Carnage and Casuality
Patrick Masih July 23, 2003
#123 Posted by harimau on July 31, 2003 6:52:28 am
Ref khamkhwa. #115
[...with a name like your`s, you expect people to believe you.....mr sarkari indian muslim;) ]
Would sarkari be another Islamic sect similar to Wahabi, Deobandi, Barelvi, etc., or is it a major division like Sunni, Shia, Ismaili, Ahmadiyya, etc.?
[...with a name like your`s, you expect people to believe you.....mr sarkari indian muslim;) ]
Would sarkari be another Islamic sect similar to Wahabi, Deobandi, Barelvi, etc., or is it a major division like Sunni, Shia, Ismaili, Ahmadiyya, etc.?
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#122 Posted by MantoLives on July 30, 2003 9:43:32 pm
PM Bhai...
Abhi to meray law exams ho rahay hain magar jald karachi aoon ga...:)
Waisay ho sakta hai app ko jald khushkhabri bhee doon ... don`t ask what yet :)
Dostmittar...
Agreed... Indians do have the tendency to go ga ga over Pakistanis... be it Imran Khan, be it Musharraf be it Junoon... I personally have gotten that reception on many wonderful Indian websites like Mouthshut.com etc... I hope that is representative of most Indians, and the rabidly fanatical websites are only a minority.
-Manto
Abhi to meray law exams ho rahay hain magar jald karachi aoon ga...:)
Waisay ho sakta hai app ko jald khushkhabri bhee doon ... don`t ask what yet :)
Dostmittar...
Agreed... Indians do have the tendency to go ga ga over Pakistanis... be it Imran Khan, be it Musharraf be it Junoon... I personally have gotten that reception on many wonderful Indian websites like Mouthshut.com etc... I hope that is representative of most Indians, and the rabidly fanatical websites are only a minority.
-Manto
#121 Posted by dost_mittar on July 30, 2003 4:21:55 pm
Mantolives:
I agree with you completely.
In fact, I said something similar at one of the boards. One clarification, when an Indian refer to Jamiat as moderate, he is presumably referring to their stand vis-a-vis Pakistan. Not many of them are aware of the puritanism of Deobandis.
Why did Indians like Fazlu? I think one thing that most Pakistanis, including those who seek friendhsip, do not realise is the extent to which there is a desire to end hostility with Pakistan (of course, without giving an inch on Kashmir:-)). So, whenever someone comes to India and talks of peace and brotherhood between the two countries, Indians lap it up like regardless of who is the bearer of the message. People went ga-ga even over Musharraf when he came to India. And after two weeks, Indians are still as emotional about Noor Fatima as after seeing any of the sentimental melodramas of Bollywood, even though Pakistani media has totally ignored this story or even presented it in a negative light.
I agree with you completely.
In fact, I said something similar at one of the boards. One clarification, when an Indian refer to Jamiat as moderate, he is presumably referring to their stand vis-a-vis Pakistan. Not many of them are aware of the puritanism of Deobandis.
Why did Indians like Fazlu? I think one thing that most Pakistanis, including those who seek friendhsip, do not realise is the extent to which there is a desire to end hostility with Pakistan (of course, without giving an inch on Kashmir:-)). So, whenever someone comes to India and talks of peace and brotherhood between the two countries, Indians lap it up like regardless of who is the bearer of the message. People went ga-ga even over Musharraf when he came to India. And after two weeks, Indians are still as emotional about Noor Fatima as after seeing any of the sentimental melodramas of Bollywood, even though Pakistani media has totally ignored this story or even presented it in a negative light.
#120 Posted by MantoLives on July 30, 2003 12:34:11 pm
Dost mittar,
Thanks for sharing this article. Partition changed the politics of many parties... (though Jamiat e Ulema e Hind was never moderate.. their opposition to Pakistan was based on their opposition to the league leadership who they considered to be too westernized and non-religious) ... When the issue of shariat arose in Pakistan, Jinnah replied: `Shariat? Whose Shariat? I don`t have time for this`. Had we followed that path, a lot of this sectarian nonsense could have been avoided.
On a divergent note: I am not sure I see the angle with fazlurrahman... every dude in India and his mother in law is excited about fazlurrahman as a possible peace maker from Pakistan.. He is after all the man whose father had proudly claimed `we were not part of the sin of making Pakistan`... his party doesn`t enjoy the vote bank you think he does... his party is the beneficiary of the isolation of the secular Pakistani parties by the Government.
If you have a sense of history I think you will appreciate what I am about to say... I am afraid well meaning Indians are making the same mistake Gandhiji made in 1920... to go over the heads of secular and moderate muslim leadership and make alliances with rabidly bigoted and fanatical mullahs. Don`t make that mistake again... You can`t afford to alienate another Jinnah... don`t ally yourselves with the likes of Maulana Fazlurrahman ... the temptation is there... I understand... he is cosying up only because he thinks India is a lesser evil than America...
Tommorow... JUI and JUH might join forces for the reunification of the entire subcontinent... but have you given any thought to the motivation behind that... these are the same people who dream of conquering Dehli ...according to them if Muslims could rule India when they were only 5% of the population, couldn`t 450 Million Muslims overwhelm some 900 million or so Hindus? Do you really wanna make peace with them? Don`t be misled by Asghar Ali Engineer... conservative and religious muslims are only secular if they are outnumbered by more than 3 to 1.
I suggest you reach out to proud Pakistani nationalists, and those who are successors to the original Muslim League and the leftists.... only then will there will be legitimate peace between our two nations.
-Manto
Thanks for sharing this article. Partition changed the politics of many parties... (though Jamiat e Ulema e Hind was never moderate.. their opposition to Pakistan was based on their opposition to the league leadership who they considered to be too westernized and non-religious) ... When the issue of shariat arose in Pakistan, Jinnah replied: `Shariat? Whose Shariat? I don`t have time for this`. Had we followed that path, a lot of this sectarian nonsense could have been avoided.
On a divergent note: I am not sure I see the angle with fazlurrahman... every dude in India and his mother in law is excited about fazlurrahman as a possible peace maker from Pakistan.. He is after all the man whose father had proudly claimed `we were not part of the sin of making Pakistan`... his party doesn`t enjoy the vote bank you think he does... his party is the beneficiary of the isolation of the secular Pakistani parties by the Government.
If you have a sense of history I think you will appreciate what I am about to say... I am afraid well meaning Indians are making the same mistake Gandhiji made in 1920... to go over the heads of secular and moderate muslim leadership and make alliances with rabidly bigoted and fanatical mullahs. Don`t make that mistake again... You can`t afford to alienate another Jinnah... don`t ally yourselves with the likes of Maulana Fazlurrahman ... the temptation is there... I understand... he is cosying up only because he thinks India is a lesser evil than America...
Tommorow... JUI and JUH might join forces for the reunification of the entire subcontinent... but have you given any thought to the motivation behind that... these are the same people who dream of conquering Dehli ...according to them if Muslims could rule India when they were only 5% of the population, couldn`t 450 Million Muslims overwhelm some 900 million or so Hindus? Do you really wanna make peace with them? Don`t be misled by Asghar Ali Engineer... conservative and religious muslims are only secular if they are outnumbered by more than 3 to 1.
I suggest you reach out to proud Pakistani nationalists, and those who are successors to the original Muslim League and the leftists.... only then will there will be legitimate peace between our two nations.
-Manto
#119 Posted by PM on July 30, 2003 7:13:51 am
Hey Manto,
It`s cool the way you live and learn. The way we all do!
Karachi kab aarehay ho?
stuka,
Despite appearances sometimes, for what it`s worth, I learn a lot from your posts. You`re not the last one I`d want to share my lunch with on a schoolyard bench. :)
rgds,
PM
It`s cool the way you live and learn. The way we all do!
Karachi kab aarehay ho?
stuka,
Despite appearances sometimes, for what it`s worth, I learn a lot from your posts. You`re not the last one I`d want to share my lunch with on a schoolyard bench. :)
rgds,
PM
#118 Posted by dost_mittar on July 30, 2003 7:05:54 am
Mantolives:
You may want to read this article:
http://sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=314131
Excerpt:
``It was the Muslim League’s contention that the Muslim Personal Law — then known as the ‘Anglo-Mohammedan Law’ — would not be respected in a future ‘Hindu’ India. A moderate group of theologians, the Jamaat-e-Ulema-e-Hind — incidentally, the same chappies who recently invited Pakistani Jamat-e-Ulema-e-Islam leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman to India — took it upon themselves to convince Muslims that the new Indian government would not pull the plug on the Muslim Personal Law.
The Jamaat had reasons to believe so. For one, both Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru had assured them that independent India would not press for a uniform civil code. For another, the British Indian government had left personal laws relating to matters such as marriage, divorce and inheritance more or less untouched. But it had been the same British Indian government which had thought of a uniform civil code and a uniform criminal code to replace India’s multiple system of laws based on Hindu and Muslim laws.
In 1861, the Indian Penal Code supplanted Hindu law(s) (32 years after sati was outlawed despite many Hindus not being ‘ready’ for its abolition) and the Shariat with neither community protesting. This itself should have convinced the leaders of post-Independence India that there was nothing blasphemous about supplanting religious laws by a secular civil law. But the political compulsions in 1947 made its imposition unsuitable.``
You may want to read this article:
http://sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=314131
Excerpt:
``It was the Muslim League’s contention that the Muslim Personal Law — then known as the ‘Anglo-Mohammedan Law’ — would not be respected in a future ‘Hindu’ India. A moderate group of theologians, the Jamaat-e-Ulema-e-Hind — incidentally, the same chappies who recently invited Pakistani Jamat-e-Ulema-e-Islam leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman to India — took it upon themselves to convince Muslims that the new Indian government would not pull the plug on the Muslim Personal Law.
The Jamaat had reasons to believe so. For one, both Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru had assured them that independent India would not press for a uniform civil code. For another, the British Indian government had left personal laws relating to matters such as marriage, divorce and inheritance more or less untouched. But it had been the same British Indian government which had thought of a uniform civil code and a uniform criminal code to replace India’s multiple system of laws based on Hindu and Muslim laws.
In 1861, the Indian Penal Code supplanted Hindu law(s) (32 years after sati was outlawed despite many Hindus not being ‘ready’ for its abolition) and the Shariat with neither community protesting. This itself should have convinced the leaders of post-Independence India that there was nothing blasphemous about supplanting religious laws by a secular civil law. But the political compulsions in 1947 made its imposition unsuitable.``
#117 Posted by MantoLives on July 29, 2003 10:57:34 pm
Stuka,
Let me reaffirm your post. Nothing in BJP`s manifesto suggests any similarities with SSP. BJP is a political party which seeks its inspiration from a hindu past... No where does BJP decry the religious freedom but has its own twist on things ...
This is why I am beginning to think that while Hindutva was a real threat, had the founders of Pakistan been introduced to SSP and MMA, they would have preferred to embrace the Hindutvists.
-Manto
Let me reaffirm your post. Nothing in BJP`s manifesto suggests any similarities with SSP. BJP is a political party which seeks its inspiration from a hindu past... No where does BJP decry the religious freedom but has its own twist on things ...
This is why I am beginning to think that while Hindutva was a real threat, had the founders of Pakistan been introduced to SSP and MMA, they would have preferred to embrace the Hindutvists.
-Manto
#116 Posted by MantoLives on July 29, 2003 10:57:34 pm
Stuka,
Let me reaffirm your post. Nothing in BJP`s manifesto suggests any similarities with SSP. BJP is a political party which seeks its inspiration from a hindu past... No where does BJP decry the religious freedom but has its own twist on things ...
This is why I am beginning to think that while Hindutva was a real threat, had the founders of Pakistan been introduced to SSP and MMA, they would have preferred to embrace the Hindutvists.
-Manto
Let me reaffirm your post. Nothing in BJP`s manifesto suggests any similarities with SSP. BJP is a political party which seeks its inspiration from a hindu past... No where does BJP decry the religious freedom but has its own twist on things ...
This is why I am beginning to think that while Hindutva was a real threat, had the founders of Pakistan been introduced to SSP and MMA, they would have preferred to embrace the Hindutvists.
-Manto
#115 Posted by khamkhwa. on July 29, 2003 1:29:17 pm
Faruk#97
...with a name like your`s, you expect people to believe you.....mr sarkari indian muslim;)
...with a name like your`s, you expect people to believe you.....mr sarkari indian muslim;)
#114 Posted by bat on July 29, 2003 11:29:44 am
Re: Romair in response to your post #99
kAABA, THE CRATOR, AND THE QURAN ARE ALL ONE
WOULD IT NOT HAVE BEEN GREAT, IF THE MUSLIMS WERE ONE
IN SOME PLACE THERE IS SECTARIANISM AND IN SOME NATIONALISM
IS THIS THE ONLY WAY TO PROGRESS IN THIS ERA ?
IQBAL
KAFIR FOR A DAY
When Ali Bin AbiTalib, became the Caliph of the then Islamic world, he appointed Maalik Bin Ashtar as the Governor of Egypt. Bin Ashtar was summoned by Imam Ali and given the following instructions before leaving for Egypt:
``You will govern two kinds of people, Those that are your brothers in faith, and those that are your brothers in creation - be equally fair and
just to both``
This is the just Imam I follow, and for this reason a section of militant Muslims crazed with the Wahabi ideology and financed by petro dollars, want to declare the Shias as non-Muslim or ``kafirs``
There is another Muslim community who has already been declared as kafirs by the Supreme court of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (a.k.a. God almighty) This is the Ahmadi or Qadiani community. The fact is that you have to condemn them in order to get a Pakistani passport.
On July 6, 2003 I decided to spend the day with these brothers and sisters to share in their ``Jalsa Salana`` in Toronto. The event comprised of Quran recitaiton, speeches by religious and non-religious personalities, recognitions and a delicious lunch. Prayer arrangements were excellent for both ladies and gents. Administratively, I have yet to attend a better programme.
Over lunch, I sat with a Qadiani gentleman and his guests. We talked at length on commalities and differences in our belief system. He explained that they DO believe in the finality of Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family), and that Mirza Ghulam Mohammad of Qadian was a messiah (the final reformer or Mahdi)
I totally disagreed with him, as this is contrary to my belief as a Shia. However, I did not grab his collar and try to burn his clothes while he was still in them (Ahmadi killings near Lahore 2000 while trying to pray in a Sunni mosque). He did not threaten to kill me while I pray in my mosque (Shia killings in Quetta mosque 2003). We parted heaving learnt from one another of the beauty of diversity in Islam, and mutual respect for each other and our views.
I felt proud in associating with the Ahmadi community. I know it was something to be proud of, for I found that it is better to be perceived a kafir and still struggle to find God, than be a Muslim from a MAD-ressa and graduate in the only subject they teach - HATE!!!
Read Reflect and distribute
Syed Sohail Raza
Toronto
kAABA, THE CRATOR, AND THE QURAN ARE ALL ONE
WOULD IT NOT HAVE BEEN GREAT, IF THE MUSLIMS WERE ONE
IN SOME PLACE THERE IS SECTARIANISM AND IN SOME NATIONALISM
IS THIS THE ONLY WAY TO PROGRESS IN THIS ERA ?
IQBAL
KAFIR FOR A DAY
When Ali Bin AbiTalib, became the Caliph of the then Islamic world, he appointed Maalik Bin Ashtar as the Governor of Egypt. Bin Ashtar was summoned by Imam Ali and given the following instructions before leaving for Egypt:
``You will govern two kinds of people, Those that are your brothers in faith, and those that are your brothers in creation - be equally fair and
just to both``
This is the just Imam I follow, and for this reason a section of militant Muslims crazed with the Wahabi ideology and financed by petro dollars, want to declare the Shias as non-Muslim or ``kafirs``
There is another Muslim community who has already been declared as kafirs by the Supreme court of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (a.k.a. God almighty) This is the Ahmadi or Qadiani community. The fact is that you have to condemn them in order to get a Pakistani passport.
On July 6, 2003 I decided to spend the day with these brothers and sisters to share in their ``Jalsa Salana`` in Toronto. The event comprised of Quran recitaiton, speeches by religious and non-religious personalities, recognitions and a delicious lunch. Prayer arrangements were excellent for both ladies and gents. Administratively, I have yet to attend a better programme.
Over lunch, I sat with a Qadiani gentleman and his guests. We talked at length on commalities and differences in our belief system. He explained that they DO believe in the finality of Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family), and that Mirza Ghulam Mohammad of Qadian was a messiah (the final reformer or Mahdi)
I totally disagreed with him, as this is contrary to my belief as a Shia. However, I did not grab his collar and try to burn his clothes while he was still in them (Ahmadi killings near Lahore 2000 while trying to pray in a Sunni mosque). He did not threaten to kill me while I pray in my mosque (Shia killings in Quetta mosque 2003). We parted heaving learnt from one another of the beauty of diversity in Islam, and mutual respect for each other and our views.
I felt proud in associating with the Ahmadi community. I know it was something to be proud of, for I found that it is better to be perceived a kafir and still struggle to find God, than be a Muslim from a MAD-ressa and graduate in the only subject they teach - HATE!!!
Read Reflect and distribute
Syed Sohail Raza
Toronto
#113 Posted by smjafry on July 29, 2003 10:50:43 am
re #88
Manto,
i missed the documentary, but i caught the last 15 minutes of salman ahmed`s interview on npr. do u know if they`re going to re-air it on pbs?
Manto,
i missed the documentary, but i caught the last 15 minutes of salman ahmed`s interview on npr. do u know if they`re going to re-air it on pbs?
#112 Posted by stuka on July 29, 2003 12:27:06 am
Faruk:
Man, I am sorry. I mean sincerely so, not to make a political point or anything. Was your grandfather`s younger brother alive when this happened? Must have been a terrible shock to him.
Man, I am sorry. I mean sincerely so, not to make a political point or anything. Was your grandfather`s younger brother alive when this happened? Must have been a terrible shock to him.
#111 Posted by PM on July 29, 2003 12:27:06 am
re. Ahemdzai #93:
I agree that, by and large, Pakistanis are peace loving, though second to none in retaliating against perceived injustice.
However, I wonder how much truth there is to your contention that ``A good example of our non-violence is that not a single terrorist has been arrested from Pakistani origin despite all out efforts by the West/USA``
If you are referring only to acts of terrorism committed on U.S. soil, ok, you may be right. What about terrorism agaisnt perceived Western targets IN Pakistan. I am talking, of course, about the attacks on churchs and missionary schools. Are you suggesting that none of those invovled are Pakistanis?
rgds,
PM
I agree that, by and large, Pakistanis are peace loving, though second to none in retaliating against perceived injustice.
However, I wonder how much truth there is to your contention that ``A good example of our non-violence is that not a single terrorist has been arrested from Pakistani origin despite all out efforts by the West/USA``
If you are referring only to acts of terrorism committed on U.S. soil, ok, you may be right. What about terrorism agaisnt perceived Western targets IN Pakistan. I am talking, of course, about the attacks on churchs and missionary schools. Are you suggesting that none of those invovled are Pakistanis?
rgds,
PM
#110 Posted by subroto on July 28, 2003 9:21:55 pm
Well, well, well...he`s back.... welcome, welcome...
#109 Posted by MantoLives on July 28, 2003 9:21:42 pm
Dear Dost mittar,
I was under the impression that You had perhaps inadvertantly replaced `no` with `any` at a certain part of it... but I could be wrong... or maybe that was someone else.. though it did create some bad blood between us..
But I agree ... let bygones be bygones... despite our slight disagreement on history most of our views especially on current events ... like SC judgement... are so similar ... why bother with something that old anyway.
I have decided to stay on.
-Manto
#108 Posted by dost_mittar on July 28, 2003 2:25:48 pm
stuka#105
``Man, I thought you were Indian. Is there sectarian violence in India as well? Never heard of it before. ``
There was, but not to the same extent. The friction was restricted to Lucknow. For many years, the shias there were not allowed to take out their Moharram procession because of the threat of violent clashes with the sunnis there. Believe it or not, peace between the two sects was brought out by the BJP when it came to power in UP. The BJP always considered it as one of its major achievements there.
``Man, I thought you were Indian. Is there sectarian violence in India as well? Never heard of it before. ``
There was, but not to the same extent. The friction was restricted to Lucknow. For many years, the shias there were not allowed to take out their Moharram procession because of the threat of violent clashes with the sunnis there. Believe it or not, peace between the two sects was brought out by the BJP when it came to power in UP. The BJP always considered it as one of its major achievements there.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- ijaz_gul: Re: # 31 In this... Who Sold the Centrifuges?
- truth100: Tahir Mamu, Why do they... Muslim Ghettoisation
- nkg: Re: # 378 DM... Brahmins are... Muslim Ghettoisation
- truth100: Tahir Ji, We also know... Muslim Ghettoisation
- truth100: Tahirji, Did prophet also annuled... Muslim Ghettoisation
- nkg: Regarding Urdooo... Urdooo is not... Muslim Ghettoisation
- truth100: tahir Mamu ko thoda... Muslim Ghettoisation
- majumdar: Tahir mian, Truth et... Muslim Ghettoisation
