The Barbarians Within The Gates!

I do not support the MMA or any of their cousins in the current Pakistani political arena. The true reformer who will geniunely bring about the Islamic state have yet to come.

Tahmeed, stop evading my questions. Reply to them or simply say I can not dignify your questions with an answer.

I simply wanted to know what your definition is so that I may expand the arguement to some other relevant matters as well.

So tell me, O self-proclaimed enlightened philosophers of Pakistan, do you want to omit Islam from Pakistani politics? Yes or no.

Also, do not try to say `we do not support the fundementalist Mullahs`. This is not about the Mullahs, it`s about Islam, so please dignify my question with an answer.

I have always been deadset agaisnt the Mullah Establishment of Pakistan and I sense that Tahmeed, Mr. Feroz, Mantolives, and a great deal of you have a dislike for this establishment. What about Islam though? Islam is unique in the sense that it enumerates a way of life, an environment in which different sort of political instititions can work AS LONG as they don`t break certain things set out by Islam.

So, you want to `omit` key beliefs from the hearts and minds of Muslims?

urstruly #184 I would prefer if instead of saluting me and ignoring what I wrote, you were to simply respond to what I wrote - either affirming what I say on the basis of the Quran, or else explicitly saying why you reject the Quranic injunctions.

hamidm
//...it is kind of silly that you and your sidekicks sitting in the comfort of the secular west are arguing with ferozek and manto who are actually living the nightmare ...//

ferozek and manto are swimming in the wrong pool ... and paying the price for it. There is no point blaming urstruly for that.

You folks are fighting a loosing battle with urstruly[ and malik and others of his ilk]. Pakistan was NOT meant to be secular. It will never be secular or even anything close to it. There is nothing ferozk/manto can do about it. They are living in the wrong country.

If frozk wanted to live in secular country - he[or his family] should have stayed put in India during partition. Now that the mistake has been made - he should try to immigrate to canada or some other secular country.

That is the only option left for feroz and manto. Sad but true.

haroon #163 If you think an ``Islamic State`` (a mullah construct, nothing to do with islam, and everhthing to do with subverting democracy in order to give mullah fazloo power over society) will cure rampant corruption, then I am afraid you are sadly mistaken. People say that by cutting off hands, saudi arabia has ended crime. Nonsense. Only the poor get their hands chopped - those in power have been robbing the country blind - even doing such low deeds as making money on the ``float`` by parking government charity funds in their private swiss accounts during the afghan war, e.g.

If you think mullahs are honest people who will end corruption, then I am sorry but you are sadly mistaken. These are individuals who lack the skills and/or inclination to earn an honest living even as mechanics or sweepers, and so jump on to the ``religion bandwagon`` to fool the gullible. Dont fall for these rascals.

Re: # 183

You are a great man, a living legend - Salute.

urstruly: you write to haroon ``One of the latest tactic of the hypocrites now a days is their assertion that there is ``no definition of Muslim``.

It is clear you are referring to what I wrote (without addressing it directly) - except that I did not say there is no definition of muslim. I said it is unimportant.

More specifically, this is what I wrote - in bold letters - which you ignored and twisted: ``How you define a muslim is unimportant, given that, as is clear from the Holy Quran, BEING A MUSLIM IS NEITHER A NECESSARY NOR A SUFFICIENT CONDITION for becoming a ``companion of the right hand`` of God (i.e. for attaining entrance to heaven, or in other words being a believer). ``

Let God be the judge of who is the hypocrite - you (who ignores things he cannot challenge on a factual or logical basis, and instead twists what has been written as above), or myself (who is prepared to stand by everything I have written - and am careful to cut and paste what someone has written before commenting on it, in order not to misrepresent anyone`s views).

hamidm

``.............. and it is kind of silly that you and your sidekicks sitting in the comfort of the secular west are arguing with ferozek and manto who are actually living the nightmare ........``


Yaar, lets be honest here; Man to Man, forget about the politics and all those things that we usually fight on and answer the question like a man : Have you seen the muscular women in West who work out?

I rest my case.

urstruly,

``people of Pakistan will not take an assault on their system of values by Slave Dynasty, lying down`` ........... so now you are saying that all sports for women where men migh be present are out ??!!........... wah, bhai, wah .........like most mullahs you obviously don`t know, i mean know, any women ....... . no wonder some people are calling for getting rid of mullahs and their offal ...........

.............. and it is kind of silly that you and your sidekicks sitting in the comfort of the secular west are arguing with ferozek and manto who are actually living the nightmare ........

Thank you mohar, that was very sweet.

Feroz

You are wasting your time. Instead of re-inventing history - you should try to reconcile to the reality. Pakistan was created to be an islamic republic. Never mind what the guy in three-piece suit said in a speech in 1947. People believed [and still do] that pakistan is going to be the Pure Land where muslims will live as per quoranic sharia laws - free from kufr culture.

Haroon, Urstruly, Malik99 - they are the true inheritor of pakistan, the land of the pure. Pakistan was created for them. If you guys wanted a secular country - then you should never have moved into pakistan in the first place.

There is no point trying to turn a donkey into a stallion. There is no point trying to make something for which it was NOT designed in the first place. Pakistan was designed to be an islamic republic. Not a secular country.

Let the true inheritors of the pakistan have their land and their legacy. Eventually they will. You can delay them but can`t stop them.

re: Malik99 # 175

Malik, I will be honest with you.

You have highlighted my flaws and I am willing to bear that cross, if you will accept the metaphor in good humor.

However, please allow me to also highlight your flaws. You have chosen, for your own reasons, to ignore the questions, which I had asked about Islam and instead, you opted to generalize the prevailing political situation in Pakistan as a rationale for acts in Islam itself. This my, friend, is the problem confronting Islam and it is that we are not willing to deal with questions which prompt reasons asking for justifying acts carried out in the name of Islam.

I would have to disagree with you, because I do not equate the mullah on the same level as the robber barons of Pakistan; I hold the mullah to a higher standard. I do not think that it is appropiate to compare the misdeeds in Islam with the issues and instances of malpractices being committed in Pakistani politics and hold them on a similar plane of guilt. The mullah claims a special role for his existence and he is accorded respect in Pakistani society based not on his political acumen but on this theological standing as a religious scholar and mentor to the Pakistani society in general. A politican claims to be responsible for welfare of the nation, but a mullah claims to be responsible for the soul of a Pakistani citizen and hence, his accountibility in the eyes of the public; to be true to what he preaches is high. The average Pakistani has not much hope or expectation in the average politican and s/he is accustomed to the politicans` failings in a moral and characteristic sense, but s/he does accept the average mullah to be true to the very God the mullah claims to profess his alligience.

When a politican abuses the system, s/he discredits the political process but when a mullah discredits his teachings and ingages in what might be considered as malpractices in Islam, he brings shame and disrespect to Islam. Now, you might disagree with me on this issue, but I think that crime of the mullah is greater than the crime of the politican.

I cannot speak for Mantolives, because I am not capable of reading his mind, but if I had to postulate an explanation, I would suggest that the reason Mantolives and I seem to castigate Islam is not to engage in ``Islam bashing`` but to highlight the hypocricy which passes off as the truth in the name of Islam itself.

Malik, my friend, I hope you realize how futile it makes your arguments in defence of Islam, when the best you can muster is not to answer questions but to justify wrongs in Islam on the basis of wrongs elsewhere. My friend, evil justified with evil does does not make for goodness, but it merely signifies a lack of morality. In this case, your assertation of equating and seeking to justify the wrongs in Islam on the grounds that politicans also engage in wrong actions and are wrong examplies a logic, which does not defend Islam as much as it promotes a sense of amorality of actions in thought and in conduct. This view, of accepting the amorality of actions on the basis of judging evil and wrong actions on a comparative grading scale negates the very basic principle of Islamic thought, which is the institution of morality in the actions of human beings.

My friend, instead of seeking to explain the problems in Islam, you sought to justify them with your rationales and this what I find objectionable and why I lament against the practioners of Islam; not because I dislike the religion of Islam but because I dislike the levels of hypocricy which are so prevalent within Islam.

Ciao

Re: # 173 ferozK

Your logic has escaped me completely. You say that Mullah is:

1. A tiny minority

2. Has not ruled Pakistan

3. Has not abused Pakistan

4. Are the representative of society

5. hold influence in the society

Now please explain to me what on earth then qualifies them for your hate? Why these characteristics are so bad that one bearing them is a barbarian.


As far as Gujranwala, incident is concerned, there are two versions to the story. The Government version is that the protest went violent first and harassed the race participants. The protestor`s version says that the protest was peaceful until police used violenec to disperse them, fired upon them and used baton charge. In retaliation, the protestors took law into their own hand and returned fire with fire. It doesn`t matter which version is true (goverment who always tells the truth or that of barbarians who are out there to destroy civilization), it has proven only one thing that from now on people of Pakistan will not take an assault on their system of values by Slave Dynasty, lying down.

#175 by malik99 on April 4, 2005 10:05am PT


or those who use gunship helicopters to kill Pakistani citizens??


I wonder if you and maulana urstruly would be as whiny if those helo gunships had been turned on the women marathon runners....one one hand, you don`t like the idea of the PAF killing it`s own people...OTOH, you don`t like the female maratho runners...wonder which way you`d swing...

ferozk# 173 - you write ``If what you say is correct about the ``village mullah``, then please tell me why he is able to exist as an entity above the law? There was an article in Dawn recently, which mentioned that the MMA, aided with a MNA and his son, attacked a women`s marathon being held in Gurjanawala (sp) and in the process, burned some buses. ``

And Feroz, this is EXACTLY where the issue lies. Just like any human being, Maulvis are not angels. But maulvi bashers excessively nit pick these incidents and bring them to national stage to bash Islam. Manto blames mullahs for even his constipation.

Do you really think a man acting above the law in his opposition to marathon is a big enough issue in a nation where the ruler of the country has gone above the law and screwed the constituition of the country?? Should the focus be the man attacking a marathon or the men who have robbed Pakistan of billions??? Should the focus be on the man going overboard in his opposition to marathon, or those who use gunship helicopters to kill Pakistani citizens??

My friend, THAT is the issue with folks like yourself and Manto. You focus on these issues which have little to no bearing in the larger scheme of things. Whether the women could run in a marathon, or whether the beauty paegent occured or not etc are not big enough issues in a nation where the army has declared war on its own people.

Yes, I understand, our society needs to open up, and debate needs to flourish as to how. But writing article after article bashing Islam and maulvis, calling for the mass killing of Pakistani citizens is a much bigger issue than whether a marathon occured or not.

re: echoboom # 170

You and I are adopting our characteristic Islamic and Hindu approaches to understanding reality, both trying to create our characteristic desired worlds.

(1) The people who are truly the Jews in another form are the Muslims. Believe me, that is a great honor to Muslims, not an insult.

If you wish, we can engage in a comparison of real similarities.


(2) From a Hindu point of view, Muslims can claim whatever they want about subcontinental spiritual traditions. It does not matter to us anymore. But if Muslims decide to accord respect to Sikhism, it will be a hugely positive development for all of us.

But it has to be real acknowledgement and real respect, not another lethal Sufi deception. That means, acknowledging the truth that Guru Nanak was a Prophet - according to many Sikhs and Hindus, far more perfect than Muhammad ever could be. Accept the fact that is clear to any objective reader that the cantankerous quran is no match as a real spiritual book of God for the Granth Sabhib.

You don`t have to go that far. Our choice of the `best` is often decided by our emotional commitments. But at least, my friend, give all the Great Gurus the bare minimum honor of Prophethood they so richly and fully deserve. Acknowledge the Granth Sahib as a genuine revelation to mankind.

Take that step of understanding with the Sikhs, and believe me, you won`t have too many Hindus seeing you as the enemy anymore.

Best.

re: Malik99 and Urstruly

Mullahs might be a small minority and they may have not ruled and abused Pakistan to the same degree as the other actors, but they are still an elite given the preponderance of their influence and power given their size as being a representative of the Pakistani society. This qualifies them as an elite group in Pakistan not necessarily based on the duration of their rule - indirect or direct, but on the levels of influence they wield in the society.

If what you say is correct about the ``village mullah``, then please tell me why he is able to exist as an entity above the law? There was an article in Dawn recently, which mentioned that the MMA, aided with a MNA and his son, attacked a women`s marathon being held in Gurjanawala (sp) and in the process, burned some buses. The reason was that women are not allowed to participate in sports according to Islam. For the sake of the argument, let accept this claim on its prima facie value.

This then raises a question if it was illegal in Islam for women to participate in the marathon, why did the city administration allow the event to take place? Secondly, if the city administration itself was in the wrong and had no power to authorize the event, what was an un-Islamic act, what gave the MMA and a sitting MNA the power to take an extra-legal step, outside of the writ of law, to restore the writ of law itself? Why did the MMA not revert to the law and deal with the issue within the law itself?

Furthermore, when a sitting MNA acts above the law and he is the representive of the people, what perception does his act suggest? Was the MNA representating the will of the people through his act of incited violence or was he acting in his own capacity as a moral guardian of Islam and its virtues in Pakistan?

If on the other hand, MMA preaches the idea of upholding Islamic principles in Pakistan, and then the question becames, what kind of Islam is it, which allows violence in its name?

This is not a moral issue as much as it is an issue of accountibility; who is reponsible? Are the citizens of Pakistan, who are in the majority Muslims, responsible for their actions or not? If they act in name of Islam, does Islam absolve them from responsibility of their actions and its consequences?

In another sense, is it murder in Islam if you kill a person but is it justified if you kill in the name of Islam itself? If taking of human life is a sin, according to Islam, does a person ceases to be human because s/he is not a Muslim and thus, can be killed morally?

If Islam teaches that we are all accountable to Allah for our deeds or misdeeds, does it mean we are not responsible to our temporal sovereigns, who claim to rule over us in the name of Allah?

The point being made is a simple one. There are too many questions, because they are too few answers to explain the conterdictions, which are increasingly becoming self-evident in the practice of Islam and its political and cultural manifestations. The salient point is that the adherents of Islam have not done a good and reasonable job of explaining the misunderstandings about Islam, which have arisen as a result of these perceptional values of Islam in the world about Islam and Muslims. The invarible Muslim response, as seen on Chowk and in general, has been to adopt an dogmatic approach and assume these questions, about Islam, to be a precusor for confrontation; a threat to Islam itself, which must be, it is reasoned by the Muslims, answered with a show of force.

Taking my own case, as an example, my identity as Muslim has been questioned. I have no problems with this, but the point still remains, does questioning my worth as a Muslim answer the basic questions facing Islam in an ideological sense; political sense and do they give the reasons/answers to questions Islam is grappling as it exists in its period of profound historic transition in the last 1400 or more years?

I am more than willing to assume that my understanding of Islam is flawed or might be wrong, but the question is: why cannot my mistakes be explained to me so that I can understand the error of my ways and correct them. How does this approach help in my understanding of Islam, that if I am wrong, I should be killed? How does my killing helps me understand Islam better as a religion and a way of life, which Islam claims itself to be?

The fact of the matter is, it is not a good idea to answer every question with ``...because...`` and it does not help the process of mutual reconcilation in the Muslim world and with the non-Muslim world, if questions are not answered but people are forced to accept Islamic truisms based not on reason and logic but on the threat of force and the pain of death?

I wanted to raise these questions and I wanted to yank people out of their ``comfort zones`` and confront some ugly truths. I asked bitter questions in order to elict some hard answers and if that I meant that had I to indulge in hypocricy and hyberbole, then I was quite willing to take the road less travelled in hopes of getting some answers. I did find some answers, but on the whole, I was disappointed because the discussion followed a very staid and predictable pattern; of shooting the messenger because the message was disliked.

I personally think that it is time these questions were raised and challenged our accepted understanding of Islam as a faith and a religion not with the idea to necessarily disavow it, but to better understand it in hopes of rectifying some of its self inflicted wrongs.

Thanks for your comments, as always.

Ciao