Non-Reformist but Non-Cleric

Sattar2 #various: My $.02:

If someone wants to debate an issue with someone else, they have a far more chance of success if they debate the issue, not in their own framework, but in the framework of the other person. Otherewise, it is impossible to convince the other person.....

For example, if I debate something regarding the USA, with hamidm, I debate it within the context of the groups he has associated himself with, and votes for, like Bush, the religious right of the Republican party, Christian Evangelists etc. I oppose all such groups, but if I gave the far Left`s views to him (the group that I do agree with in the USA), they would have no affect, on hamidm. I have to, thus, discuss issues based on info provided by Limbaugh, O`Reilly, Bush, Wolfowitz, Fallwell etc., and use that the best way I can. All of whom are also strong supporters of Bush and the Religious Right, much like hamidm mian.......

Similarly, you are not going to have any success if you debate finality of Prophethood with Urstruly (or with anyone else). They are as convinced of their opinion as you are of yours. Very Very few individuals in Pakistan acknowledge Mirza Ghulam Ahamd in the manner you, and other Ahmadis, do. So any democratic, Constitutional etc. vote on it will go against you. Even in a secular system, I have a feeling the Ahmedi issue will not be touched in Pakistan. After all, it was the, ``secular`` PPP which declared Ahmedis to be non-Muslims. It is like the gay marraige issue in the USA. Regardless of how, ``secular`` the USA has become, I doubt it will budge on gay marriage........

You may want to change your strategy. The argument has to be from within Islam. And the best argument available to you would be that the Quran does not lay down any mechanism nor does it authorize anyone the authority to declare someone else a non-Muslim. Hence, it is actually unIslamic to declare someone a non-Muslim. One can consider someone a non-Muslim, but a State or a group of people cannot officially declare someone a non-Muslim.

I have asked this question to people many times, and they can never answer. What is the procedure to declare someone a non-Muslim in Islam? And who is given that authority? Can they point me to it in the Quran.........

Obviously, accordintg to Islam, Consitutions of one State cannot declare people non-Muslim. Nor can a fatwa. Islam does not recognize either in a universal perspective.....Urstruly cannot declare it, neither can Israr Ahmad, neither can Bhutto, neither can the National Assembly of Pakistan, neither can Al-Azhar university.........

Re: # 107

Romair,
The reason why democracy does not succeed in Pakistan is that there are powerful forces with a vested interest in it not succeeding. The obvious one is the Army which has gone out of it`s way to throw a spanner in the works after each election to protect it`s pre-eminent position in the Pakistani body politic.

As for the urban/rural divide, I am an urban Indian who at times is extremely frustrated by the manner in which the rural areas vote for candidates who are out of touch with the current trend of reforms and modernization. But I think it is the only way that their voice can be heard (however cacophanous it may sound) and to have their aspirations addressed.

Re: # 116

sattar,

.......urstruly has already advocated murder for apostasy which, i assume, means that he wants me dead ........... so tomorrow if i turn up dead or missing, please call the police in flint michigan and let them know .......... his implied, but real threat, has been recorded somewhere on this thread ..........

Urstruly (#115),

You have ducked the problems I highlighted with your “constitution” stand against Ahmadi-Muslims. And all along you were eagerly quoting the constitution …

You have now shifted focus to “Muslims getting offended” … by Ahmadis. If this is grounds enough to persecute a group … it leads to more twists and brutality in your Islam. Read on …

Tomorrow you may argue that a non-Muslim denying truthfulness of Quran … is offensive to Muslims. Conversely, a non-Muslim rejecting prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) is offensive … since Muhammad (pbuh) claimed to be a prophet of God. In essence, you may argue, rejecting Islam is tantamount to accusing prophet Muhammad (pbuh) of lying and forgery. Such statements would constitute blasphemy, which, according to you, is punishable by death.

In essence, you may very well insist on killing people for rejecting Islam. This is an inescapable, logical deduction based on your views and reasoning.

Logic you are trying to build upon inevitably leads to brutal enforcement of Islam. Your silly thought process makes it impossible to reason with you. You mullahs are not the victims … but the perpetrators of the mess you find yourselves in.

Behram

Phew!!! (wiping sweat from forehead)

and I thought you had some real concerns.


YLH

The scars on my back from the baton charges that I faced from Zias goons and hunch men still hurt in winter. That should tell you what I think of him. I find it disgusting the way he mutilated the constitution along with those ammendments that are considered ``Islamic``. Had you even bothered to read my post in full before loseing your cool and going breserk over Quadiani issue, you would have known that I said that I would gladly go back to the constitution as it was on July 4, 1977; ``I will live with it`` and ``I will die for it. I hope that clarifies my position.

Sattar:

We have discussed this issue many times before. I do not want to go into theology of the issue but an unavoidable fact remains as evident as the sun in the sky that Muslims in Pakistan and throughout the world remain deeply offended by Quadianism regardless of the sect and state. I think the 2nd ammendment in the constitution is the the best, most humane, and just solution to address that issue in way that it can help us avoid any catastrophe and human tragedy. The constitution guarnatees Quadianis full enfranchisement and representation in government, elected bodies, armed forces, and bureaucracy. AS opposed to Behram`s perception Quadianis are elected and they have attained positions in all level of government, business, and armed forces. This is something Jim Crowes America cannot boast off. The Penal Code Clauses 298 A, B & C will go away the minute the Quadianis will stop calling themselves Muslims. They should not be ashamed of calling themselves Quadianis and only Quadianis.

Re: # 109

I actually agree with you but we still haven`t gotten any clear denounciation of General Zia ul Haq and his fascist militarism against Pakistan`s minorities... from you.

Urstruly (#73, 86):

You have attempted to articulate your position on “Ahamdi” issue within the context of Pakistani constitution. While it is a lame argument, you have also overlooked weakness of your position that lies outside the constitutional framework. Ironically, inability of your ullema to intelligently engage in a well thought out discourse partly explains why they are involved in futile wars all over the world.

Here are a few points to consider:

1. The reasons for declaring Ahmadis as non-Muslims remain hidden. The government refuses to release transcripts of “Ahmadi hearings” where this verdict was reached. These transcripts cover extensive discussion on teachings of Quran and prophethood, Mirza Shaib’s claims, views of earlier Muslims, and more. What is the government hiding? It reeks of backroom deal cutting between politicians and ullema.

2. Constitution is the work of men and hence prone to errors. A Muslim should seek guidance from Quran first and foremost. Nowhere does Quran give anyone authority to declare a person non-Muslim.

3. If you still insist on holding man-made laws above Quran, what would you have done if you had lived in the USA when a negro was declared three-fifths of a human? Would you have gladly accepted the constitution against Quran?

4. Furthermore, constitution of Pakistan applies to Pakistan and its citizens only. This implies that you must accept an Indonesian Ahamdi, as a Muslim. The only way to universally declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims is to establish “Muslim government” in each and every country of the world. This has not happened in the past 1400 years. Do you really think this is achievable?

5. And lastly, I have prodded you (and Naqshbandi, as well as mullah tahmed) on reasons why Ahmadis are non-Muslims. It started with the “prophethood” argument, where all of you miserably failed to make your case (this mostly explains why “Ahmadi transcripts” remain unreleased). You now stick to simply referring to the verdict of ullema … without being able to explain its basis. Mullah tahmed tends to ramble incoherently … without being able to make his point … but insisting nevertheless that Ahmadis are non-Muslims. This is one of many places where your Islam breaks down … as it fails to provide an answer to a silly question that has beocme increasingly important to mindless Muslims.

++++++++++++

However, you point about the constitution is well taken. Consequently, Ahamdis have chosen to work within the framework of this constitution. We owe it to Pakistan and to teachings of Quran. Your silly claim about Ahamdis ``pretending`` to be Muslims is a sign of insecutrity on your behalf. You and your ullema are attempting to trademark the term ``Muslim``, which will be followed by attempts at ``copyrighting`` Quran. So there is not much to add to this … except that you do what your Islam tells you to do, and so will Ahamdis. And let the chips fall where they may. And life goes on …

Re: # 110

Dear Ustruly,

You write...{I still do not understand what drived you to the ``opinion`` that you have expressed to Yasser.} As a Zoroastrian, am I allowed to run for political office in Pakistan? And will the majorities (who are muslims, of course) ever elect me, since I am a non-muslim? What sort of participation do you want from me? the minorities?

Thanks for the assurance that you provide... {Rest assured that I am anything but the patronizing type and only interested in knowing your point of view.}

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

Behram,

I still do not understand what drived you to the ``opinion`` that you have expressed to Yasser. Yes you have an opinion, I can see that, but based on what. What has effected you to form that opinion. Rest assured that I am anything but the patronizing type and only interested in knowing your point of view.

# 107 is what I call chori aur sina zori. Unfortunately, in Pakistan now the situation has come when tyrants and their collaborators are openly saying ``patt lo jo patna hay``. I feel sorry for Pakistan.

Re: # 104

Dear Yasser,

You have articulated a good point. I just want to know how can a Zoroastrian participate in the affairs of Pakistan?

Urstruly thinks that I can participate, but I still don`t know as what? He responded to my question (Re:#93) by asking another question {What gave you the idea that you are not?}

Please somebody explain participate as what? As an intellectual, who has a view, an opinion?

Yasser, you are aboslutely right when you infer that Urstruly`s opinions are strictly...{Yes Behram... in urstruly`s vision you are included... as the downtrodden-without the right to practice your religion freely. Please feel free to read his anti-1973 Constitution posts... and his profound admiration for General Zia matched by his hate for Musharraf...}

I did read his opinion on the constitution. I am not an expert on any constitution, but I do have an opinion or two about it. I wonder if I have a right to be an activist of my own opinion.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

Hamidm mian #93: “........... the pakistani people are no different from those looting and raping in new orleans and given the chance would have adapted to democracy with a few bumps along the way ....... the 1973, imperfect as it might have been, provided the right framework, before bhutto and that devil zia started messing with it ............”

The above is true, assuming the people have a system to work in. Outside of a such a system, everyone behaves the same way. It is quite idealistic of you to simply say, “would have adapted to democracy with a few bumps along the way.” That’s like saying Pakistan would have won the hockey match if it could have scored more goals. Obviously, it would have won. The question is why didn’t it score more goals.……Do try to concentrate on that, sometime……

Pakistani politics is in the control of three groups – maulvis, feudals and army. The feudals are all related to each other at the family level, regardless of which party they are in. For a long time, the Army was related to the feudals, through marriages etc. Now they aren’t. And the maulvis are the odd man out.

All three of these groups are regressive in politics in the long term. I hope we all agree on that. Rest assured, I have personally fought more battles with military generals, then your whole generations ever will. Hence, I can only smile, when someone tries to lecture me on Generals. There is, after all, a reason I am no longer in the military.

However, the solution isn’t to replace one with the other. And keep going around in circles. In the 90s, Pakistan had four elections. Did anything change? The same 66% feudals ended up running things. Then the army took over. With some maulvis thrown in. Obviously this doesn’t happen in New Orleans……….

The reason is that there are certain pre-requisites to democracy. Until those are established, nothing changes. One can have elections till the pigs fly, nothing will change.

To keep saying that, “this” would not have happened, had, “that” not happened, is well and good. But, “that” did happen, and will continue to happen. What is a practical way for avoiding that. The only thing I can see as a solution for Pakistan is economic progress. Anyone who can do that is someone I will support in the short term, at least……..

As for the 73 Constitution: they guy who created it (Bhutto) tore it up, immediately after it was created. So, you might be a bit holier than thou, in your support for it. Again, one can eulogize about this and that. But what good has it done, if every Tom Dick and Harry can run over it. Obviously there is something wrong. Though, in theory, it may be great……….

But practicalities are what count………

So I will agree with Fuzair, with a caveat: Pakistanis in urban areas are free and ready for democracy. In feudal rural areas, they are not and won’t be until some massive changes occur. And those changes will not be carried out by the feudals, themselves, obviously. This does not mean Army will carry them out. It is hand in glove with the feudals, in most cases, historically. However, economic progress, regardless of who carries it out, will change things………..

So, I don’t support Army as the solution. Quite the contrary, I recognize it as a problem in politics. I do support economic progress as the solution. I am encouraged, to a great degree, by the current govt. because it is at an 8.4% growth rate. Not because it has a General as its head. He could well have been from Railways or from Zimbabwe, for all I care………….Kindly try to understand that………The other option is to refuse to recognize what I am saying, and continue to create strawmen……….

fuzair,

``democracy is not suited to the genius of the Pakistani people`` .......... that sounds condescending and elitist - something you could expect me to say, not you ..........

........... the pakistani people are no different from those looting and raping in new orleans and given the chance would have adapted to democracy with a few bumps along the way ....... the 1973, imperfect as it might have been, provided the right framework, before bhutto and that devil zia started messing with it ............ and even though musharraf has torn it to smithereens, it still provides a good starting point unless we want the zalmay khalilzad to oversee the writing of a new constitution in a green zone in islamabad .........

............ romair, as usual is clueless but it is people like urstruly who want to convert the constitution till it becomes an addendum to the koran, that i am worried about ........ zia has already given them a leg up ................

#101 by Mantolives on September 2, 2005 3:22am PT


but no military man has been able to answer any of the questions:


Paki military men are under no obligation to answer to anyone....don`t you get it? That`s the problem.....

Re: # 103

Yes Behram... in urstruly`s vision you are included... as the downtrodden-without the right to practice your religion freely.

Please feel free to read his anti-1973 Constitution posts... and his profound admiration for General Zia matched by his hate for Musharraf...