Talibanization of Pakistan #98 by Urstruly

“So at the end of the day the core of the argument turns out to be whether you are with God or against Him”

No Sir! We are not conceding God to you, He is not the partisan monster that you are making Him out to be.

Talibanization of Pakistan #92 by zeemax

“What is the worst possible do you think these Islamists are going to do you?”

No Sir! You are far ahead of me. I do not consider an Islamist victory to be a forgone conclusion. All the other stake holders i.e. the army, the feudal lord, the politician, the industrialist, the tribal chief are not going to allow to be stepped on by any mullah brigade. This is going to result in a civil war probably worse then what is taking place in Iraq today. I think it is an absolutely essential and worthwhile war if there is any such thing – because we have to know who we are. As you said in your other post …. The unresolved issues from 7th century have to be confronted and resolved one way or the other so that we can at least conjure up a common ethos.

My fear of course is for all our loved ones, especially those who are not stake holders, who are merely trying to eek out a living, they are the ones who will be crushed. Those I would wish to extract.

Talibanization of Pakistan #7 by Urstruly

“In the past 7 years, both, the corrupt ruling class and the Edifiers i.e. Talibans have realized the fact that ``GHee seedhee ungli se nahiN nikle ga``. No matter what happens, but there is only one outcome of the conflict and that outcome is the manifest destiny of Democratic Islamic Emirates of Pakistan. Inshallah. Those who laid down 1 million lives in this cause are now ready to sacrifice whatever it takes.”

I am sad to say that I agree with you – I have the same premonition. A few years ago I was convinced that God had shown us immense mercy when we dodged the bullet. I couldn’t find any justification why America chose Iraq as its next target rather then Pakistan and this despite India’s all out attempt to make this attack happen. Only thing I could think was “jissay Allah rakhey usay kon chukhay”. We had this golden opportunity to mend our evil ways, but alas no one can save us from ourselves.

Externally we have alienated just about everybody that we could alienate. India would take us on nuclear or otherwise, Afghanistan and Iran are mad, forget the West, China is more of an American ally and ready to administer even worse punishment when it comes to religion. Internally every ethnicity, class, sect and region is at loggerheads with one another and poised to pounce at the first sign of trouble. We are going to have a civil war with every one fighting everyone else. I don’t see any firm alliances or battle lines. Basically, we have lost our soul and this war is absolutely essential for us to reclaim some semblance of who we are. Some of us will fight for our religion – others will fight for humanity. But that does not spare us the pain that is coming. So lets get ready to extract as many of our loved ones as we possibly can, before all the borders are sealed.

Talibanization of Pakistan #61 by zeemax

Hi Buddy:

I have definitely noticed it, absorbed it and would love it, if you would continue.

Talibanization of Pakistan #77 by Urstruly

“By the very nature of it, secularism cannot have a value system as its moral compass. Because all values basically have originated from a religion and in a secular society a case can be made against any value that human beings have worked so hard to establish.”

Pray tell me, what religion considers liberty as a virtue? – which is perhaps the most sacred of all American values. Pursuit of happiness could even be regarded as an anti religious concept. Similarly the 4 cardinal virtues justice, courage (fortitude), temperance (self control) and prudence (wisdom) are straight from Aristotle’s Nicomechean Ethics. Christian values of hope, faith and charity do not have a place in the American state, they can only be seen in Christian charities etc. Even in China of today it is still Confucian values which are adhered to by the majority and he was no theologian. John Locke and other philosophers of the enlightenment had rid themselves of the pall of religion and immersed themselves in a Classical education – read the federalist papers, the correspondence between Jefferson and Adams, the discussions don’t revolve around Jesus and his apostles it is more about Plato, Cisero, Cato and Julius Ceasar.

Understanding the Death Fatwa on Taslima Nasreen #88 by abu_safwaan

“When the same Ibne-Ishaq makes a case that Prophet (PBUH) was a true prophet and perhaps that greatest human being that ever graced this earth he becomes a liar and lunatic for writing such hogwash”

Not at all! I hold both Ibn e Ishaq and Al Tabri in very high esteem. They took their historiography very seriously and stuck to reporting as accurately as possible what ever they learnt. They made sure that for every statement they provided the source and the entire transmission chain (isnad) and never made any judgmental statements, leaving it up to the reader to make their own conclusions.

“Majority of any society has the right to decide what they consider as crime and what the punishment of that crime would be, its called democracy”

I think you have a mistaken notion of what democracy means. May be you should take an introductory course in civics or political science to correct this deficiency. The Romans over 2000 years ago realized that every form of government whether it be a king, the rule of aristocracy (group) or democracy (people) had an evil twin. King could degenerate into a tyrant, the aristocracy could degenerate into an oligarchy and democracy can degenerate into mob rule. Each form of the good has its benefits, so they found an excellent solution to take the best of all the 3 forms and prevent their degeneration into their evil twin. America emulates Rome in this respect. The Consul who was appointed for a year was like a king and in our age it is the President. The Senate is the aristocracy which is largely what it is today and the people got to vote for their representatives as well as the Consul which would be our equivalent of elections for the assemblies and the President. But democracy does not mean tyranny of the majority and that is prevented through the constitution whereby the rights of the minority are protected. So even though an assembly can pass legislation or the president can enact edicts which may infringe upon the rights of the minority they can be prevented from becoming law by the Supreme Court. ACLU or other civil rights organizations can challenge the legislation in court and stop it from being implemented. So my friend your right to pick your nose is protected under numerous statutes.

Understanding the Death Fatwa on Taslima Nasreen 63 by abu_safwaan

“My contention is that Islam should not blamed for the stupidities of Muslims. Islam is not responsible for individual absurdities not even for collective ones for that matter.It can only be responsible for what`s in Quran and the authentic sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH).”

The case that the author has quoted for Asma Bint Marwan is straight out of Sirat e Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq perhaps the most authentic of all sirah books ever written. The translation I am referring to is by A. Guillaume again the most notable of such translations and the para that he assigns to event in the original text is 996. Please check it out for yourself.

Fight Hudood, Protect Women #228 by bulleya

“.......due to this abstraction and decentralization, people can find their own comfort zone in islam..........they don`t have to follow any traditions, leaders, fatwas, scholars etc.......i don`t follow any islamic scholar.......i read them and accept some views and discard others.....i have been to a mosque, once or twice in the past ten years..............i spend a lot of time studying islam, on my own hours.....and am interested in getting a higher academic qualifiction in some area of islam.....many scholars would declare me non-muslim and a heretic, if they were to listen to my views........yet i am as much a muslim as the next guy......”

Brilliant Guy! You nailed it. This is the greatest strength of Islam – you define your comfort zone and there is no religious hierarchy who can tell you differently. This allows you to define your own relationship with God with no interference from anybody.

Problem arises when the community, the mosque, the village, the school, the state tries to interfere in that relationship. So that is the apparatus that has to be gotten rid off. Individual God – Secular State.

Fight Hudood, Protect Women #209 by kaalchakra

``The Constitution would have clauses like no law can be passed which violates freedom of religion.``

``The Constitution should have clauses like no law can be passed which violates the intent/spirit of Islam.``

Very good point! But intent/spirit of Islam is violated if e.g. Abu Sufyan converts from Sunni Islam to Qadiyani. He becomes an apostate and is handed a death sentence. But on the other hand Abu Sufyan is a hero if he converts Christians in America to the fold of Islam. But it gets more convoluted – Qadianis believe they are Muslims so they are not converting.

Sorry – it ain’t gonna work! Both are mutually exclusive.

Fight Hudood, Protect Women Sunni Brigade vs Ahmedi defenders

Gentlemen we need to set some sort of basis, ground rules for your arguments. This is basic civics or constitutional basis for any republic. Democracy means majority rule, but it can degenerate into mob rule – the founders of Republicanism realized this over 2000 years ago and adopted appropriate measures against such an eventuality.

Lets say it passes a law that all Ahmadis are hereby required to convert to Sunni wahabbism and those who don’t will be expelled to Raiwind. What is there to prevent them from implementing such an outrage. It is the constitution which has to prevent this from happening whereby laws are made by such an assembly which violate the rights of minorities, we have the constitution to protect them. The Constitution would have clauses like no law can be passed which violates freedom of religion. The Supreme Court thus becomes the arbiter, the protector of the constitution. For it to effectively carry out this function it has to have the prestige, the moral authority, the support of the media and all other institutions of government who would not allow either the legislature or the executive to ever ignore this authority.

The problem in Pakistan has always been and continues to remain:

- Supreme Court does not have the power to fulfill its responsibility. The minute the interest of the President is threatened they better pack their bags. This is prevented in America by life time tenure for Supreme Court justices.
- Constitution is suspended, amended, abrogated – so we don’t know which side is up.

Lastly though, if they had to declare Ahmadi as non Muslim, they have to clearly define what a Muslim is according to the legislature (I don’t know if they ever did that).

Fight Hudood, Protect Women #100 by abu_safwaan

“Oh so you werent interested in what Islam really has to say …..I can make an attempt to defend my religion which is Quran and the sunnah of the prophet PBUH.”

Islam really has to say? According to who? You, me, another chowkie who is equally uninformed about Islam, but is resolute in its defence. That is precisely what I am not looking for. I just want to know that when a code which Sharia Law is, is put together its main purpose is to promote welfare and provide justice for the population. My question remains what are the remedies that the code provides, not what in your judgment Islam provides. Ease up! Defender of the faith, question is academic not political.

Fight Hudood, Protect Women #93 by Urstruly

Well every article, every book that I have come across mentions abolition of slavery and the abolitionist movement as one of the main reasons for the civil war. The North was not slave free, but abolished slavery during the previous 50 years, and it was in New York that the largest number of slaves were emancipated. But lets not quibble about that. Do you think that the creation of Liberia as an independent state for the settlement of ex slaves which occurred in the 1820s by whites was insignificant?

The abolitionists felt very strongly that not only was slavery bad, inhuman and degrading to the slave, but it was equally bad for the slave owner and the whole society in general. Some advocated repatriation while others wanted emancipation.

“In one of the most celebrated passages in Democracy in America Tocqueville contrasted the two sections:

`. . . this truth [of the superiority of free labor] was most satisfactorily demonstrated when civilization reached the banks of the Ohio. The stream that the Indians had distinguished by the name of Ohio, or the Beautiful River, waters one of the most magnificent valleys which have ever been made the abode of man. Undulating lands extend upon both shores of the Ohio, whose soil affords inexhaustible treasures to the laborer; on either bank the air is equally wholesome and the climate mild, and each of them forms the extreme frontier of a vast state: that which follows the numerous windings of the Ohio upon the left is called Kentucky; that upon the right bears the name of the river. These two states differ only in a single respect: Kentucky has admitted slavery, but the state of Ohio has prohibited the existence of slaves within its borders. Thus the traveler who floats down the current of the Ohio to the spot where that river falls into the Mississippi may be said to sail between liberty and servitude; and a transient inspection of surrounding objects will convince him which of the two is more favorable to humanity.
Upon the left bank of the stream the population is sparse; from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-deserted fields; the primeval forest reappears at every turn; society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and life.
From the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heard, which proclaims afar the presence of industry; the fields are covered with abundant harvests; the elegance of the dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborers; and man appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and contentment which is the reward of labor.`

However overstated the contrast, however mistaken in detail, Tocqueville`s discussion offers several crucial insights. One is that the effect of slavery upon the master was as profound as upon the slave. Another is that the market more profoundly shaped the white Northerner than his southern counterpart:

`The influence of slavery . . . affects the character of the master and imparts a peculiar tendency to his ideas and tastes. Upon both banks of the Ohio the character of the inhabitants is enterprising and energetic, but this vigor is very differently exercised in the two states. The white inhabitant of Ohio, obliged to subsist by his own exertions, regards temporal prosperity as the chief aim of his existence; and as the country which he occupies presents inexhaustible resources to his industry, and ever varying lures to his activity, his acquisitive ardor surpasses the ordinary limits of human cupidity: he is tormented by the desire of wealth, and he boldly enters upon every path that fortune opens to him; he becomes a sailor, a pioneer, an artisan, or a cultivator with the same indifference, and supports with equal constancy the fatigues and the dangers incidental to these various professions; the resources of his intelligence are astonishing, and his avidity in the pursuit of gain amounts to a species of heroism.
But the Kentuckian scorns not only labor but all the undertakings that labor promotes; as he lives in an idle independence, his tastes are those of an idle man; money has lost a portion of its value in his eyes; he covets wealth much less than pleasure and excitement; and the energy which his neighbor devotes to gain turns with him to a passionate love of field sports and military exercises; he delights in violent bodily exertion, he is familiar with the use of arms, and is accustomed from a very early age to expose his life in single combat. Thus slavery prevents the whites not only from becoming opulent, but even from desiring to become so.`

Fight Hudood, Protect Women #75 by Mantolives

You see – you just caught me violating my own rules. I hate it, when others make invalid assumptions. You are right! I should have known better, yes Zia had already dissolved assemblies at the time. But that was peripheral to my argument. What I wanted to know was, what are the remedies provided in the law as written.

Fight Hudood, Protect Women #71 by bulleya

“blacks fought for their rights on their own and eventually got them”

O Man! In one phrase you just discarded the sacrifices of a whole generation. The American Civil War was fought for the abolition of slavery, and the blacks were only peripheral to the contest. This war split the nation, friends, neighbors, even brothers, with each side resolute in its commitment to its cause. You have stories of friends hugging each other before pledging that they would not waver to kill the other on the battlefield. A nation fought for its conscience, their belief in virtue, in justice and finally in redemption.

Fight Hudood, Protect Women #57 by abu_safwaan

Before any laws come into existence there are committees full of knowledgeable people on the subject, which gather all relevant information for the issues, these are fact checked for their accuracy, then this body of knowledge is presented to the legislature which debates the pros and cons of each and every factor. Looks at the effects of the legislation, develops nuances to prevent anybody from getting hurt from it. This then is finally passed by the legislature and becomes law. But if the Supreme Court finds that there are elements in the law which violate the constitution i.e do not protect minority rights they can send it back to the assemblies and prevent it to become law (otherwise we are always fearful to descend into the tyranny of the majority or mob rule).

Similar process took place when the Hudood Laws were implemented, with one caveat. It was the Ulema, all the learned scholars who were selected for their expertise in the Quran, Sunnah and Islamic jurisprudence put into a committee. They debated among themselves and came to an agreement as to what the Sharia says. This was passed by the assemblies and became law.

I was not asking for an individual opinion, or what an aalim may say on the subject whether its DNA evidence, or quotation of relevant ayahs from the Quran or sunnah of the prophet. I can make similar arguments myself.

What I want to know is that: according to the Sharia Law as it has been formulated, ratified and implemented in Pakistan – what are the laws which have been broken, what are the statutes that have been violated, the burdens of proof required and remedies offered.

I am certain that among this august gathering of chowk scholars, we should be able to get the answers. Otherwise it is just another set of talking heads waddling in fog on a trip to nowhere

Fight Hudood, Protect Women Cut from a different cloth - Burqas and belief

I saw this documentary on PBS and have not been able to get it out of my mind. In the documentary they show an NGO shelter for the welfare of women. A young woman with a couple of kids is there with her mother, and complains that she wants a divorce from her husband. She charges him for bringing other men to her to have sex with so that he can make money. The shelter is able to get her a divorce, but the man gives her the divorce with the following agreement. She can keep the kids till the age of 13 when he will come and take them, during this time he will not provide any support for the ex wife or the kids. When he comes to get the kids at age 13, he will give her, her dowry money. The deal is being made with the mother in law and not the wife, who claims that she has no choice but to agree to itbecause she is poor and powerless, and the wife says that she is satisfied because she is no longer a prisoner.

The decree and the conditions set in seem roughly what Sharia law states they are. This being that although the children belong to the man, the woman can take care of them till the age of … and that he is obligated to pay her mehr and although he is delaying that, this has been customary, very few people pay for their wives on their wedding day (most never pay for them) and most pay them after the divorce. So we can only fault him for delaying this a bit further.

Let’s assume her allegations are true. From your knowledge of Sharia law and from Islamic justice point of view, questions I have are:

- Was there an offense committed against her? Rape cannot be proven as there aren’t 4 eyewitnesses to the act. What would that offense be by the perpetrator?

- What obligation does she have to follow her husband’s order i.e service other men?

- Did he (her husband) commit an offense, and if so what is the offense and the prescribed punishment under Sharia Law.

- What about child support and spousal support, given a culture which puts such a high premium on virginity – now she is damaged goods (she looked hardly beyond her teens) and has no chance of ever marrying into a better situation.