except the last line. Since the ``you people`` could easily be misunderstood, I replace that line with the following: ``What you need, Master Ardeshir pehlwan, is an anthropologist to study the environment you grew up in.`` Master Ardeshir to kindly note the change and correct his copy of the post accordingly.

Cheers.

Islam should be a source, not the source to run Pakistan.

Fauji-lover Romair`s post number 51:

Everytime you are given a counter-argument and your list of world examples is thrashed as being baseless comparisons you run away and come up with new countries to show as examples.

First it was your `Pakistan can be like Malaysia, it can be like Singapore, it can be like Korea, like Taiwan` whereas there was absolutely no comparison between those countries were given all out support from America and most were also blessed with visionary leaders. Pakistan has nothing. Now with regards to mullah the menace, it`s the comparison of Pakistan with Algeria, Iran etc.

You, like the Mullahs have the same psyche. You don`t care to deal with the process and the underlying forces at work. You just take the statistic- the end result- and worship it and then propound worthless theories to back it up.

Time and again analysts have pointed out how dictatorial regimes provide the best breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalism. Your examples of Egypt, Algeria, Iraq- all justify that theory of analysts. Show me a place where there is a strong Islamic fundamentalist movement and I`ll show you a dictatorial policy and a regime that is behind it. Or in many cases, there is a Fauji-freak behind it!

After Suharto left Indonesia, it was the fundo leader who became PM. Now after a relatively untampered DEMOCRATIC PROCESS his party doesn`t figure much. In Malaysia, because of the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS the fundos have had only minor success and in the last election fell further behind. In Bangladesh, precisely because of the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS the Jamat has about half the seats it had in the early nineties.

THESE are the examples you should be looking at. However, because of your Fauji-loving mentality, you only look at dictatorial regimes as it`s only there where you can justify your lop-sided rationale. You get overjoyed at seeing the `inconsistency` of those who decry 20-30 percent of Karachi voting for religious parites BUT are even more overjoyed when 80 percent of the population`s candidates are rejected and replaced by criminal chamchaaz by the your lovable fauji-freaks.

I don`t need to challenge you as your are incapable of rising above your convulated fauji-loving mentality. Please go find some other countries to draw retarded comparisons to. Perhaps you may have more success drawing comparisons with Equatorial Guinnea or Guinnea Bissau.

sameerJB,

At best, your remarks about Pakistani people not accepting Urdu are hilarious. I`m sure it was an Indian hand at work, that forced Urdu to be adopted as the national language of Pakistan.

Save yourself from becoming a victim to moral sermonizing of Chinese. The proverb you quoted reflects their unhealthy way advancing their goals - see someone as a friend when you are 20, as an enemy when you are 40, just because you`ve already used his friendship to advance your position. When there was no glue to hold your rag-tag nation of mutiple ethnicities, you looked upto Urdu... job done you want to throw it out. How convenient!!

Comparing Urdu to Punjabi is a cruel joke. At best, Punjabi is an unrefined form of Urdu. To substitute this unchiseled, rude and flat language for Urdu is taking your country backwards.

Jahalat ko mazhab banake....

tahmed,

Blame it on me, on India, on the scheming machinations of the other Muslim countries, or the world at large, but the fact that you batting on a sticky wicket IS NOT MY FAULT. I
didn`t have a hand in the troublesome state of affairs that you people have created in your
country. Generally, I prefer to keep shut keeping in mind the excessive Paki sensibility to
any remark directed at their reality. But, when I saw manto and his ilk shouting from
rooftops, debasing mullahs and waxing eloquent about a `secular` Pakistan...couldn`t stop
myself.

Hell, the mullahs are kicked on both sides, on one side for causing partition, on the other for opposing it. I`m sure studying religion is a mistake in your part of the world. BTW, the worst crimes of genocide were perpetrated by secular alcohol guzzling pedophiles and not by maulanas - remember Bangladesh.

``What we need is an anthropological study to understand why you people are like this`` Good to know that you finally worked out the meaning of that fancy word anthropology. If you take my advice, don`t waste your precious resources on such inanities. Better to spend money on medicine, otherwise your children will keep coming to our country for treatment.

Maududi...

So now you are assuming I am a Qadiani by faith? and I don`t oppose the Iraq war?

You know why no one is buying your nonsense... because there is nothing straight forward about you... you appear to be a sinister, bigoted fanatic... and nothing else...

You know what the only difference between Maudoodi and Hitler was? Hitler had a brilliant political sense... he outwitted Hidenberg`s advisors to get into power... Maudoodi kept dreaming that he was coming to power... he sold himself repeatedly to America... to the Army... etc but he could never win elections... and I have no doubt that had the a-hole actually gotten into power ... he would have been worse... he would`ve been as brutal as the Nazis... but unlike the Nazis he wouldn`t leave behind autobans and Volkswagen... he just wouldn`t have the vision to do so.

Romair...

An Islamic party like Turkey`s AKP is perfectly acceptable to us... like I said somewhere... compared to AKP even our PPP is a Jehadist party.

-YLH

Manto,

Good to hear that patronizing remarks are considered better than contemptuous ones in your book of decent conduct. Are you a History professor? What part of History did I get wrong in my post?

Anyways, it is good to hear a Pakistani talk about nay teach History to an Indian. I thought your history starts with Harappa then fast forwards to Qasim Bhai`s emancipation of the Sindhi masses :-)

he #53 i think what you mean is we should have separation of religion and state. Because even if we all claim to be muslims, the fact is that there are vast differences in what we consider to be islam. Trouble in Pakistan is that the maulvi wishes to push his version - which by no stretch of imagination can be called islam, and Maudoodism is the correct word for it. And furthermore the maulvi wishes to enforce Maudoodism on Pakistan by giving it the name of Islam.

The only good news is that the vast majority of Pakistanis see through the mullahs nonsense, and it is only due to the military support that these rascals are anything more than a bunch of lotta carriers.

barachota #52 Dost mittar visited Pakistan, and wrote a series of wonderful articles on it. While I always knew that Pakistan was a wonderful country, these articles told me a lot about Dost Mittar too - that he basically has a positive outlook on life and is not a loser. And I have known him on chowk for 2-3 years now and consider him to be a gentleman. So I suggest you dont form an opinion in haste.

As for something DM may have said in anger (which I believe he did recently, although I havent read it nor consider it important enough for me to bother reading it): he may well have been unfair - but then he apologized for whatever it is he said on unplugged. Furthermore, we ALL say unfair and mean things when we get angry.

Bon nuit. j`ai voir le cinema francaise ajourdhoui - mais avec des subtitles.

Dr. Mohammad Iqbal`s Letter to Pandit Nehro.

In this letter Iqbal says ``I have no doubt in my mind that the Ahmadis are traitors both to Islam and India.``

********

Lahore
June 21, 1936

Dear Pandit Jawahar Lal,

Thank you so much for your letter which I received yesterday. At the time I wrote in reply to your articles, I believed that you had no idea of the political attitude of the Ahmadis. Indeed the main reason why I wrote a reply was to show, especially to you, how Muslim loyalty had originated and how eventually it had found a basis in Ahmadism. After the publication of my paper, I discovered, to my great surprise, that even the educated Muslims had no idea of the historical causes which had shaped the teachings of Ahmadism moreover. Your Muslims admirers in the Punjab and elsewhere felt perturbed over your articles as they thought you were in sympathy with Ahmadiyya movement. This was mainly due to the fact that the Ahmadis were jubilant over your articles. The Ahmadis Press was mainly responsible for this misunderstanding about you. However, I am glad to know that my impression was erroneous. I myself have little interest in theology, but had to dabble in it a bit in order to meet the Ahmadis on their own grounds. I assure you that my paper was written with the best of intentions for Islam and India. I have no doubt in my mind that the Ahmadis are traitors both to Islam and India.

I was extremely sorry to miss the opportunity of meeting you in Lahore. I was very ill in those days and could not leave my rooms. For the last two years, I have been living a life of practical retirement on account of continued illness. Do let me know when you come to the Punjab next. Did you receive my letter regarding your proposed Union for Civil Liberties? As you did not acknowledge it in your letter, I fear it never reached you.

Sincerely yours,

Mohammad Iqbal

For more details on this Report by Justice Munir and Kiyani

Read ``Syed Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari``
By Shorish Kashmiree.

Published by Chutaan Publications.
Lahore.

Long and short of it is that it seems as though, in Pakistan, EVERYBODY is scared of ``The Mullah``.

I mean, when on a bus, ``The Mullah`` will board, intone long prayers in an angry monologue, flash eyes and turbans at everybody so that they pay up, disembark, head for the next bus . . . while on the bus, people will mutter below their breath and go back to watching pirated movies.

Likewise, here. The bravest Pakistani interactors at chowk are mostly the ones who hide behind their handles. If they are not scared of Indians, as they go on and on about, then they are obviously/probably scared of their own ``The Mullah``.

Come on guys! When we were young, we were given fairy tales about wicked goblins and bogeymen. Now it is time to grow up. Please stop getting scared of your ``The Mullah``.

Please stop waiting for your Mullahs to exterminate themselves. Please have the bravery to do it on your own!!

Sattar

The fact remains that Mirzaiyat came into existence during the British era, hence, your premis that Mirza Sahib ordered his people to support British to help save themelves from persecution is false. The very word ``persecution`` is used in the sense when a ruling entity (whether majority or minority) oppresses and ``persecutes`` a ruled entity. Muslims were not a ruling entity.

The flip side of this argument is that, if Mirzais can help Imperialist oppressors to enslave Muslims, so that both can further their agenda, once, then what will prevent Mirzai`s from doing it again. In other words, if need be, you can destroy Pakistan or Muslims anywhere around the globe and enslave them whenever opportunity becomes available. According to you and Mirza Sahib`s writings affirm that.

MaududiLives/Escapist/Malik99

I really appreciate your efforts to confront the fitna-e-Quadianiyat at this board, but I must protest your constant use of word ``Ahmadis`` while referring to them. Please keep in mind that ``Ahmad`` was one of the given names of our Holy Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him). So there is a chance that if we keep on referring to them as Ahmadis it will have connotations of an association with our Prophet. We cannot let that happen. Therefore, I must request you to refer to them either as ``Quadianis`` or ``Mirzais`` or ``Lahori Quadianis`` or ``Lahor Mirzais`` but never as ``Ahmadis``.

This is fatwa from Shaheed-e-Islam Maulana Yusuf Ludhianvi, on which all Ulema has an Ijma`a (consensus), therefore, it is binding on us.

Mantolives

So what I gather from this article and the explanations made by you in various interacts of yours is that in Pakistan the debate ``secualists vs Mullahs`` is in fact a debate between ``Mirzais vs. Muslims``. In other words the secularists (i.e. Quadianis) want Muslims (i.e. Mullahs) stripped off their values and traditions which form the basis of the laws and the system of government thru which they want to govern themselves. So the Mullah`s accusation that Mirazais are basically anti-Pakistan has been true all along.

Urstruly #66 - You wrote ``Therefore, I must request you to refer to them either as ``Quadianis`` or ``Mirzais`` or ``Lahori Quadianis`` or ``Lahor Mirzais`` but never as ``Ahmadis``. ``

This is an extremely important point you have touched upon. Indeed, Qadiyani is an appropriate term to refer to these traitors who colluded with British to fight the freedom lovers.