Protest in New York!

Does Islam enjoin separate electorates?

From TFT Oct 12

by

Khaled Ahmed



Many Pakistani opinion-makers appear to be moving to the stance that separate electorates are ordained by the Shariah. Somehow they presume that an ijma exists on the status of the zimmi in the Islamic state who has to be kept away from the mainstream of politics and `treated separately` as a ward of the Muslim rulers in return for some special tax. In the Mughal period some kings imposed such a tax but this tax was not a regular feature of the state. King Aurangzeb imposed this tax or jizya but removed it a few days before his death. Pakistan still has to formally declare its non-Muslims as zimmis and subject them to jizya. A concept of separation however has been developed which flies in the face of the international covenants signed by the state. `Separate job quotas`, confused with affirmative action, have been reserved in educational institutions and government departments to keep the non-Muslims out, and institutions disbursing zakat to the poor have kept the non-Muslims out.



Khalid Rahman in his article Electoral system and the minorities (Dawn: 28 September 2000) says: `An analysis of the arguments for joint electorates reveals that that the entire debate revolves round one capital point: whether religion is a private matter of individuals or it is concerned with collective affairs as well`. The author thinks that anyone who objects to separate electorates actually believes in religion being a private matter and therefore not within the ambit of state activity. Pakistan is an Islamic state and Pakistan`s law is Islamic law, that is, the Shariah, which, in the writer`s opinion, forbids joint electorates. There has been litigation about separate electorates reaching up to the Supreme Court which finally did not allow joint electorates in 1993, not on the point of Islamic law, but on the requirement of amending the Constitution. The plea was that joint electorates did not entail an amendment of the Constitution. The PPP promised to restore joint electorates in its last election manifesto, so did Imran Khan`s Insaf Party. It is obvious that politicians don`t think that the matter of electorates is an issue of the Shariah.



The idea of the zimmi: The status of the non-Muslim in Muslim history has been a subject of controversy. The jurists have developed theories of `partial` or `peripheral` citizenship for non-Muslims in the Islamic state. The zimmi is responsibility of the Islamic state after he pays a special tax. In Pakistan the non-Muslim has not yet been declared zimmi because it is difficult to arrive at an exact definition of zimmi. Islamic jurisprudence presents two examples from the past: the first relates to the government of Prophet Muhammad PBUH at Madina, and the second to the conditionality of conquest to the status of zimmi-hood. In the state of Madina, the Muslim and the non-Muslim were accepted as one ummah with equal rights. Many scholars are of the opinion that this parity of citizenship was conditional to non-Muslims taking part in the war to defend the Islamic state. In Madina. The system of conscription made it incumbent on the non-Muslims to defend the state against all invaders. Prof Shariful Mujahid in a recent lecture in Lahore recommended reversion to joint electorates on the basis of the covenant of Madina called Mithaq-e-Madina. He thought that since Pakistan does not have the system of conscription and that since non-Muslims have not declared themselves neutral in times of war, they are one ummah with the Muslims on the Madinate model.



The juristic model, on the other hand, is based on conquest. What if the non-Muslims of Pakistan don`t qualify as a vanquished community? When Pakistan was created the Christian community was not aligned with the Congress. In fact, the Christian community has a record of their leaders` allegiance to the Quaid. Later, the community took part in wars against India and Christians were prominent in the armed forces in proportion to their numbers. As for Hindus, most of them were driven out during the pre-partition riots. In Sindh, those who stayed back despite coercive migration, felt themselves tied to Sindhi Muslims on the basis of language and mysticism. In any case, it is difficult to describe Pakistani Hindus as a conquered community because Pakistan was not created after military conquest. In short, while Pakistan`s constitution may contain certain provisions enjoining separate electorates in the opinion of some people, others think that a mere change in the election rules is needed to revert to joint electorates. The Constitution does not accept the concept of zimmi-hood.



Separate electorates experience in Pakistan: The non-Muslims in Pakistan are not satisfied with the functioning of separate electorates. Their main objection relates to ineffective representation of their interests through 10 reserved minorities seats in the National Assembly 23 in the provincial assemblies. Their constituencies are too big and they don`t really come into contact with their elected leaders. Khalid Rahman in his above-quoted article thinks that this problem is merely logistic and has nothing to do with separate electorates. The truth of the matter is that the problem relates to distance as well as to the general status of the non-Muslim in society. The non-Muslim is much better off voting for a Muslim MNA or MPA because that will tend to highlight his interests within the Muslim community which enjoys more influence over the state apparatus. Just one 1992 case, that of Chowk Munda near Muzaffargarh, relating to confiscation of Christian village land, will highlight the problem. Four `chaks` inhabited by about 90 Christian families were being harassed by powerful lawyers, local landlords and `goondas` in the pay of influential people. The Christians did not know who their leaders were under the separate electorate system. The Chowk Munda Christians did succeed in getting federal Christian minister J.Salik to visit them twice, but the local officials were hardly impressed by these visits mainly because the minister lived far away and was not a local leader. On one occasion when J.Salik was there, the land-grabbing Mullah Ismail got the Muzaffargarh MNA and federal minister Mr Ghulam Mustafa Khar to visit his area right across the road. The local Christian leaders were forced to sit on the ground even while minister Salik was in the thana; the offending party was made to sit on chairs.



Reserved seats have attracted ambitious personalities usually related to the Christian church in Pakistan. They have benefited personally from being in the assemblies while their constituency has declined steadily into social and economic deprivation. Some of these leaders have been beaten up by Christians after their PTV `confessions` that Christians enjoyed equal rights in Pakistan and were happy with the Blasphemy Law. Separate electorates have bred corruption among the representatives of the minorities without affording any local advantage to them. The assemblies have been extremely corrupt in the past decade but Muslim MNAs and MPAs have had to `build up` their voting localities in order to win elections. This has not happened among non-Muslims because of their inter-penetration with the Muslim population and the very small size of their `distant` enclaves. A disingenuous promise of security: The author of the article gives a disingenuous excuse for separate electorates when says that they `eliminate chances of clash on religious basis and thus provides protection to the minorities`. Social experience all over the world has shown that separation has led to ghetto-isation and ghetto-isation has invariably led to violence. It is tantamount to excusing the state from the responsibility of upholding the law under joint electorates. The misunderstood doctrine of amr and nahi seems to be at the back of this thought: that the Islamic state, not allowed to supersede the doctrine, will be constantly under attack from the ulema who object to the laws on the basis of their understanding. In this eternally experimental state the majority will be free to reject and attack what they consider nahi. In this case the non-Muslims of Pakistan will be secure neither under one nor the other system of electorates. Under joint electorates they stand a better chance of saving their lives by taking protection from fellow Muslim voters.



Author Khalid Rahman`s reference to Bangladesh has revealed another fact about Pakistan`s politics. He says non-Muslims in Bangladesh are 12 to 15 percent, but their presence in the country`s parliament is only five. Had they accepted separate electorates, the non-Muslims of Bangladesh would have at least 40 representatives in the House. The truth is actually this: the non-Muslims of East Pakistan were a vote-bank of the Awami Party and their strong 25 percent presence in early years forced the Muslim League to adopt the notion of separate electorates. In Pakistan, the non-Muslims vote for the PPP, which once again compels the PML to stick to separate electorates. In Bangladesh, during my visit there in 1997 as a SAARC observer of general elections, many non-Muslims were losing hope after decades of martial law gone Islamic under General Ziaur Rehman and General Ershad. However, in many instances of violence to which I was witness, the non-Muslims were saved from being killed, by the local Awami League workers. Separate electorates in Bangladesh would result immediately in dispossession and expulsion of the non-Muslims because their leaders would be ineffective in saving them from discrimination. Had there been 40 non-Muslim representatives in Parliament, they would have been less effective than the five now representing Muslims and non-Muslims together along with other Muslim MPs. One also should not forget that in the Bangladesh parliament the non-Muslim population may prefer representation through Muslims in a society that is under pressure from religious passion.



Muslim societies all over the world are handicapped by their unresolved dispute over the status of women and non-Muslims. The Islamic state remains experimental, subject to attack from the concept of amr and nahi, which Muslims tend to equate with vigilantism of sorts. The state is clearly in retreat in the face of the majority orthodox opinion in relation to human rights. The Musharraf government is no exception. But after unexamined regimes of classical jurisprudence have been imposed with consequent disorder, there will always be a public backlash, as is happening in Iran. The Islamic state appears fated to be unstable till it rationally adopts laws that benefit all its people without discrimination.

Does Islam enjoin separate electorates?

From TFT Oct 12

by

Khaled Ahmed



Many Pakistani opinion-makers appear to be moving to the stance that separate electorates are ordained by the Shariah. Somehow they presume that an ijma exists on the status of the zimmi in the Islamic state who has to be kept away from the mainstream of politics and `treated separately` as a ward of the Muslim rulers in return for some special tax. In the Mughal period some kings imposed such a tax but this tax was not a regular feature of the state. King Aurangzeb imposed this tax or jizya but removed it a few days before his death. Pakistan still has to formally declare its non-Muslims as zimmis and subject them to jizya. A concept of separation however has been developed which flies in the face of the international covenants signed by the state. `Separate job quotas`, confused with affirmative action, have been reserved in educational institutions and government departments to keep the non-Muslims out, and institutions disbursing zakat to the poor have kept the non-Muslims out.



Khalid Rahman in his article Electoral system and the minorities (Dawn: 28 September 2000) says: `An analysis of the arguments for joint electorates reveals that that the entire debate revolves round one capital point: whether religion is a private matter of individuals or it is concerned with collective affairs as well`. The author thinks that anyone who objects to separate electorates actually believes in religion being a private matter and therefore not within the ambit of state activity. Pakistan is an Islamic state and Pakistan`s law is Islamic law, that is, the Shariah, which, in the writer`s opinion, forbids joint electorates. There has been litigation about separate electorates reaching up to the Supreme Court which finally did not allow joint electorates in 1993, not on the point of Islamic law, but on the requirement of amending the Constitution. The plea was that joint electorates did not entail an amendment of the Constitution. The PPP promised to restore joint electorates in its last election manifesto, so did Imran Khan`s Insaf Party. It is obvious that politicians don`t think that the matter of electorates is an issue of the Shariah.



The idea of the zimmi: The status of the non-Muslim in Muslim history has been a subject of controversy. The jurists have developed theories of `partial` or `peripheral` citizenship for non-Muslims in the Islamic state. The zimmi is responsibility of the Islamic state after he pays a special tax. In Pakistan the non-Muslim has not yet been declared zimmi because it is difficult to arrive at an exact definition of zimmi. Islamic jurisprudence presents two examples from the past: the first relates to the government of Prophet Muhammad PBUH at Madina, and the second to the conditionality of conquest to the status of zimmi-hood. In the state of Madina, the Muslim and the non-Muslim were accepted as one ummah with equal rights. Many scholars are of the opinion that this parity of citizenship was conditional to non-Muslims taking part in the war to defend the Islamic state. In Madina. The system of conscription made it incumbent on the non-Muslims to defend the state against all invaders. Prof Shariful Mujahid in a recent lecture in Lahore recommended reversion to joint electorates on the basis of the covenant of Madina called Mithaq-e-Madina. He thought that since Pakistan does not have the system of conscription and that since non-Muslims have not declared themselves neutral in times of war, they are one ummah with the Muslims on the Madinate model.



The juristic model, on the other hand, is based on conquest. What if the non-Muslims of Pakistan don`t qualify as a vanquished community? When Pakistan was created the Christian community was not aligned with the Congress. In fact, the Christian community has a record of their leaders` allegiance to the Quaid. Later, the community took part in wars against India and Christians were prominent in the armed forces in proportion to their numbers. As for Hindus, most of them were driven out during the pre-partition riots. In Sindh, those who stayed back despite coercive migration, felt themselves tied to Sindhi Muslims on the basis of language and mysticism. In any case, it is difficult to describe Pakistani Hindus as a conquered community because Pakistan was not created after military conquest. In short, while Pakistan`s constitution may contain certain provisions enjoining separate electorates in the opinion of some people, others think that a mere change in the election rules is needed to revert to joint electorates. The Constitution does not accept the concept of zimmi-hood.



Separate electorates experience in Pakistan: The non-Muslims in Pakistan are not satisfied with the functioning of separate electorates. Their main objection relates to ineffective representation of their interests through 10 reserved minorities seats in the National Assembly 23 in the provincial assemblies. Their constituencies are too big and they don`t really come into contact with their elected leaders. Khalid Rahman in his above-quoted article thinks that this problem is merely logistic and has nothing to do with separate electorates. The truth of the matter is that the problem relates to distance as well as to the general status of the non-Muslim in society. The non-Muslim is much better off voting for a Muslim MNA or MPA because that will tend to highlight his interests within the Muslim community which enjoys more influence over the state apparatus. Just one 1992 case, that of Chowk Munda near Muzaffargarh, relating to confiscation of Christian village land, will highlight the problem. Four `chaks` inhabited by about 90 Christian families were being harassed by powerful lawyers, local landlords and `goondas` in the pay of influential people. The Christians did not know who their leaders were under the separate electorate system. The Chowk Munda Christians did succeed in getting federal Christian minister J.Salik to visit them twice, but the local officials were hardly impressed by these visits mainly because the minister lived far away and was not a local leader. On one occasion when J.Salik was there, the land-grabbing Mullah Ismail got the Muzaffargarh MNA and federal minister Mr Ghulam Mustafa Khar to visit his area right across the road. The local Christian leaders were forced to sit on the ground even while minister Salik was in the thana; the offending party was made to sit on chairs.



Reserved seats have attracted ambitious personalities usually related to the Christian church in Pakistan. They have benefited personally from being in the assemblies while their constituency has declined steadily into social and economic deprivation. Some of these leaders have been beaten up by Christians after their PTV `confessions` that Christians enjoyed equal rights in Pakistan and were happy with the Blasphemy Law. Separate electorates have bred corruption among the representatives of the minorities without affording any local advantage to them. The assemblies have been extremely corrupt in the past decade but Muslim MNAs and MPAs have had to `build up` their voting localities in order to win elections. This has not happened among non-Muslims because of their inter-penetration with the Muslim population and the very small size of their `distant` enclaves. A disingenuous promise of security: The author of the article gives a disingenuous excuse for separate electorates when says that they `eliminate chances of clash on religious basis and thus provides protection to the minorities`. Social experience all over the world has shown that separation has led to ghetto-isation and ghetto-isation has invariably led to violence. It is tantamount to excusing the state from the responsibility of upholding the law under joint electorates. The misunderstood doctrine of amr and nahi seems to be at the back of this thought: that the Islamic state, not allowed to supersede the doctrine, will be constantly under attack from the ulema who object to the laws on the basis of their understanding. In this eternally experimental state the majority will be free to reject and attack what they consider nahi. In this case the non-Muslims of Pakistan will be secure neither under one nor the other system of electorates. Under joint electorates they stand a better chance of saving their lives by taking protection from fellow Muslim voters.



Author Khalid Rahman`s reference to Bangladesh has revealed another fact about Pakistan`s politics. He says non-Muslims in Bangladesh are 12 to 15 percent, but their presence in the country`s parliament is only five. Had they accepted separate electorates, the non-Muslims of Bangladesh would have at least 40 representatives in the House. The truth is actually this: the non-Muslims of East Pakistan were a vote-bank of the Awami Party and their strong 25 percent presence in early years forced the Muslim League to adopt the notion of separate electorates. In Pakistan, the non-Muslims vote for the PPP, which once again compels the PML to stick to separate electorates. In Bangladesh, during my visit there in 1997 as a SAARC observer of general elections, many non-Muslims were losing hope after decades of martial law gone Islamic under General Ziaur Rehman and General Ershad. However, in many instances of violence to which I was witness, the non-Muslims were saved from being killed, by the local Awami League workers. Separate electorates in Bangladesh would result immediately in dispossession and expulsion of the non-Muslims because their leaders would be ineffective in saving them from discrimination. Had there been 40 non-Muslim representatives in Parliament, they would have been less effective than the five now representing Muslims and non-Muslims together along with other Muslim MPs. One also should not forget that in the Bangladesh parliament the non-Muslim population may prefer representation through Muslims in a society that is under pressure from religious passion.



Muslim societies all over the world are handicapped by their unresolved dispute over the status of women and non-Muslims. The Islamic state remains experimental, subject to attack from the concept of amr and nahi, which Muslims tend to equate with vigilantism of sorts. The state is clearly in retreat in the face of the majority orthodox opinion in relation to human rights. The Musharraf government is no exception. But after unexamined regimes of classical jurisprudence have been imposed with consequent disorder, there will always be a public backlash, as is happening in Iran. The Islamic state appears fated to be unstable till it rationally adopts laws that benefit all its people without discrimination.

Dawn letters to the ed, Oct 9

Imperatives for democracy

REGARDING the call for `political accountability`, it may be pointed out that a population comprising a majority of four out of five functionally illiterate people cannot be expected to hold politicians accountable for anything either now, or in the foreseeable future.

Hard decisions need to be taken, but apparently General Musharraf is not prepared to state unequivocally (as did President Truman) that ``The buck stops here,`` and act accordingly decisively. Hence public confidence in his administration has waned over the past several months as he has come to be viewed as part of the status quo, and held hostage to the views of obscurantists.

However, even under such conditions, to speak of a `return to democracy` is nothing but a bare-faced farce. A `return to feudocracy and naked exploitation` would be a more appropriate characterization of the `democrats` desires in Pakistan.

While in the United States, General Musharraf asked ABC News Anchor Peter Jennings, in response to a question, the rhetorical question, ``Isn`t democracy more than just holding elections?`` Democracy also entails such things as the equal protection of the law for all citizens, due process, individual liberties, a free press, an independent judiciary, and transparency in government, including all its expenditures.

The impeachment of President Clinton on charges of perjury by the US House of Representatives demonstrated conclusively, that in a democracy, no man is above the law, not even the most powerful man in the world. This is the lesson Pakistan`s rulers should take to heart and attempt to apply, as they seek to create a system of checks and balances, before holding elections, that ensures across-the-board accountability (without leaving any sacred cows unmilked), and the supremacy of the rule of law in the country.

If foreign remittances have dropped over the years, and annual foreign investment is marginal in the country, it is because the perception in tune with the not so distant realities is that capital and investment in Pakistan is not protected adequately by the rule of law. So people who need to send money prefer to use the Hundi system, and foreign investors, including overseas Pakistanis, keep their money abroad.

In addition, there is an ongoing flight of capital from within Pakistan. The breakdown of the rule of law brought about by corrupt politicians in the past, is responsible for all this. The right to be free from unlawful arrest, and produced in court within 24 hours of arrest, are constitutional rights respected in Pakistan only in the breech, irrespective of the government in power. Security of private property from the encroachment of the politically influential in power has also never existed as a respected norm in the country.

OMAR MIRZA

New York, USA

Dawn letters to the ed, Oct 9

Imperatives for democracy

REGARDING the call for `political accountability`, it may be pointed out that a population comprising a majority of four out of five functionally illiterate people cannot be expected to hold politicians accountable for anything either now, or in the foreseeable future.

Hard decisions need to be taken, but apparently General Musharraf is not prepared to state unequivocally (as did President Truman) that ``The buck stops here,`` and act accordingly decisively. Hence public confidence in his administration has waned over the past several months as he has come to be viewed as part of the status quo, and held hostage to the views of obscurantists.

However, even under such conditions, to speak of a `return to democracy` is nothing but a bare-faced farce. A `return to feudocracy and naked exploitation` would be a more appropriate characterization of the `democrats` desires in Pakistan.

While in the United States, General Musharraf asked ABC News Anchor Peter Jennings, in response to a question, the rhetorical question, ``Isn`t democracy more than just holding elections?`` Democracy also entails such things as the equal protection of the law for all citizens, due process, individual liberties, a free press, an independent judiciary, and transparency in government, including all its expenditures.

The impeachment of President Clinton on charges of perjury by the US House of Representatives demonstrated conclusively, that in a democracy, no man is above the law, not even the most powerful man in the world. This is the lesson Pakistan`s rulers should take to heart and attempt to apply, as they seek to create a system of checks and balances, before holding elections, that ensures across-the-board accountability (without leaving any sacred cows unmilked), and the supremacy of the rule of law in the country.

If foreign remittances have dropped over the years, and annual foreign investment is marginal in the country, it is because the perception in tune with the not so distant realities is that capital and investment in Pakistan is not protected adequately by the rule of law. So people who need to send money prefer to use the Hundi system, and foreign investors, including overseas Pakistanis, keep their money abroad.

In addition, there is an ongoing flight of capital from within Pakistan. The breakdown of the rule of law brought about by corrupt politicians in the past, is responsible for all this. The right to be free from unlawful arrest, and produced in court within 24 hours of arrest, are constitutional rights respected in Pakistan only in the breech, irrespective of the government in power. Security of private property from the encroachment of the politically influential in power has also never existed as a respected norm in the country.

OMAR MIRZA

New York, USA

Omar:

Were you the writer of this letter ?

On another note, Friday will be the best day and I will send thee an email on that. I am assuming that I will be exchanging notes with you only as I have not heard YLH`s post stating: `I will abide by all the rules religiously.` I would like to get that confirmation note as soon as possible, if we are to meet next Friday. Please start pushing him on that! Oh, also make sure that he does that voluntarily :-)


Take Care

PS: The letter can be discussed more when we meet. I may have some controversial points when it comes to these laws, basic family laws, rights of women and etc. I`ll start my discussion with the Fasaa`d Kee Jurr`. :-) I am sure you`d be least interested to know about them :-)

Dawn letters to the Ed, Oct 5 (Lead letter)

Discriminatory laws against women

GEN. Moinuddin Haider (Dawn, Oct 3), said that ``all discriminatory laws against women should be repealed or amended to remove any discrimination against women. He revealed that the government was already seized of the matter and federal minister Attiya Inayattullah was working on it.``

I am happy to hear the government is keen to repeal laws that discriminate against women. It should start by repealing Zia ul Haq`s Hudood Ordinances, which shamelessly victimize female rape victims and put them in jail for `their crime` of being raped.

In Pakistan today it can be safely said that, ``rape`` per se cannot be legally ``proven`` in a court of law in the vast majority of cases, and not because it did not in fact occur. Generally, rapists are not so obliging as to provide four witnesses who both first observe the act, and are then willing to testify to their crime. A women gets raped in Pakistan an average of every 2 minutes. However, the state has created an absurd legal situation which punishes the victim by using her testimony against her to prosecute her on a charge of `unlawful sex` after the rape charge are dropped as unproven, as they usually are because rape cannot be legally proven in 9 out of 10 genuine cases, thanks to the law. Not that this has ever shocked the conscience of enough people to force changes in the law.

The law of evidence used in rape cases needs to be modernized. While technological progress in the past century has now enabled positive DNA and semen identification, which has a highly reliable evidentiary value, greater even than eyewitness testimony, this method is not used in the courts or widely available.

In fact, the ``medical`` methods used in Pakistan by police examiners as testified to me by a female Pakistani doctor who observed police examinations as a medical student (one finger `good`, two fingers, she is `habituated to sex`) are not only unscientific but mediaeval. There is no psychological counselling offered to the rape victims in Pakistan. As one judge aptly commented. ``It would take a brave woman to file a rape case in Pakistan``. Any women that brings a charge of rape under the Zia ul Haq Hudood Ordinance is highly likely to be incarcerated herself after the charge of rape is dropped against her rapist(s) as customary, and converted into a charge of `unlawful sex` with rapist and rape victim turned into co-defendants. This passes for justice in Pakistan.

For all intents and purposes the State encourage rape against women, non-reporting of rape and is entirely responsible for this entire deplorable situation. Custodial violence and rape of women is also common in Pakistan, if also largely unreported for `cultural` reasons.

Does Gen Mushrraf have the moral and political courage to face down the obscurantists on this issue? Or will he retreat yet again, as he has before on another issue before the obscurantists, when they marched and clashed with the police.

OMAR MIRZA

New York, USA

Dear Zahra,

YEP, the e-mail addy is real (why would i post one that wasn`t? I`m not that wierd), i e-mailed Ylh from it recently.

Re: your rules ... damn! Do you know me in real life or what? :) I will have to memorize those rules by heart to be able to abide by them. :)

Sounds like it`ll be fun. Can i bring my placard along? -:)

Timings: Just about any in the evening after 7:30pm on Weekdays, or anytime on Weekends are good for me.

cheerio,

Omar

Omar:

Thanks for the thought. I am hoping that the email address is real ? I am extremely busy this month and will be travelling quite a bit, therefore I cannot commit at this time. I just want to put forth some rules, if I end up taking some time out from my extremely busy schedule:

Rules:[In Chronological Order]

a) No mention of Stanley Wolpert
b) No mention of Jinnah
c) No mention of Ata Turk
d) No mention of Turks
e) No mention of Bhuttos
f) No mention of Imran Khan

If I heard a single sentence containing any of the above, I will simply walk out. I just thought of stating some salient features of my Mun` Maujee nature, after reading Yasser`s enlightening post [full of himself].

Being a June 07th, I could not resist.

Please confirm that it will be doable to abide by the above rules.

Thanks

Would love to ...

Well, i`m definitely amused to find out that Ylh, in addition to Zahra, is also a Gem.-:) Would be fun to meet sometime for a cuppa java, if you guys are ever in the NYC area. (I know Ylh is in NJ). I ALWAYS have fun with fellow Gems.

Krashid: Me an idealist? Well yes. My ideals are probably embeded in the Constitution of the United States of America & the Bill of Rights. But i do understand what you are saying about pragmatic compromises. It just makes me sad though.

I have started writing letters to the editor, Dawn again, after a 3 month break in which i could not even stand reading Pakistani newspapers.

best,

Omar M.

knotyourcupoftea@aol.com

PS People usually mention me when they want to prove that stars are right.. they say I am versatile and on extremes... love deeply hate intensely etc.... As a matter of fact I am the most Gemini person I have met!

No as a matter of fact ... I am the core of Geminis .. the most gemini of geminis .. 5th June 1980...

Yasser Hamdani

Omar:

Well, I sensed something from your `entertaining post.` :-) Fortunately, I was `here` first and came around the time when Neil Armstrong greeted the Moon with a warm hello.

Yasser:

You must be on the upper cusp.

Omar#

Looks like Omar is an idealist.

The fight in Pakistan is not liberalism.

Once you start taking a stand you will realize.

It is not pessimism on my part.

The minority rights can only be secured when other rights are secured.

Moreover minorities themselves have started to relinquish their rights in the form of seperate electorate as is evidenced by writing of Joseph Samuel in past and now a new one. A form of political expedition or pragmatism.

But the real war is different. When that war is won minorities will get their rights automatically.

As far as Qadiani rights. To be frank, I doubt it is ever possible until they declare themselves to be non-Muslims.

If you remember Bhutto. Who was more aware of politics in Pakistan than him. Just remember he has to relinquish to the pressure of not only Mullahs but majority of Muslims in declaring Qadiani non-Muslims.

I am a Gemini too :)

Zahra,

(my dearest critic here)

(groan) ... of all the 12 signs you could have been, you picked the period May 22-June21 to be born into the world ...:) I wouldn`t have guessed it. Well, you know what year i was born, so who was first?



OMAR