The Barbarians Within The Gates!

I think its clear that Pakistan must abandon the last 25 years of Islamisation and return to the original promises of Jinnah through constitutional reform. Now is the best chance to do it, with a military autocratic dictator who has the power to change the constitution at will. Unfortunately the chance that democracy will create a secular society in Pakistan is negligible due to the governments insistence on linking Nationalism with Islam through backward educational policies and the like.

Pakistanis must reconstruct their national identity outside of religion. Certainly there was a valid reason for Pakistan`s creation outside of a move towards Islam...the fear of being an oppressed minority.

All religious texts are by their very nature vague and subject to interpretation. Therefore the Quran cannot serve as a valid legal doctrine.

Unfortunately the secular liberals are not a majority in Pakistan, so a democracy will not create secularization. While having a dictator is unfortunate, I`d suggest that all influential Pakistanis take advantage of this golden opportunity to push for fundamental change. Since Mussharaf can keep control of the army he can maintain order during a transition to the civilian government and guarantee secularism a la Turkey.

​​​​
While everyone was trying to give their opinion about the art of being
called a muslim, I ran into science of becoming an Ahmadyya (aka
Quaidiani).

Now here is a simple guide to become a Qudiani. Maybe Ijtehad and reformation has occured because now descendants are incharge.

Not bad I say, could be easily adopted by muslims--without the benefit of conversion.


tahmed, what do you say. Would you not hug Sattar2?


Just for academic interest.

(drinking is conspicuously absent--loophole, loophole!)

conditions of baiat for quadianis

kaalchakra,

When you mentioned Ahmadi alliances in confrontation between non-Muslims and non-Ahmadi-Muslims … are you referring to actual events of the past, or is it more of a hypothetical question? I am somewhat unclear …

Islam implores people to side with the oppressed … regardless of their faith or affiliations. Furthermore, it defines very stringent criteria for fighting jihad. Owing to these teachings, Ahmadi-Muslim position on certain issues has deviated from that of mainstream Muslims.

One example is that of fighting jihad against the British before partition. Muslim scholars actively debated if conditions for this jihad, as prescribed by Islam, existed or not. Based on teachings of Islam, Ahmadi-Muslims saw no validity to this jihad. It is worth noting that the British granted Muslims religious freedom which Muslims did not have before. In some parts of Punjab the Sikh government would severely penalize Muslims for practicing their faith. This changed with the arrival of British.

Ahmadis pursued peaceful resolution to the sub-continent crises. They worked alongside the British and other Muslims in partition of sub-continent. Mullahs have exploited anti-British emotions to excite masses to violence against Ahmadis. Ahmadis have shunned violence and adopted peaceful resolutions of these conflicts. This seems to have worked in their favor … as they have survived, and globally spread, despite outright persecution and propaganda.

If you have more questions, hit me what you feel like …

tesah

Probably for different reasons. Hindus who hated Jinnah couldn`t figure out why a secular person would want to create a nation based on religion. Muslims who hated him did so because he was secular.

Re: # 51

The pre-Pakistan generation is still alive and they know how the `Mazhabie` (the religion-mongers), both hindu and muslims, hated Jinnah, the muslim league and the pakistan movement. They are still doing the same by fomenting sectarianism.

sattar2

I find Ahmedi Islam to be a very pleasant and respectable religious approach, but have some strong misgivings about the political affiliations and roles of Amedi Muslims in any confronatation between non Muslims and non Ahmedi Muslims.

I look forward to discussing this concern with you at a time of your convenience. Thanks.

Malikjahanzeb,

Agreed, one may rightfully argue that Islam is a sub-standard ideology. By the same token, human race itself is arguably a sub-standard species. It depends upon the context in which you view things.

As for Ahmadi version of Islam not having a chance … it is somewhat of a speculative comment (which does not necessarily make it incorrect). Islam itself did not stand a chance initially … but was able to deliver to a worldwide audience. European settlers that initially reached the Americas did not stand a chance either … they almost got wiped out a few times due to severe weather, droughts, and diseases. It is too soon to predict the future of Ahmadi Islam with reasonable certainty.

Dude, your ideas are working for you … but will not necessarily work for me. So I’ll stick with what makes sense to me …

Arjun,

My issue is about anyone who is unfairly targeted … even apostates, blasphemers, and whoever. Violence or fatwas are not the answer … they only add fuel to the fire.

You are probably referring to the sign on 680 freeway, close to Jacklin exit … yeah, I gather mullahs aren`t too happy about it ... another reason for their calls for jihad againt the big satan. I guess not everyone can be happy all the time … but we try …

tahmed (#254),

If you wanted to, you’d have known by now. After insisting that your posts weren’t addressed to sattar … you now want me to copy and paste your posts. You are being evasive ... and making excuses.

It seems that with microsoft shortcuts … and now google … every low IQ mullah feels entitled to acting like an enlightened scholar. May be you should stick with “worrying about the future of mankind”. And feel free to use google as needed.

I too have read Quran, and understood it differently than you. Somehow you feel entitled to issuing fatwas of kuffr against everyone who disagrees with you. Lose your only-I-got-it-right attitude man … before lecturing others on what god said and what he meant. And that’s the simple point ummah failes to understand.

Nazarhayatkhan

Allow us to separately acknowledge the series of your articles and postings in relation to Sanatana Dharma. A broad and free-flowing stream of water by its very nature defies easy description, but overall, you possess a better sense of its ebb and flow than often we ourselves do. Apparently we are so busy being `Hindus` that we ignore the real Dharma.

#255 by sattar2 on April 5, 2005 3:41pm PT

why are you all worked up....you live in the US, don`t you...you are free to call yourself muslim..

I`ve even seen stretches of some freeway in the bay area adopted by the ``Ahmedi muslim community``..i bet maulana urstruly pops a nerve everytime he passes such a sign...

re: Haroon Ellahi

Haroon, to answer your question, I have no personal definition of ``Muslim``. Consequently, I am willing to accept a person`s claim that they are Muslim and if they are lying, then it is upon Allah to judge them and it is not my right to judge if a person is a Muslim or is not a Muslim.

Ciao

Feroz

From what I can see- mullahcracy will always remain in a commanding position amongst Pakistani muslims since they prefer to talk theology while discussing polity!!!

sattar yaar,

why are you consistantly sticking to a substandard version of a substandard idealogy. why bother? can`t you see that it is not your intellect or your mind which puts you in an awkward and weak position, rather it is the weak philosophy you are trying to defend, just because you were born in an ahmadi family. the mere fact that Mirza sahib`s message couldn`t spread to wide-spread audiance and has no such chance, proves futility of such a movement.

I sinserely invite you to the truth, to abandonning of these frail myths, to an intellectually powerful position, to the world of moral courage and to tranquility. Once you drop the whole mess of such obsolete ideas, I can guarentee you that you will feel much much better.

mj

tahmed,

… in addition, the following further casts you as a rabid mullah …

Going by your definition (#191), one cannot rightfully deny that Ahmadis and Sufis and Shias and Wahabis … all are Muslims. You on the other hand have declared them non-Muslim at some point in time or another …

… you’d probably go back and qualify your definition of Muslim now … which simply proves silliness of this whole exercise … not to mention your meaningless obsession. Urstruly here has beaten you to the punch … see how long his definition is. You are merely trying to outdo him at sheer silliness. I hope you win. Or should I hope he remains the title holder … ?

sattar: You wrote three posts accusing me of berating your beliefs - I ask you politely to cut and paste what I wrote that you consider offensive, and you refuse to do that. If you had any manners, you would apologize to me for your false accusation that you are unable to substantiate.

I have therefore not wasted any more of my time reading the rest of your post. Have a good day.

Haroonellahi # 248

There is actually much truth in young people`s perception of Hinduism :(

You do see people worshipping rats, and doing even crazier things. We have loved to burn widows, although thankfully, we are coming out of that age. The caste system is still with us!

So if anyone claimed that Hinduism has nothing to do with any of this, I would say the person was being as dishonest as are the old people who are trying to turn Islam into Hinduism, by claiming that Islam has no requirements. If Islam can become Hinduism with just a name change, I would have no problem supporting Islam!

The definition and defintional approach of Hinduism cannot be applied to Islam because the entire philosphical and moral bases of the two are completely different. One has to make a choice here. It`s not like you can sleep in the day time and claim it is dark night for the whole world! :)

Religions have their specific strengths and weaknesses. One has to make an individual decision about which ones he or she can live with.

My support to Hinduism comes after looking at all its huge weaknesses, huge strengths, and deciding that overall, this is the way for me. Note: there are other religions that I think are better for other people depending upon how and how deeply they think. So there is no one shoe fits all approach in talking about God.

Hinduism is traditionally defined the way you see many latest and progressive Muslims trying to define Islam now. But I will show why those definitions make complete sense for Hinduism and none at all for Islam.

Ferozak (#241)

Ditto on “definition” of Muslim.

Ummah needs to get out of this silly business of defining “Muslim” and flaunting it like stupid peacocks. Allah uses this term in Quran … and no one has the authority to declare someone otherwise. Deluded Muslims feel compelled to provide definitions, as Allah surely forgot to do so. I guess He was too busy preparing tax returns as April 15 drew closer … even as Muhammad begged for a definition.

SR,

I think Urstruly has given his response. He is bending over backwards (or is it forward?) to keep uncle sam happy … (Urstruly, are you really going to claim a deduction for donating to the jihad-against-usa fund???)

Romair #225

`` I think Pakistanis tend to be far too cynical and pessimistic. I used to have debates with people, when they said that Pakistan was goiing to be Talibinized and the Afghan Taliban would take over. I always said that would not happen. And it didn`t......``

Why support the Taliban if you do not believe in it.

`` My logic was simple: Every country has a pulse. A mean and median towards which most of its population gravitates. It is very very difficult to change that pulse. Pakistan is quite a bit different from the Taliban. External events and political parties tried to take Pakistan towards that direction. The last nail in that coffin would have been Nawaz Sharif`s Shariah Bill. ``

I do not think Nawaz Sharif`s Shariat bill called for destruction of television sets, cameras etc.

`` However, before that the system corrected itself. A coup occured, the Shariah Bill was dumped. Then support for Taliban was dumped. And then the society was de-militarized from the relgious side. During all this time, no one in Pakistan protested. Barring a tiny minority of MMA supporters. ``

No one in Pakistan protested when the Shariat bill was being introduced and the Taliban was being supported.

`` Similarly, the Wahabi strain is not nearly as strong in Pakistan, as everyone makes it out to be. It is very loud but not very strong. Infact, according to a Harvard/WB study, only around 1% of Pakistani students go to madrassahs. There are only a few things that will make Wahabism strong: ``


`` - A perpetual bombing of Muslim countries by the USA, which is traditionaly opposed heavily by Pakistanis...... ``

Pakistan has no problems kissing up to USA until 1990. Pakistani illegals love to immigrate to the land of the hated. You love to beg for F-16s. You sell half of your textile exports to USA. I do not buy your argument that Pakistanis are anti-American. The Pakistani establishment might not like America. But it is their own business.

`` - A forced secularization of the society, which will receive a counter-reaction in a religiously-oriented country like Pakistan ``

What is forced secularization of society ? Secularization means govt does not favor one religion over the other. If Pakistanis want the government to favor one religion over the other they have no business whining about how other countries run their affairs ?

`` - Poor governance by the non-MMA groups ``

What about poor governance by MMA ? They have been running the NWFP and Baluchistan for at least 2 years ? Have all the problems gone away ?

tahmed,

Sort through your own posts to find out (on a minor note … why not continue to insist that these posts weren’t addressed to sattar … ?)

Moving on … you seem to have a habit of taunting others for following humans. Apply this criterion to yourself before going berserk with self-righteousness. You too follow a human … who gave you Quran and called it the word of god. Apparently your god chose not to talk to you … then became silent forever … and all you have is the word of man telling you what He actually said! Go figure.

When I raised this point earlier you started rambling incoherently. Give it a rest, Sahib. You need to try to get over your silly hang-ups.

SR # 201

Unfortunately, I am quite busy right now doing my taxes for this year; remind me of your question in about couple of weeks.

KaalChakra, what would you suggest for one to read in order to properly understand the variations in Hindu society and religion? Just name a couple of book bro.

I have noticed that in Pakistan, there is a great deal of misconception regarding Hinduism. To most youths, regardless of social standing (a caste?), language, and political orientation, they all have a dirty view of Hinduism the religion.

It`s a `religion where they have over 8 million gods, they fancy worshipping rats and other sorts of animals, and they have a passion for burning their wives when the husband dies. They also believe in a caste system, which is a slap in the face of Islam`s notion of `equality of all Muslims regardless of race, caste, color, or language`. Do note, I am not airing these views as my own, just giving a short summary of most views I have come across amongst youths.

KaalChakra, I feel I may not dignify your question with an answer due to the reason that my knowledge is rather limited on the these dimensions you are talking of.

Be a good gentlemen, give your personal definition of what is a Hindu.

Mr. Feroz, I never asked for a legal definition of who is or who is not a Muslim. I asked for your personal definition, and I never said that our definitions have to be imposed on other people. I do not know why every one is making such silly assumptions, I am simply trying to understand some things so I know in which mind set you think.

I think that the author of this article has genuine concerns regarding the current Mullahocracy of Pakistan. Who the hell are those Mullahs anyways to be the agents of Islam and tell us what to do or what not to do?

Islam is a religion between the slave and the Lord, and that is how Muslims should intend to keep it.

However, holding Islam accountable for the actions of retrogressive Mullahs is an absolutely incorrect way of proceeding. It`s not progressive at all and it further creates divisions in an already disunited society.

And, I would like to get a sip of this realism you seem to have Mr. Feroz. Do you REALISTICALLY believe that Islam can be removed from the veins of the people? One can remove every vein from our bodies but Islam and belief in the Supremacy of Islam will always be supreme to the Muslim, whether he/she is in a material form or immaterial form.

Cya.

Finally, to show how stupid this idol/ non idol worshipping binary distinction among people is: there are Hindus, in fact almost all Hindus, sometimes use idols, sometimes worship totally abstractly - with no images present; what`s worse, sometimes they would go around using different images depending upon their convenience.

Does it make sense to build a whole RELIGION on this flimsy binary distinction of idol/non idol?

If we get over this prison of idol/non idol binary thinking, some very interesting things come to light.

For example, we may find that the number of Hindus who `worship` one particular form or shape of an `idol` may be smaller than the number of people who don`t use `idols`at all!

Would that make the modal category of Hindus to be the of those who don`t use idols to worship God?

---

Frankly, that will be silly, because it is very unwise to place too much value on any one form of worshipping That What Is UNKNOWAEABLE.

Does Pakistan`s constitution have fundamental rights (like, right to life, etc)?

re: haroonellahi #235

``Is there a sect of Hinduism, which does not believe in idol-worship?``

Let`s answer that at two levels. One, in the framework of semitic religions, and then, thinking freely, as human beings, not merely Muslim, Christians, and Hindus.

Muslim/Christian answer: Yes. Arya Samajis and Brahmo Samajis at the national levels but also many more regional groupings. Again, there is no requirement that they call themselves Hindus, and some of them don`t.

Even if one stays confined to the level of a Muslim or a Christian, it should be easy to grasp that Hinduism sees ``not idol woshipping,`` ``idol worshipping,`` ``which particular idol worhipping,`` ``how many idols worhipping,`` ``in what way idol worshipping`` - all these as just different ways of trying to reach God.

And we have a moral obligation and duty to offer to other people the very same freedom regarding choosing the form and manner of their worship as we want for ourselves, so long as they are not hurting or harming us, or hurting yet other people.

Does that make sense within the Islamic/Christian framework?

---

Actually, before a broader answer can be given, a basic understanding of the Hindu way of thinking would be very helpful.

That`s why, we need to compare and contrast the BASIC INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL ESSENCE of Hinduism and Islam. In that respect, would my understanding of Islam as follows, expressed in # 172, be correct, close to the truth, or totally false?

---

#172 by kaalchakra
Haroon

It may be useful to know whether you agree that external forms and dancings aside, there has never been any change in the fundamentals of Islam, no matter where it went and when. Also that in an intellectual and moral sense, Islam has not moved any distance beyond where it stood when ijtehad began.

Please share your views. Thanks.

Romair wrote:

``However, before that the system corrected itself. A coup occured, ``

That line sums up the `logic` of romair :D

re: Haroon Ellahi

I had already answered this question, in response to Echoboom, but I am assuming you did not read that post.

Thus, to answer your question, a definition of who is a Muslim is legalistically vague, because if some one claims to be a Muslim, we as Muslims have to accept their word on its face value. We are not supposed to judge, who is a Muslim; who is a good Muslim or who is a bad Muslim. On the other hand, even if they are lying and claiming to be a Muslim on falsehoods, even then it is not for us to pass judgement on them, because Allah will judge them for their lies and it is not incumbent upon us to judge them.

Consequently, as Muslims we are not supposed to ``define`` who is a Muslim and who is not a Muslim. Muslims are not supposed to engage in this sort of sectarian hair spliting to decide the issue of who is a Muslim and who is not. The final judgement on this question is reserved for Allah to decide and not us mortals.

For the record, my argument was one about asking for a sense of accountibility from our politicans, who escape accountibility by employing religion to mask their illegal upsurpations of power. The main contention of the article was that as long as religion is used for political reasons, then all demands for political accountibility becomes a moot issue, since politics assumes a dogmatic nature of religion and considers itself above questioning. This creates a highly non-representative sense of goverance in Pakistan and to a very significant degree, has been historically responsible for derailing democracy in Pakistan and in preventing the emergence of political institutions in Pakistan. All politics is hostage to religion in Pakistan.

This is what the article was suggesting that as long as religion and politics are infused in Pakistan, politicans who grab power illegally, will use religion to give them political legitmacy. This is what was meant as the ``creeping evil of religion``; the denial of democratic rights.

The article seems to have irritated a raw nerve in some people and they have reacted to it, with the usual knee jerk response, which seems to based on the perception of the article and what the article was suggesting. The term ``barbarian`` seems have to have further created a sense of turmoil in the mind of some of readers and it seems they were, in a Freudian sense, able to contact the terms ``religion``, ``barbarian`` and reflected their own fears and insecurities by projecting a false understanding of the issues. It is quite probable that most of the people did not even read the article and simply responded out a sense of pre-conditioned phobias and prejudices.

Another interesting fact, was the linkage between the ``mullah`` and ``Islam`` and ``religion`` in the responses. Even more interesting was the fact that the mullah was identified with Islam and the criticism of the mullah was understood as a criticism of Islam itself. The article was, indeed, a criticism of the mullahs in politics, because the religious politics practiced by the mullahs in Pakistan is purely secular politics and it is about the attainment of power and it uses religion as a fulcrum to leverage an advantage for itself in Pakistani politics. As to ``mullahocracy`` itself, the reference was made in lieu that if the mullahs are willing to use religion for political ends, then they must also be held politically responsible for their actions and they cannot use religion to escape accountibility.

Haroon, the crux of the matter is that if the mullahs use Islam for their own ends, then Islam itself is dragged into the debate and must be held accountable for actions, which are committed in its name, by people claiming to represent it, i.e. the mullahs. The bad name, which Islam gets comes from a large measure by the actions of the mullahs, which are politically egocentric and the mullahs use Islam simply to ``get away with murder`` and thus, escape accountibility.

Mullahs do not wish to submit to political accountibility, but they wish to use religion to get political power. Hence, the real issues of secularism and theocracy in Pakistan have nothing to do with Islam, but are linked to the political power of the mullahs themselves. Ironically, Islam gets a bad press, because of this and even more ironically, if the image of Islam has to be cleared, then there is a very pressing need to separate religion from politics due to the fact of how religion is exploited by the clergy to gain political advantages in Pakistan. Islam in Pakistan gets a bad image from the actions of the mullahs themselves, because their actions are not in conformity, with what they claim to preach and practice.

Religion being a central issue in Pakistan is not an issue, because the real issue is the manner in which religion is used in Pakistan for political ends.

Ciao

haroonellahi #235,
Why do you care if hindus idol worship or not?

Re: # 235

Brahmo Samajist... and I believe even the Arya Samajists...

haroon: on your fascination with the definition of a muslim - since the broader point and far more practical and significant point I made was lost on you (and you simply saw it as rant/rave), i provided you with the definition you were seeking in #191 anyway. seems like you missed reading it.

(you did not need to come to chowk for this btw, any abdul on the street in pakistan and any schoolchild would have told you that if you believe in the kalima you are considered a muslim: islam is not a complicated religion, despite efforts of the maulvis to make it one).

the broader point, the one i was ranting about, remains the relevant one - all individuals (regardless of whether they are muslim or not) are equal in the eyes of God according to the Quran, and all will be judged by the same profoundly simple criteria (did you distinguish between right and wrong during your life on earth? did you do the right things?). This sounds like rant/rave to you because, despite your professions to hating the maulvis, you sound just like them when you seek to draw the primary distinction between muslims vs. nonmuslims rather than between people who do the right thing and those who do not.

Ref haroonellahi #235

[Is there a sect of Hinduism, which does not believe in idol-worship?]

Members of the Brahmo Samaj. Except that they also make the claim they are not Hindus!

Re: # 233

No haroon elahi... Your statement doesn`t suggest what you are suggesting now... but I accept your correction.

I`ll make clearer what my argument has been so far... the division between those religious divines who supported Pakistan Movement and those who opposed it was largely sectarian ...

Consider: The sects that supported the Pakistan movement

1) Barelvi Sunnis: Moderate Low Church of Islam

2) Agha Khanis

3) Shiites

4) Ahmadis


.... The sects that opposed the Pakistan movement

1) Deobandis

2) Wahabis

The two latter ones were coopted by the Congress party for their own agenda...

Is there a sect of Hinduism, which does not believe in idol-worship?

On a more curious note, when was the last time any of wrote to your officials? As in, one can easily write to the Chief Minister of Punjab, Commerce Minister, Tourism Ministry, and all the other federal organs.

And if you haven`t been doing it, why not start one now? I`m sure the `unenlightened feudals` in power would love to hear the views of our fellow Pakistani citizens.

hehehehehe

Mr. Feroz, Mantolives, Tahmeed, I requested you guys to provide what a definition of a Muslim is. The latter started ranting and raving about who gets to go to heaven and who does not, but I never even asked him any thing regarding heaven.

Is it the Mullahocracy of Pakistan which you dislike with a such a passion or do you hate the entire concept of religion being a central part of the Pakistani Nation?

I can clearly understand your grienvances towards the retrogressive Mullah establishment, since I have similar views on them, however, condeming Islam because of the actions of certain shlubs is certainly NOT progressive.

And Mantolives, you always talk about how the `Islamic parties disliked the idea of creation of Pakistan and opposed it`. That has always been one of your main lines of arguement in such debates.

This is what I said, `the notion that religious parties of British India opposed the creation of Pakistan is not absolutely correct. It is true that some Muslim religious leaders of their parties did oppose the partitioning of the British India, but there were some who also favored the creation of Pakistan.`

My statement clearly suggests that even though many of the Muslim parties were agaisnt partition, some leading religious leaders and parties were for it. Note `not absolutely correct`. :)


So tell me, will all of you be content if the Feudal Mentality is earsed from the hearts and minds of all those who are engulfed by it?

Or the fact that one class has much more land than other classes pains you?

yourstruly, echoboom, malik99, ballukhan, tahmed32, hamidm, sattar,

ni arhiyo neeeee,
naa lariyo neeeee,

lar piyaan jaaayy,
koi phariyo neeee,

. . . .

Feroz

It is a well understood strategy of the Islamists to deflate the direction of the attacks against mullahism by throwing the theological debates in the air so that every person gets worked up on seeing their core religious beliefs getting attacked and debated!!! This situation then gets ripe for the mullahs to intervene and watch the fun as the arbitrators of these theological disputes.
I think we have all seen this game being played so often that I get amazed to find the so called `educated` elites fall into the same trap again and again. What amazes me is that they fail to realize that they are actually helping the mullahs` cause by accepting even the `validity` of these theological debates in the political and temporal realm as to Who is a Muslim or What is the `correct` or `pure` interpretation of the Suras?
It is time these theological debates are given the burial they deserve on this board.........

Re: # 225 Romair,

In the very long run`s sense, I would say your line of thinking is true. But in the shorter one, there is a great risk of great sufferings and catastrophic danger. I present before you the examples of Iran and Afghanistan. It is the fluctuations which matter in the short run. After 500 years, I already know what will be the plight of most religions.

In this particular sense, I find it very hard to disagree with amit that great disasters are very likely to take place. While Afghanistan and Iran might hope to go back to their norm in fifty years or so but the damage already done is not something normal. Pakistan itself has seen an apparently irreversible subversion in the last couple of decades. While you tend to give importance to the macro level political factors, I think the micro ones, i.e. changes in the thinking of normal man and the factors affecting this mind are of more importance, as the macro factors are the probablistic projections of the micro ones. And the micro ones have sure changed because of things such as legislations against ahmadis, indoctrination of intolerant taboos like leagal prohibition of liquor, wahabization of more and more mullahs, rise of a coherant islam (unfortunately wahabism), organized propaganda against hindu and disconnecting the youth from their deeper historic roots etc.

Aah ko chahiye ik umr, asar hone tak,
Kon jeeta hay teri zulf ke sur hone tak,

Please comment on it more with your knowledgable thoughts on this.

mj

Re:Romair#225

You may be right about the pulse of Pakistan, but the real issue is how to develop institutional safeguards against religious extremism. In any society there are elements that have extreme urges, whether it is the VHP in India, the MMA in Pakistan or the Christian Coalition in USA. The issue is whether these elements can ever gain absolute power. In India or the US, the chances of that are next to zero because of the significant checks and balances in the country due to the legislative process, judiciary, media etc.

In Pakistan, the chances of such a event are quite real. Just because it has not happened does not mean that it cannot happen. There can be a counter-coup tomorrow and Musharraf could be deposed by a fundo general like Hamid Gul or Javed Nasir, who could take Pakistan on the path of Talibanisation. The temptation of using religion to get absolute power is very real. Even elected leaders like Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif have tried to use religion to get absolute power.

The only way to resolve this is to put in iron-clad institutional level checks and balances. There should be a proper constitution that could reflect the religious aspirations of the Pakistani people. All political parties should swear allegiance to such a constitution. If the civilian government tries to exploit religion further, the military should step in and dismiss the government. Within the military, there should be an independent governance body on the powers of the Army chief. If the Army chief crosses certain boundaries like overturn the constitution, the governance body would step in and dismiss the army chief. The governance body should in turn be monitored by the civilian government and so on. By having multiple centers of power that check-mate each other, there is a chance of following the agreed upon constitution and having a rule of law. The extent of religion in the constitution is upto the people but at least there should be some framework beyond the current ad hoc setup that is quite fragile.

kaalchakra #214 It is certainly heartening to see India and Pakistan attempting to change the tone of their political relations relative to what it has been the past 50 years. While there will no doubt be steps backward in future, the general direction is clear - it has to be that of peace and progress. The current peace moves are despite the military government in Pakistan, in my view, and not because of it.

As for bad things people say about one another on chowk, as shakespeare said ``sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me``. :-) While I dont mind taking a few personal shots based on what someone has written - the fact is that we see only a limited aspect of anyone on chowk, and so one can assume that even the most pathetic poster may be a fine individual in real life. Anyway, glad to have people like you on chowk who make it a pleasure to be here and set the standard in civilized behavior.

re: Urstruly

Urstruly, do you wish a response from me on the clarifications you had raised about the role/power/influence of the mullahs?

I believe that I have answered your concerns, indirectly, in the response to Malik99. However, if you still wish for a response, please let me know.

Ciao

Pak reality,

It was only a three years ago the romairs of pakistan used to say that the religious parties have no support, they have polled less than 3 percent in elections. Now they have polled more than 30 percent and it is lauded as victory of democracy. What pakistanis need to accept is the talibanisation of pakistan, the latest is the banning of marathon by women. It is a slow talibanisation, and what india has to worry about is the kargill-Khan effect. Apparently with no consent from the then PM, and per Mushy no approval from the military the kargill invasion took place. Kha with no knowledge of the military or the govt trasferred nuclear technology, and per latest reports met with alquida. The question is when will this two elements of pakistan converge to launch missiles.

The only option for pakistan that the world should provide is the libiyan option. Till then pak should be slowly and steadily economically strangled till the libiyan option is taken,

SR#various: I think Pakistanis tend to be far too cynical and pessimistic. I used to have debates with people, when they said that Pakistan was goiing to be Talibinized and the Afghan Taliban would take over. I always said that would not happen. And it didn`t......

My logic was simple: Every country has a pulse. A mean and median towards which most of its population gravitates. It is very very difficult to change that pulse. Pakistan is quite a bit different from the Taliban. External events and political parties tried to take Pakistan towards that direction. The last nail in that coffin would have been Nawaz Sharif`s Shariah Bill.

However, before that the system corrected itself. A coup occured, the Shariah Bill was dumped. Then support for Taliban was dumped. And then the society was de-militarized from the relgious side. During all this time, no one in Pakistan protested. Barring a tiny minority of MMA supporters.

The reason is simple. The country was turning towards its traditional median. Which, is basically a Sufiana type of Islam. It is not Wahabism and it is not secularism - both concepts being alien to the land of Pakistan............

Similarly, the Wahabi strain is not nearly as strong in Pakistan, as everyone makes it out to be. It is very loud but not very strong. Infact, according to a Harvard/WB study, only around 1% of Pakistani students go to madrassahs. There are only a few things that will make Wahabism strong:

- A perpetual bombing of Muslim countries by the USA, which is traditionaly opposed heavily by Pakistanis......
- A forced secularization of the society, which will receive a counter-reaction in a religiously-oriented country like Pakistan
- Poor governance by the non-MMA groups

It is the last issue that govts. need to concentrate on. And that is also what the mental bandwidth of people on this site should be spent on.

sattar: Please cut and paste what I have written that you consider as my having ``put down your faith``.

echoboom #219

`` Which should send a collective shudder down the spine of all who are growing more nauseated by the day with the Republican Party and the right-wing extremists in whose grip it has fallen. If the GOP continues to pander to this insane agenda, we may all hereafter be denied the freedom to grieve for our loved ones in peace. ``

American people have the ability to toss out their elected representatives. Bush was elected by a narrow margin.

`` But that`s a small price to pay for promoting the ``culture of death,`` just as the loss of our civil liberties was a small price to pay for security. ``

Most Americans have not seen their civil liberties erode. I have not noticed any. I feel sorry for any innocent Muslim Americans whose civil rights were violated. I am hoping in five to ten years USA will destroy irredentists in the Islamic world.

`` · 32,000 Americans are killed each year by guns, including 10 more last week in a Columbine-style and Hitler-inspired rampage in Minnesota. ``

huh ??

`` · 3,487 Americans currently await execution; the U.S. is the only Western democracy that uses the death penalty, and is third behind China and Congo in numbers executed. ``

What do you suggest society do with criminals ? It is not like criminals are convicted in kangaroo court.

`` · The United States dominates the international arms market, selling 2.5 times more weapons ($150 billion annually) than the second- and third- highest arms merchants combined. ``

Most weapon sales are to civilized economically advanced societies like West Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea etc.

`` · Bechtel, which has in the past hired GOP stalwarts Caspar Weinberger, George Schultz and William Casey, supplied most of the weaponry held by Saddam Hussein. Today those weapons are used to kill American troops. ``

I never knew Americans made T-72, T-55, MiGs. The whole world minus Syria supported Saddam against Iran. Why pick upon Uncle Sam ?

`` · Carlyle Group invests in weapons systems and military hardware. On and for some time after 9/11, members of the Bush family (including G.W. Bush`s dad) and Osama bin Laden`s family owned controlling interests in Carlyle. ``

It is not like Carlyle Group runs the government. A lot of weapon systems like the Crusader have been cancelled. They were awarded to companies in which the Caryle group had stakes in.

`` · Lockheed Martin is the largest weapons manufacturer in the world. Its head lobbyist is former RNC chairman Haley Barbour. ``

Lockheed sells to the government. What is wrong in hiring a politician to advance your interests.

`` · One in every two casualties of war are civilians caught in the crossfire. ``

How many of the world`s wars are initiated by the Americans ? The whole war on terror would have been averted if Pakistan had supported a geunine multi-ethnic state in Afghanistan. How hard is it for the ISI to round up Arab extremists pre-9/11 ?

Hello chusni-echoboom

tea?

One way out........

There is one and only one way out. And that ain`t quick too.


Give heavy doze of secular and especially completely non-spirtual education (science and technology, secular arts) to the masses.

Create an environment that everybody becomes completely induldged in economic life (mortgaes, leases, credit cards) and has no time to visit a mullah`s jalsa or recite the unHoly book in the morning, or get brain-washed in ramazan.

This will slowly but surely exclude any room for extremism in people`s lives.

If somebody else brings a quicker and more effective way out, to me he will be the true second prophet of islam.

mj

kaalchakra and SR:

SR sahib, your optimism is very soothing but I have many reasons to be pessimistic about the situation. Let me state them and then you can tell me if you still see any way out for sufi islam.

Every idealogy has to have certain goals and motivations for their spread and defence. Sufi Islam has no real identity of it`s own and is just a substandard version of the real islam. If we compare the two, sufi islam (though tolerant and spirtual) is like a younger brother to wahabi (brutal and intolerant) islam. And like all good younger brothers, sufi islam has to vacate the seat so that the elder brother can sit (he is only comming now to claim his seat).

Sufi islam is only there as a pretext for wahabi islam. last time when arabs invaded, they injected a certain doze of wahabism. this time, they are behind strenthenning it more and the effect is going to be cumulative.

Sufi islam is in no way at odds with real islam. It is just an inferior (as per muslim mentality) version which will give way to wahabism whenever the later seeks it. Take Ishfaq Ahmad. he tried to articulate sufism but his work turned out to be a mess of intellectual confusion. on the contrary, wahabi islam emerges from the very pure sources of quran, history, hadees, to the point interpretation of them, land of the pure etc. Sufi islam is obviously at a moral disadvantage, and hence has no motivation for it`s sustainance.

I ask you a quesiton. Every such big social activity is supported by some natural factors which arise from within poeple from their very needs. Who do you think is going to sponsor the effort to keep desi islam?

government? they can`t even help the poor eat well, how they can carry out something more prfound?

educated people? they have the trend to free themselves from this religous business at all.

followers of desi islam? they are already losing and have every reason to keep losing untill wahabi islam takes it`s place.

my friend, i also want to see desi islam to prosper more than anybody but the thing is, your optimism is not real. the only way muslims will value moderation when they will get their butts kicked big time under islam for no less than a century or two. this system is going to see a rise, before it collapses and gets erases and becomes history.

kaalchakra,

i rate you higher in terms of your realism. desi islam has no chance.

mj

for a complete read:
http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:105706

These people don`t ``love life,`` they hate the freedoms the rest of us so blithely took for granted before George W. Bush was inserted by the Supreme Court in the nation`s rectum as a compassionate conservative suppository.

Which should send a collective shudder down the spine of all who are growing more nauseated by the day with the Republican Party and the right-wing extremists in whose grip it has fallen. If the GOP continues to pander to this insane agenda, we may all hereafter be denied the freedom to grieve for our loved ones in peace.

But that`s a small price to pay for promoting the ``culture of death,`` just as the loss of our civil liberties was a small price to pay for security.

How can one even respond to such criminal stupidity? It`s like trying to argue with someone whose only rebuttal is, ``Why do you hate America?``
............
My rebuttal, then, is this: It depends on what you mean by ``death.``

· 32,000 Americans are killed each year by guns, including 10 more last week in a Columbine-style and Hitler-inspired rampage in Minnesota.

· 3,487 Americans currently await execution; the U.S. is the only Western democracy that uses the death penalty, and is third behind China and Congo in numbers executed.

· The United States dominates the international arms market, selling 2.5 times more weapons ($150 billion annually) than the second- and third- highest arms merchants combined.

· Bechtel, which has in the past hired GOP stalwarts Caspar Weinberger, George Schultz and William Casey, supplied most of the weaponry held by Saddam Hussein. Today those weapons are used to kill American troops.

· Carlyle Group invests in weapons systems and military hardware. On and for some time after 9/11, members of the Bush family (including G.W. Bush`s dad) and Osama bin Laden`s family owned controlling interests in Carlyle.

· Lockheed Martin is the largest weapons manufacturer in the world. Its head lobbyist is former RNC chairman Haley Barbour.

· One in every two casualties of war are civilians caught in the crossfire.

As I said, it depends on what you mean by ``death.``

EVERYBODY -l-//-o//v//-e/-s/- HATES AMERICA

do not miss the intro. to the author at the bottom of the page.
The kuttaas brought up in cantonement kennels continue to smell & savour the dogfarts of their Masters: Never ever will they utter a word of criticism. Their entire hate is reserved for the muslims. It is the uniformed kuttaas & the un-civil servants [afeesUr claass] which
is taking Pakistan spiralling down the Dunkin-Donut hole.

``The Ugly Americans cannot be Michael-Jacksoned. ..Time to remove the tubes``

The Silence of the Lambs ( Ba Ba Blacksheep)--a..maizing! NOT!

---

Hate Down Under

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content