Pakistani Judges - Read This Lawyer’s Oath

Re: # 13
Masadi

The Ata Turk was a fool who ensured perpetual slavery of his people to the West, what we see today when they go begging to join the EU and are rebuked or when they try to distance themselves from their Islamic heritage and language. Trying to be a liberator of your people and then emulating the Ata Turk because he will make you more western and acceptible to those you worship does not do anything for me to prove that the snake was anything good.

Regarding dictatorship, when the MAJ installed himself as GG of Pakistan, King of a country for all intents and purposes, that was no democracy in action. Regarding his hypocritical call for "secularism", he used Islam and the sentiments that go with him (imagery for which his sidekick the Allama developed) for the purpose of gaining a country. That sentimentality using Islam, resulted in reactions on a large scale that cause widespread bloodshed for which Jinnah is responsible. Regarding the Feudals and the Colonials both were very happy with the division, one to consolidate their wealth which they have managed to to this day, the others to use us for their many dirty tasks which they have to this day. Perhaps the major commonality among the MAJ and the other "dog ugly" person, is that MAJ fragmented the Muslim political power and voice in India, thereby fragmenting our solidarity and ensuring that those left behind in India live as third class citizens because of that reduced political power and the reactionism produced by his shenanigans. Musharraf is doing the same to fragment Pakistan today. They are both alike and they both are/were damn criminals...


Excellent post. I think people who read history and correlate with what is happening now would reach the same conclusion. I personally think Jinnah should be remembered in India (esp, by the Hindu nationalists) for the service he did to India by getting rid of the Muslim majority regions and permanently reducing the political power of remaining Muslims. I'm amused by the Jinnah "worship" by Pakistanis either. It's not that he has brought anything new to the regions that constitute Pakistan now. Muslims dominated in politics prior to 1947 and Muslims dominate now (though with a reduced geographic area).

#90 by Aisha_Sarwari

I am very interested in discussing right and wrong but not with someone whose ignorance and lack of composure is bettered by inability to tell the truth.

Looks like the constant beating hubby dear has taken on Chowk recently is taking its toll on the missus too. Like Yasser mian has been "dissing & cussing" the events surrounding 1947 by frequently mentioning orifices (he once told us "remove your head from your rearend" was a common English expression in his family), the female Yasser too is going down the same road. Well, as I said before - this is truly a match made in heaven (or is it hell?)...LOL!

Dar-ul-harbic view of non muslim world is the basis of TNT. Two nations in every Gali and muhallah !!! That is what Jinnah said. And he gave it an interesting western liberal twist to the mullah world view in the name of "Protection of minority interests" trying to fuse all those different nations in every gali and muhallah.
So every muslim gali mohallah nation tried to join in that liberal twist to Islamic TNT. The result is what we see today called Pakistan.

Hahahaha! If you both are truthful and some Pakis consider Yasser mian as the next brown hope of Pakistan, not even Allah can save them!!! And just because you haven't been banned doesn't mean you aren't abusive, it merely means you've removed all traces of evidence, like you did to that i-log in which you posted my pic and compared it with a phallus. And today you deny it - you can probably fool Chowkies who might not have seen the ilog, but you surely cannot fool me - and that's all I care.

As for Yasser mian, who's been a turncoat of the highest order - first eulogizing ZA Bhutto then vilifying him, then doing the same with Imran Khan in the reverse order - some honesty that is!!! LOL!

I stand corrected - My husband considers you too insignificant to make you pay for something that you cant help given the racist, fascist, bigoted, casteist legacy that Gandhi left behind.

I wouldnt want a compatriot like you, who cant be honest if his life depended on it. I am very interested in discussing right and wrong but not with someone whose ignorance and lack of composure is bettered by inability to tell the truth.

As for resorting to abuse, it is you who keeps getting banned for abusing women on this website.

And please note, not for a moment do I regret the partition. Imagine having to live call someone as vile as you my compatriots. I would die of shame :-)

#85 by Aisha_Sarwari

My husband's busy right now, but when he ceases to be he's going to make you regret your post, I assure you.

Sure, he's been doing that for quite some time now without any success. Anyways, wish him luck from us.

#86 by Aisha_Sarwari

Jinnah slit your country on whatever principle! Point is he got what he wanted.

OK, the fact that you don't want to discuss the rights and wrongs of that vindicates my point. And slipping into meaningless insults is further proof of how hard-pressed you are to defend that vile act. You and Yasser mian are truly made for each other in that when you are unable to argue, you slip so easily into abuse. Truly a match made in heaven!

Harish,

Jinnah slit your country on whatever principle! Point is he got what he wanted. Pakistan's survival is aligned with his principles that we keep striving for whereas India's survival is closely linked with rejecting the unlawyerly principles of that laundry you call a leader espoused.

Now go chaat your thalis because you aren't going to learn to be objective no matter how long you marinate in the juices of chowk. Jitthey di khoti uttey aan khaloti. Indian pseudo-intellectuals argue like high-schoolers.

Unbelievable that nothing has changed in 10 years.

Bj,

If there was any old hog learning of half baked ideologies and transposing them on a new country's political backdrop it was Gandhi, and it was he who outdid the apartheid regime with his policies as well as his person. He traveled separately from the lower classes and untouchables, and it was he who is quoted calling the blacks in South Africa "savages", shall I reproduce the various evidence here if you are suffering from memory loss?

How can you possibly call the right of a people's self determination, an apartheid principle? Is this what Gandhi was doing when he was apparently attempting to get "independence" from the British. He claims freedom on the basis of race superiority, if your logic is to be applied.

The only distinction Jinnah made among people was to separate those who believed in equality and the justice from those who interpreted those universal principles with a saffron bigoted lens.

My husband's busy right now, but when he ceases to be he's going to make you regret your post, I assure you.

bjkumar:
I very well understand that partition has divided the energies of sub-continent on a broader scale.
Looking at partition with a different perspective will probably help.
I think the biggest contributor to partition was election and Government of Congress in 1937. As far as history goes, it is the same situation as currently in Gujrat.
It is further evidenced by the fact that movement for partition was strong mainly in areas where Muslims were in minority (except Bengal). In fact Jinnah has to make a strong case in current Punjab, NWFP, Baluchistan and somewhat in Sind. Because in Punjab there was Unionist Government till end, Ghaffar Khan in NWFP was not in favor of partition. So basically the Muslims from provinces where they were in minority had to convince Muslim majority provinces to accept the proposal of Pakistan. And that was even not clear till the end of world war 2.
As far as Jinnah is concerned, he was politically isolated in early 1930's and I think he did not find a place in Indian politics and left for England. When Muslim leaders in India contacted him he returned. This time with the conviction arrogance and determination. He did not consider Congress and Gandhi impartial who will take a neutral stand in secular tradition, as is evidenced from his many utterings. There is no question on that that Jinnah would take even a moth eaten Pakistan. Either the Congress leadership did not realize or was also as arrogant. Finally Partition was supposed to happen in 1948. But in haste they announced and put one line here and one line there. And it happened what was a foregone conclusion with both sides ready for massacre and migration.
As far as religious bigotry. Jinnah was not religious by any account, he was not even a mainstream Muslim. He did not even speak the language of people he was leading. He did not want a theocratic state. He wanted a state for Muslims of sub-continent, where their interests will be safeguarded.

Krashid1961 miaN,

You are perhaps new on this site. I disagree with you regarding the culpability of the Jinnah for the partition and its aftermath which - being the smart person that he was he should have foreseen and probably did and went and did his dirty deed anyway. That, to me is very obvious and I have explained it here on this site countless times before. In the same vein, he made a distinction among human beings based on religious labels which is just another form of apartheid - that much is also clear to me. Apartheid, like slavery, is a discredited line of thought. In Jinnah's time, apartheid was well and alive and perhaps an accepted fact of life. In contemporary times, no reasonable person justifies it. Religious bigotry is in the same way on its way out. Those who justify it now are soon going to be just as marginalized as those past proponents of apartheid.

You are free to disagree. I appreciate your polite tone.

I also do not want to carry away this discussion tangentially, especially since I am pleased that Aisha has shown the courage to write this piece at a time when the Generalissimo is so ruthlessly packing the courts with his own rubber stamps. Enough said!

If Musharraf has an iota of civility left in him -- he will RELEASE AITZAZ AHSAN.

RELEASE AITZAZ AHSAN
RELEASE AITZAZ AHSAN

RELEASE AITZAZ AHSAN

Harish:
I think dishonesty is the last word you can use for Jinnah. You can argue against partition.
Jinnah completely left politics and went to England for his lawyer practice in early thirties.
He was approached by Muslim leaders from sub continent by about 1935 or 1936 to come and lead the Muslims as there was no leadership for the Muslims.
As I have mentioned in my previous posts, it was the attitude of Congress Government in 1937 which led Jinnah and Muslim League to fully exploit the situation. To the point that I think in the next election Muslim League won from majority of Muslim seats. And Muslim League had sizable portion of ministers in next Government.
Moreover your reasoning was also there among some of Congress leaders.

Saima and Rashid Sahib, violence was there on both sides, no question about that. But the trigger was Jinnah's narrow vision that Hindus and Muslims were two separate people who couldn't live together. BTW, I am one of those who believes that Partition was a good thing, but not for the reasons Jinnah quoted. I believe Hindus and Muslims can live together as they do in India today, though the population of Muslims in a united India would have been sizeable and the fight for dominance would have made life miserable for both communities. But the premise that Jinnah used to divide the country was dishonest. That is my argument.

As a continuation, did Jinnah asked Muslims to kill Hindus, I don't think so.
It was the British responsibility to make a fair divide rather than dividing in haste to prevent the catastrophe.

Harish.
Jinnah was politician and lawyer (and not the ruler of India at the time of partition)
One of the reason of the problems during partition was the haste to divide India. Whether it was deliberate or unintentional is difficult to judge.
With emotions running high on both sides, with boundary commission putting some lines here and there, whatever happened was not unforeseen.
Did Jinnah asked Hindus to attack Muslims. I don't think so.
Was Jinnah arrogant, detrmined, can be argued.
But killing and other crimes were reciprocal as happens in these situation. Who incited the Hindus and Sikhs to massacre Muslims if it was not Jinnah.

Re: # 75
Radcliffe Award was debatable. It was awarded after the independence. Till then Jinnah was under the impression that the bulk of E Punjab was coming to Pakistan. He had even offered important ministries to Hindus and Sikhs. The Pakistan that Jinnah was articulating was a predominant homeland for muslims with equal opportunity for others.
Then came the bombshell.
Someone decided to just draw a line and hell broke loose.
So who was resposible? Jinnah or those who ensured to sow seeds of hatred and theocracy?

#72 by krashid1961

Jinnah was lawyer. He presented the case of Pakistan to the people, political parties and British.

Rashid Sahib, I don't know who first started it, but claiming he was "merely a lawyer" is a clever trick designed to absolve Jinnah of any reponsibility for the mess he created, which otherwise would implicate him as being responsible for one of the bloodiest events in history. Jinnah was the supreme leader of the Muslim League, his word was command, there wasn't even a second-rung leader who could take over in case something happened to him (as subsequent events proved), and here you label him as a "mere lawyer".

bjkumar,
no. two nation theory was based on religon and not on ethnicity.Yes it is under threat from sub nationalism, but even 1971 did not write it off.Bangladesh is a seperate country.

With the advent of communist and socialist theories in the era when imperialism and colonialism were on the downside, many other theories were floated around and this one, for you divided India, and for me created Pakistan. Thats what some Indians call the 'extremes of divide'.

Certainly educated muslims felt that the ottoman empire was no caliphate and rather a kingdom that exploited Islam. So they did not support it. Division of Bengal set the precedence that ultimately led to this theory.rest is history for me and history in making for you.

If we talk of ethnicity and nationalism, perhaps over a 1000 groups live in Pakistan from at least 15 diffrenent creeds. Instrumentalism and pluralism (though theoretically lacking under a dictatorship) binds them togather. You will be amazed that this dictatorship has empowered the minorities more than anyone else.

Now just to ponder.
Many ethnic kashmiries are also Punjabis and Pathans. You have the Mirs, Butts, Khawajas, Mians, Suddans etc.
More than 50% Punjabis are actually Baloch and about 25% are ethnic Sindies.Ever heard the folklore of Murad Baloch.
Many untouchables then, are now ethnic punjabis.
Even pathans though lumped as one ehnic group speak pushto, hindko and seraiki as their mother tongue.Kohat and Attock though didvide by indus are cognitively contigous. Similarly Dera Ismail Khan is much closer to Bakhar than Peshawar.

bjkumar.
I would recommend you to read the book by M J Akbar which he wrote when India was in a very poor state likely mid to late 80's and he has reasoned on the same line as saima gul.
India has not only this communal problem, but problems of Tamil, Nixilites, kashmir, Khalistan etc. He reasoned very well the centrifugal tendencies in India.
Apart from Kashmir, Muslims in India are very much part of India. And apart from Kashmir regional centrifugal tendencies involve non Muslims.

#71 bjkumar
Partition of India was a tragedy. But it had its own reasons. Jinnah was lawyer. He presented the case of Pakistan to the people, political parties and British. And was successful.
It is very difficult for me to judge. Because I was born in Pakistan and we had our own problems to take care of, rather than concentrating on partition.
It is a lengthy discussion and many books have been written on partition.
There are two school of thoughts. One feels that power of Indian Muslims has been divided by partition and is one reason of backwardness and plight of Muslims in India Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and other Mullahs were of this opinion.
The other school of thought although not very optimistic now feels that it was inevitable.
My mother thinks it has been good.
Considering what is happening all around, I think I am better right now here.

Krashid1961,

Perhaps you need to explain to the vast hordes of the chowk masses whether the Jinnah's decision to break up the original India was a good decision, or not.

In other words, was it a WELL-REASONED decision?

And in the light of all that happened afterwards, can it be JUSTIFIED?

Thanks.

#67 Saima Gul

What an astute observer you are!

Now tell me, since Pakistan was part of the same land mass, by that logic, it was not one nation either!

Such diversity!

Perhaps THAT explains why Bangladesh broke away! It was simply a different nation masquerading as a legitimate part of Pakistan.

Now tell me one more thing.

How many nations are hiding under that present Pakistani chador?!

After all, the Sindh, the Punjab, the NWFP, and the Baloch are all very different. Why do you look away from the common sense possibility that they could all become legitimate nations in their own rights?! Hey they were NEVER before legitimately one country - as you have so cleverly observed.

Why stop applying the same sharp logic that some seem to have applied in the past to break up the original India?

bjkumar:
you are confusing two issues. REASON and JUSTIFICATION.
If something is happening, we need to find out reasons for it. That is the scientific way.
It is not necessary that those reasons are just.
You brought out many points.
Discrimination against Ahmadiya community. I can give you the reasons for it if you want to discuss. But can it be justified in the context of democracy and human rights. NO.
As far as "Mukhtaran Mai" rape, if you want to discuss the reasons for it we can discuss. Is it justified. NO.
As far as Lawyers being beaten, there are reasons for it if you want to discuss. There are two ways to look at it. If you look at Government point of view, they claim their first priority is law and order. If you look at democratic point of view, you will find justification for agitation.
If there is a wholesale discrimination against Pakistanis all over the world, I don't think so. If there is some suspicion, we need to look into the reason.
So finding the REASON for any happening is important.

bjkumar63:
#61 Rashid1961 (more)

[A very bloody partition. And that fact is sufficient to justify that there were reasons for it.]

Therefore, according to this logic - the fact that there was wholesale killing of the Jews during the holocaust - that very fact that the wholesale killings happened - makes it a justifiable fact - just because it did happen?


I did not use the word justifiable. I used reasons. It is grammatical. (sufficient to justify that there were REASONS for it meaning just this fact speaks that there were reasons for partition)
Killing is never just. (war is an exception according to human development and even killing of innocent people in war is not just).

India through history never was one country.
Two Nation Theory was given a rationale by the division of Bengal.
According to the original partition plan calcutta was to be part of East Pakistan.
Some Indian's like Ashley Tellis (now US citizen) feel that Two Nation theory challenges India in multiple ways and he has many in India who support him.
But the recent roits were triggered over a valid cause.

#62 bjkumar:
As I said we are talking about partition, which is a fact.
There have been communal rights and communal awards etc which is a fact. So if there is refutation for these, I am open to it.
As far as Europe and USA, their constitutional guarantees are strong enough, and are even better than in our countries. Apart from a couple of sticking point in some European countries like Hijab for women.
I think majority of Muslims living in Europe and USA appreciate this.

And everyone knows that lawyers were beaten up like stray dogs in Pakistan recently.

Ao, according to Rashid miaN there must be REALLY SOLID reasons present - after all, it happened again and again!

And now answer this for me....

All over the world, many people are busy practice wholesale discrimination against Pakistanis today. They get thrown into jails without due process, and subjected to suspicion (do not deny) to the point that some hesitate to admit their national origin.

Therefore, according to YOUR logic...that is VERY justifiable! Hey, it HAPPENED again and again!

And the massive discrimination against the Ahmediya community within Pakistan - is that also justifiable...

...simply because it happened, you claim there must be good reasons for it?

And the rape of the Mukhtaran Mai - what is your "good" reason for that - EVERYONE knows it did happen!

#61 Rashid1961 (more)

[A very bloody partition. And that fact is sufficient to justify that there were reasons for it.]

Therefore, according to this logic - the fact that there was wholesale killing of the Jews during the holocaust - that very fact that the wholesale killings happened - makes it a justifiable fact - just because it did happen?

#61 Rashid1961

You did not answer my question and are beating around the bush.

Let me rephrase.

If Muslims are a minority and according to you their interests can not be safeguarded without guaranteed parliamentary seats, etc. - what is there to stop the same logic that you apply in India from being applied in other countries where Muslims are a numerical minority - like, the USA or UK?!

And why should that logic be applicable to Muslims alone? What is so "different" about the Muslims?

bjkumar:
We are talking about the reasons of partition of India.
What is happening in Calcutta and Gujrat is a testimony to the fact that muslims have not yet integerated in Indian society. And politics is being played on communal lines.
Still politics on communal lines does not make one racist. It makes them different, who are yet unable to tolerate each other.
As a continuation. There has been partition of India. A very bloody partition. And that fact is sufficient to justify that there were reasons for it. As far as history, for one reason or another Congress in keeping with its secular tradition would not give in to the demands of Muslim League (for fear of making it as a voice of Muslims perhaps)which was supposed to safeguard Muslim interest in India.
What were those interests. As far as I understand constitutional guarantees and reserved seats.

#56
[Being different does not mean superior or racist.]

Yaar, explain to me how being a Muslim (as distinct from being a Hindu, for example) makes one “different” so they are unable to have their “interests” safeguarded.

What ARE those “interests”?

And how does one “safeguard” those interests in other countries? Like the USA.

majumdar:
Fall of Caliphate is associated with a movement in India "Khilafat Movement" (I think alongwith satyagrah by Gandhi) after which there was some political activity. To draw some constitutional points in 1928 Congress side presented "Nehru report" while Jinnah presented 14 points.
There was the sticking point (as far as I remember) 33 vs 34 seats for Muslims. Congress leadership will not budge, nor would Jinnah or possibly Muslim leadership bend.

Rashid,

(After the fall of Caliphate in Turkey, particularly after 1928 Muslims started to realize that their interests cannot be safeguarded in United India.)

How did the fall of Caliphate in Turkey convince the Muslims that their interests could not be safeguarded in India???

Regards

Cobra:
I don't think Hindus have any problems.
They are as happy and suffer as much as any other person.
Nor is there any movement even in religious circles to discard them.

bjkumar:
Two nation theory will continue to haunt sub continent. More than a million people have been killed so far.
I didn't live in time when it was propagated. After the fall of Caliphate in Turkey, particularly after 1928 Muslims started to realize that their interests cannot be safeguarded in United India. It was initially one or two voices, and not the Muslim masses. Iqbal proposed something in 1930. Rehmat Ali proposed something from England. Jinnah dishearted left for England and started his law practice.
Slowly things started getting shape. But the biggest blow as far as historians are concerned was 1937 Congress sweep of election and Congress Government in various states which led common man to realize that their interests cannot be safeguarded in United India. It led to two states and later 3.
I don't think this theory is based in any way on race.
Being different does not mean superior or racist.

Cobra #53 One of these "leftover hindus" is Bhagwan Das - who has stood like a rock along with his brother ghairat-mand lawyers whose name will go down in Pakistan history while that of the rogue generals is mud.

We need all the "leftover hindus" we can in Pakistan if they are true men like Bhagwan Das.

krashid1961,

The two nation theory was a dumb-ass racist theory which has no more merit to it than the dumb-ass racist theory that the (white) South Africans once had that they could not live with those of dark color.

The two nation theory was a dumb-ass racist theory which has no more merit to it than the dumb-ass racist theory that (white) Americans in the South could not be considered equal to Americans of African heritage.

The two nation theory is a dumb-ass racist theory which can be “extended” to ANY country in the world where there is a significant fraction of Muslims and then the theory can be applied with impunity to fracture that country.

The two-nation theory brought disaster to the Indian subcontinent and any derivative of the two-nation theory will inevitably bring disaster to wherever it gets practiced.

The two-nation theory is based on essentially making human beings unequal. It is a theory based on suspicion, hatred, fear, exclusivism and pure simple racism!

" #50 Posted by krashid1961 on November 21, 2007 8:46:44 am
Two nation theory meant Muslims and Hindus are two seperate nation, people , culture etc, so Muslims needed a seperate country of their own."

You still have leftover Hindus in Pakistan when are you planning to discard them?

Laddu:
Jinnah's Two nation theory has nothing to do with Mullahs. Mullahs were mostly supportive of United India.
Two nation theory meant Muslims and Hindus are two seperate nation, people , culture etc, so Muslims needed a seperate country of their own. But it has more to do with the leadership of Congress and Muslim league also. Particularly, 1937 Congress Government did a great harm and alienated the Muslims away from Congress towards Muslim league. So Congress Goverment of 1937 alienated a lot of friends.

Laddu:
Jinnah's Two nation theory has nothing to do with Mullahs. Mullahs were mostly supportive of United India.
Two nation theory meant Muslims and Hindus are two seperate nation, people , culture etc, so Muslims needed a seperate country of their own. But it has more to do with the leadership of Congress and Muslim league also. Particularly, 1937 Congress Government did a great harm and alienated the Muslims away from Congress towards Muslim league. So Congress Goverment of 1937 alienated a lot of friends.

Laddu:
Jinnah's Two nation theory has nothing to do with Mullahs. Mullahs were mostly supportive of United India.
Two nation theory meant Muslims and Hindus are two seperate nation, people , culture etc, so Muslims needed a seperate country of their own. But it has more to do with the leadership of Congress and Muslim league also. Particularly, 1937 Congress Government did a great harm and alienated the Muslims away from Congress towards Muslim league. So Congress Goverment of 1937 alienated a lot of friends.

Laddu:
Currently, Democracy, human rights etc is MORALLY superior to Fundamentalism etc.
Idolatory as a culture may be existing. But as a philosophy, I highly doubt. (except if bowing before BUSH, Blair etc can be considered as such).
I don't know if idolatory is morally inferior or superior.
Historically, since idolators of Mecca were answerable to themselves, it created vices, to the detriment of poor, slaves, women etc. It contrasted with message of Mohammed PBUH where he suggested that all men are created equal and one is answerable to GOD for all his /her deeds. And will be punished/rewarded in hereafter for their deeds.
So on one side is philosophy, that "DO WHATEVER NOW" which is good as long as you can afford. But "DO WHATEVER NOW" is useless for someone who cannot do meaning who has no means, poor, destitute etc.
While if all men are created equal, and there is a life hereafter, then the criteria for success becomes different. The one who is more pious.
There is nothing inferior or superior in genes.
MAsadi:
There is Qurani sect or so. And there is a trap of Hadith and Sira.I don't know. But interpreting Quran in historical context with history, hadith, sira etc is fraught with problems. Interpreting Quran without historical context, is for me useless. The question is how much weight you give to each. As a Muslim one has to believe in Quran as non corrupt. But history of accumulation of Hadith and Sira clearly suggest that they are good historical sources. Also Quranic Laws to some extent are interpreted and enforced on historical precedence including Sira and Hadith.
HP:
That is why I asked you the definition of Islamist. I am aware of some writers who have written good things about Mohammed PBUH, although they were non Muslims. Some of them while writing the history and sifting the historical resources became Muslims themselves. As far as I read, I cannot help but love the man for his human qualities. If you are aware that even before he was prophet, his slave refused to go to his own family ( when the family found him) and preferred to stay with Mohammed PBUH. In later times when he used to "Wudu" people would not let water fall on ground. He was loved by his companions to the extreme.
He was a great missionary, messanger, conqueror. Although there might be others in history, and I am not well versed, but will not deny the rightful place for Mohammed PBUH.

Re: # 42
" The Arabs were idolators and most of the struggle against idolators were for two things. GOD is one and do good vices are bad and forbid evil. In those 13 years of struggle Muslims were persecuted and Arabs were persecutors. I am not aware of any idolator death at the hands of Muslim in those 13 years. Then Muslim finally emigrated to Medina and formed their own Government. Provoked or unprovoked, there were at least three full fledged war imposed on Muslims. Arabs from Mecca came to Medina to fight Muslims and not the other way round. At last there was truce. That truce was broken by Meccans idolators. When Muslims marched towards Mecca, they captured it with total loss of 13 people. There was general amnesty for all. You don't expect a person who has struggled and suffered all his life for ONE GOD and against multiple gods (which is the definition of idolators) to let worship of multiple Gods to happen, once he is successful. "

K Saheb ji,

Actually this is just plain old mullah propaganda regarding idolators being morally 'inferior' . The pagans of Mecca were great and virtous people and it was Mo who was going around misusing their hospitality.
You say that if some one believes in "one god" (whatever that means) then "you do not expect him" to tolerate other gods!! It is like saying if I believe in goblins then one should expect me to kill others who believe in fairies.
There is NO logical connection between some one believing in one god and that person killing others who believe in many deities.
The two can exist peacefully and that is what Ali sina was saying to the mullahs. Despite difference in beliefs people can exist together pecefully even as good neighbours. This violent jump from believing in one god to being violent towards others is the cause of muslim miseries. It is the basis of jinnah's TNT. It is the basis of PAkistan. It is going to be the reason why Pakistan is going to go down as a failed state in modern times.
If Pakistan has to exist then it has to reject Islam of mullahs and take to some Islam of - say Masadi . Heck , even the Islam ans Sunnat of Hamid m that involves celebrating Basant and hugging each other during id only would be a good idea!!

Re: # 46

Masadi Saheb,

As a Quranist I would admit to the 'superiority' of your Islam.

And ofcouse by contextualizing the violent versese of Medina revelations your humanism is far superior.

But , unfortunately no Pakistani mullah would accept your view. Hadiths provide the context to interpretation of Quran and there is a huge tradition of it that supports this view- you are fighting a lost battle- the Islam of Quran without Hadiths means nothing to present day muslims.

So, best of luck in your trying to convince the rest of the ummah regarding your "Islam"!!

krashid1961, instead of falling in the trap set by the Ali Senile types, who was thoroughly and completely outwitted because he is a deceptive/compulsive liar, you need to evaluate the claims of his "objectivity".

He writes for example in the long copy paste by laddu (on whom every thought is wasted as HP is suggesting, because he is a mindless bigot) "I am proving my claim using the Hadith and Sira as exhibits. It is up to you to disprove these charges.

Now, would documents like the "hadith" and "sira", that are removed hundreds of years from the events and are based on third grade secondary data, stand in any court of law (other than the Musharraf constituted court) in any country that values justice, anywhere? Of course they would not stand, period.

The greatest quality of the messenger was the delivery of a clear message that valued truth and justice regardless of personal claims of greatness or the loss of status suffered as a result. Those qualities are found in non prophets as well, it is upto Allah to decide which one of us/them is "best in deed"- so even though the Mullah might proclaim "khair e khalqehee" (going completely against the Quran), nobody has been given authority to proclaim thus. Therefore we should not act as idolators, as HP has correctly observed, and proclaim truth and fact rather than "hadith and sira".

"Do you think only a islamist can appreciate the qualities of Prophet PBUH."

Yes....and What is this about the qualities. What qualities he had that were different from many other reformers or politicians. What is with you guys that makes you think he was somehow superior! You guys are actually the real Buttparast or idolator! Laddu clearly cannot recognize the similarities!

HP:
Who told you I am Islamist?
Do you think only a islamist can appreciate the qualities of Prophet PBUH.
Do you think I am here to convert Laddu or any other to what?
Anyway, what is a Islamist? I am not aware of its definition, so I cannot tell you whether I am Islamist or not?

#42 Posted by krashid1961

you wrote all that to convince Laddu? All your effort is wasted. Before you there was another prophet supporter, Clifton bridge to nowheher and he/she tried to the same thing.

Why are you islamist so naive or is the raiwind influence that makes you think you can convert people by writing useless stuff?

Laddu:
It is not to respect or disrespect, but to put things in proper perspective. Naming names is easy, but a little history is essential. For example why are people supporting Chief Justice and not Musharraf on this forum. For you the answer is easy because you live in a particular time period.
When Mohammah PBUH proclaimed his message, Arab was in extreme ignorance and superstition. All the vices were considered virtue. When Mohammad PBUH started his message sane and pious people accepted it, particularly the oppressed one. They were tortured, killed and politically and economically isolated. To the point that they had to emigrate to Ethiopia to save their lives. There is a very eloquent speech by Jafar Tayyar in the king's Negus court, where he mentioned all the vices Arabs were in and how Mohammad's message changed their life for good. The Arabs were idolators and most of the struggle against idolators were for two things. GOD is one and do good vices are bad and forbid evil. In those 13 years of struggle Muslims were persecuted and Arabs were persecutors. I am not aware of any idolator death at the hands of Muslim in those 13 years. Then Muslim finally emigrated to Medina and formed their own Government. Provoked or unprovoked, there were at least three full fledged war imposed on Muslims. Arabs from Mecca came to Medina to fight Muslims and not the other way round. At last there was truce. That truce was broken by Meccans idolators. When Muslims marched towards Mecca, they captured it with total loss of 13 people. There was general amnesty for all. You don't expect a person who has struggled and suffered all his life for ONE GOD and against multiple gods (which is the definition of idolators) to let worship of multiple Gods to happen, once he is successful.
There are many versions of history on Mohammed PBUH. Reading from multiple sources from most enemy to most friendly to neutral probably will bring a true picture of him.
It is a matter of judgement. Considering his stories, the most important thing is extreme human quality, extreme wise and tolerant. He was literally worshipped and loved. The son of one of his detractors has asked multiple times to kill his own father as he would name names to Prophet PBUH. But prophet PBUH not only did not allow it, but lead the funeral prayer when he died. The most prominent quality of prophet PBUH was his humanistic qualities. The mission he brought, he completed and expanded it in his own life time in a small period of 23 years. If you bring specific instances we can discuss. One thing is JUSTICE to the extreme. Apart from war and war is war, he did not took or ordered a single life to be perished except within the LAW and as law allowed. If there was no law, the law was created for him by GOD Himself for example for more than four wives.
I am not aware of taking life of Muslim, non Muslim, idolator, or Jewish or christian outside the LAW. War is off course an exception. But war is war and not like anybody goes and kills another person in the name of Islam whatever he or she may have.
Anyway if you have sspecific instances, we can discuss.

Re: # 26

I think these paras from Ali Sina sums up the thoughts of an present day idolator against an Islamist mullah from Pakistan.


"Dear Maulana:

I am not insulting Muhammad. I am laying charges against him. If I say Muhammad was a thief, a mass murderer or a rapist, I am proving my claim using the Hadith and Sira as exhibits. It is up to you to disprove these charges.

As for respecting beleifs, who said beliefs have to be respected? Why should anyone respect a religion that says the unbelievers are filthy (najis) crucify them and chop their fingertips because they are the enemies of God and they will be fuel for hell? This is an insult to me, because I am a disbeliever. Why should I respect an insult against my self?
We have to respect people and their rights to believe in anything they choose but not what they believe. I must respect your right to believe in absurdities but this does not mean I must respect absurdities.

We hear a lot that we must respect people's beliefs. That is baloney. We do not have to respect any belief, not even our own. We must always question beliefs. This is the only way humans can progress. If we respect beliefs, don't question them and don't challenge them how are we going to get rid of false beliefs?

Furthermore do Muslims respect the religion of others? Why is it that they insult the Jews, the Christians and even kill the Bahais, the Sikhs, the Ahmadis or the Hindus wherever they are the majority and have the upper hand? Forget what Muslims do. Did Muhammad respect the belief of the people? Why he rammed into Ka’ba and destroyed the temple of the people of Mecca? Wasn’t this a sacrilege of their faith? He could start his own mosque elsewhere, why did he have to assault and insult the deities of the people? He set the example for other Muslims to follow and as the result his followers are as intolerant as he was. They constantly fight with each other, call one another heretics and kill one another. Do you know that more Muslims have been killed in the hands of fellow Muslims in sectarian fights than they have been killed in wars by non-Muslims? This killing is still going on.

When you ask others to respect your faith, please take a closer look at how you respect the faiths of others. Muslims enjoy a lot more freedom and rights in non-Muslim countries than they grant other religions in Islamic countries."

Why can't we stop calling Bhutto a shrewd politician? He is one of the biggest villains of Pakistan. Well...not that we have had any heroes....which is not a strange phonomenon considering the producer/director, Mr Jinnah was a villain himself.

Another thing, please leave the supposed writer of this tragedy - Iqbal out of this. His script has been adulterated by each and everyone!

nasah #37 Well said.

Shah2
Jinnah may had affair while visiting his friend. But it was Riti who still insisted on marriage after being kept away for one year. And their marriage was not very successful either.
Still we need a real one, not like Jinnah.

The thrilling judgment by the three 'deposed' judges headed by Justice Bhagwan Das -- as to why this NA could not elect the same man twice as president because the dying NA has no right to bind the coming NA with its illegal decision -- is a classic piece of judicial opinion that will live in immortality -- the judgment in its reasoning, logic and elucidation of finer points of its legal arguments what is constitutional and what is pure balderdash -- should be a part of the future curriculum in every law school of the subcontinent and of the world.

Every Pakistani poster who does not believe, the army dictators are forever -- should read the Justice Rana Bhagwan Das et al's judgment on Musharraf.

Constitutionalist Pakistan zindabad. The original Constitutionalist Supreme Court of Pakistan Zindabad. Down with the current Kangaroo Court of Musharraf's puppets.

"Who bothers for judiciary, lawyers and Imran Khan. For these corrupt elites, life goes on as usual and that is what matters."Judiciary cannot be allowed to do everything then they can and wil sell the country legally

"The only vice he did not have was womanizing.."

But he (MAJ)did have his eyes on minor 16 year old Riti with his middle age disparatage aging eyes

Aisha is becoming like Hindu(whome she openly despises)obedient wife

A wife, obedient to her husband, renowned, light-footed, eloquent in speech, sympathetic to the patients, attains to happiness when she lives peacefully with her husband, and nicely cooks the food highly efficacious, and grown through rain, conducive to our physical growth, brought daily in use, and relished by our ancestors. Yajur Veda Chapter XXXIII, Verse 59

ZK,

This I think is not by AS but Yasser (he even used her ID to opne threads on UP).

'#15 Posted by Aisha_Sarwari on November 19, 2007 7:45:12 am
Dear majumdar,

Your post is wasted on the internet freak here masadi who probably had to do odd jobs to get his failed masters thesis publish in a binder.

Quaid-e-Azam is the ideal of Imran Khan, Bhutto and all Pakistani leaders, I am wondering why Musharraf still continues to aspire to him as if he has no shame. '

('freak' is the common word used by Yasser)

VRV, in case you don't know, Aisha Sarwari is quite capable of posting her own responses!

To me it looks like that Yasser used AS's ID to post 'some' of the responses here.

HP writes "Asadi, I wouldn’t be so sure about Bhutto. He was a shrewd politicians..."

Granted Bhutto was a smart man and matured as a politician but his ideas did change, as documented in his books over time, and I wouldn't take the ideas in his last book written from the death cell as some kind of manipulation, even though you can be given the benefit of the doubt that the earlier ones were "shrewd" or maybe manipulative.

The Church of MAJ has great control over the minds of the people, and especially mainstream politicians, be it due to use-value for legitimation. His ideas, bhuttos about the Pakistan idea and MAJ relative to that idea, where he was willing to consider the possibility of it being a "mistake", does emerge in his last books, whereas it was absent in his earlier ones.

Finally, Majumdar needs to be reminded that using historical hypotheticals is no evidence as justification of what actually happened with the Turks, losing their identity and having a new one imposed overnight based on foreign ideals meant that even though they kept the geography they lost the soul of Turkey thanks to the Ata Turk, and whether they would have lost the geography is also questionable

Masadi sahib,

(The Ata Turk was a fool who ensured perpetual slavery of his people to the West)

Had Kemal not been around, Turkey would have been dismembered by the Allies and large parts of what is Turkey today would have been handed over to the Kurds, Armenians and Greeks and Turks cleaned out from there. Whatever turkey may be today is better off than what it wud have been without Kemal.

(Regarding dictatorship, when the MAJ installed himself as GG of Pakistan, King of a country for all intents and purposes, that was no democracy in action.)

To the best of my knowledge MAJ (pbuh) did not use military force to put himself in power. He became GG becuase ML was recognised as the sole spokesparty of Muslims (and you cant blame the Brits for that given ML's sweep among the Muslim electorate) and MAJ was ML's undisputed leader- a position he did not seize by use of arms but becuase of his honesty and force of personality.

Regards

Somehow masadi has led the discussion to a tangent. He seems to have a very deep insight into the global order framed at Bretton Woods and tends to see everything through that window.( I took pains to browse his essays)

Granted he represents that anti colonial school that sees the partition as a conspiracy by the west to create buffers against USSR and China and that MAJ was a mere instruement. He could have argued his point in a more logical manner while avoiding mud slinging.

The idea of Pakistan was not an instant idea, nor was Muslim league created by MAJ. He was a much needed leader who came up at the right time. Unfortunately he was let down by his people.

Mohar,

(J-man(pubh)'s action indeed divided the muslim "power" in the subcontinent ...)

The kind of power that you and Masadi sahib are referring to are purely of the negative kind, the power to veto everything that the majority suggests irrespective of whether they are good or bad. Had India not been divided the 2/3rd Hindu majority and 1/3rd Muslim majority would both have been disempowered and quarreling on every thing. And we would have got nowhere. Yes Hindu majority India and Muslim dominated screwed up big time but that was not because of MAJ (pbuh) or the Partition but because the two successor entities took wrong turns- India’s turn towards Nehruvian Stalinism, Pakistan’s turn towards authoritarianism and later militant Islam.

(second, his actions helped preserve the feudal entities in pakiland... )

Yes, but that was not really his fault. The West Pak society was still very primitive and backward and a proper middle class had not developed there except among the Mohajir minority. Indeed it was the diff level of political development among Bong and non-Bong Muslims which caused the breakup in 1971. In W Pak’s case the natural backwardness was exacerbated by the Indo-Pak conflict and US meddling (no doubt without participation by elites within Pak) and which has resulted in arrested development there.

Regards

Aisha, good piece! It is also a courageous piece under the present (unfortunate) circumstances.

Laddu.
Be fair to Maulana Qadri and don't be harsh on him. He is the only Maulana who proposes recognittion of Israel.

Latest on a top Paki mullah getting exposed by Ali Sina

http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/ajmalqadri.htm

Maulana Ajmal Qadri is a Senior religious scholar of the Deobandi school of Pakistan and the president of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (The Society of Islamic Scholars). The Maulana is regarded as a pir (saint) by his followers and is one of the most influential clerics of Pakistan.

In 1999 Maulana Qadri issued a Fatwa saying lawmakers opposed to the Shariat Bill deserve to be killed.

He has also stated: "In our madrassas, we teach the Koranic jihad, This refuses to admit the supremacy of anyone, or any power, but Allah. We believe that the Muslim way is the supreme way, that the Islamic principle is best and that what the rest of the world does is not up to the mark."

Also - what about "Pakistan ka matlab kya? La hila Ilallah-hilla" ?... wasn't that one of the jinnah and his party's rallying cry?...

#17 Posted by masadi
“AS writes "Quaid-e-Azam is the ideal of Imran Khan, Bhutto and all Pakistani leaders..."

Because they are not/were not as politically mature as I am,”
#20 Posted by rf786
apnay muun mian mitoo, translated into English...u r full of schit....ofcoourse, u knew that didnt u....”

Asadi, I wouldn’t be so sure about Bhutto. He was a shrewd politicians, well educated and had a complete grip on Pakistani politics of that time. Barring some Baloch leaders such as Bizenjo, Bugti and Mengal and to some extent Wali Khan, no body could have possibly matched Bhutto in his read of the political situation in Pakistan. He also was the most opportunistic. While the Baloch leaders suffered because of their knowledge and honesty, Bhutto took full advantage of any opportunity presented to him. He certainly had a better sense of history and knew exactly how the Pak army would behave.

I think you are right about Imran Khan. He will have to learn a lot. Nawaz started out as political naïve as Imran Khan. Nawaz picked it up and now I think IK will pick up the pieces and would learn exactly where and what the disconnect is in Pakistani politics.

Rf786,
You need to counter what Masadi says with some facts on the ground. I am not sure why Asadai needs to use the language he uses but he does make better points than many and I think his grip on Pakistani politics is better than the Imran of today. In future, IK will possible get a better hang because he is in the thick of the things and Masadi is just commenting from the sidelines.

MAJ never said that Islam Khatray main hai that is a complete bull. However, I think it would be great to see any discussion on how MAJ would have behaved if he had held on to the power for another eight to ten years. I think it would be a good discussion.

While MAJ was certainly for the rule of law and a constitutionalist, we still don’t know whether he favored a system where he, as the Governor General, would have consented to fewer powers. As long as he was the GG, The Prime Minister was nothing more than a show piece or the shortcut aziz under Mushy.

rf

J-man(pubh) definitely used islam for his political purpose - you can't deny that... I mean - one of his slogans was "Islam is in danger", wasn't it?...

majumdar

dude, masadi does have a point - or couple of them... For one: J-man(pubh)'s action indeed divided the muslim "power" in the subcontinent ... second, his actions helped preserve the feudal entities in pakiland...

right?

Re: # 17

"Because they are not/were not as politically mature as I am"

apnay muun mian mitoo, translated into English...u r full of schit....ofcoourse, u knew that didnt u....

After what happened to Islamist in early years of Pakistan, nobody has any choice but to be coattails of that pork eating, drinker who created a country in the name of Islam.
The only vice he did not have was womanizing. We need to fulfill that gap to complete the picture of Pakistan in the name of Islam.

Aisha, well written.

Musharraf and Jinnah, there is no comparison. It is chalk and cheese. Jinnah believed in institions, judicary, media, legislature, etc.

Musharraf is a unprincipled ,half baked intellect from NDC. He is corrupt and his core commanders are corrupt. They belive in only one thing, the army. The are undoing Jinnah's achievements.

AS writes "Quaid-e-Azam is the ideal of Imran Khan, Bhutto and all Pakistani leaders..."

Because they are not/were not as politically mature as I am, in time IK will learn about the shenanigans of the MAJ, as Bhutto did towards the end of his life, read his books from which I quoted here. Regarding my Master's it was not a failed one it was a 4.0/4.0 GPA, and doing odd jobs and not relying on your parent's wealth to get an education is something to be proud of and not ashamed of...though I was on 100% tuition waiver and teaching assistantship.....and finally, I still give a damn about your fake sensibilities...

in #13 read "They are both alike and they both are/were damn criminals... "

and they both are/were dog ugly

p.s I give a damn about your fake hypocritical sensibilities...

Dear majumdar,

Your post is wasted on the internet freak here masadi who probably had to do odd jobs to get his failed masters thesis publish in a binder.

Quaid-e-Azam is the ideal of Imran Khan, Bhutto and all Pakistani leaders, I am wondering why Musharraf still continues to aspire to him as if he has no shame.

in #13 read "he used Islam and the sentiments that go with him "

as "he used Islam and the sentiments that go with it

Majumdar and rf, I have debated at length the merits/demerits of the MAJ with the high priest of his Church, Manto here over two to three threads. Here I presented only a summary.

The Ata Turk was a fool who ensured perpetual slavery of his people to the West, what we see today when they go begging to join the EU and are rebuked or when they try to distance themselves from their Islamic heritage and language. Trying to be a liberator of your people and then emulating the Ata Turk because he will make you more western and acceptible to those you worship does not do anything for me to prove that the snake was anything good.

Regarding dictatorship, when the MAJ installed himself as GG of Pakistan, King of a country for all intents and purposes, that was no democracy in action. Regarding his hypocritical call for "secularism", he used Islam and the sentiments that go with him (imagery for which his sidekick the Allama developed) for the purpose of gaining a country. That sentimentality using Islam, resulted in reactions on a large scale that cause widespread bloodshed for which Jinnah is responsible. Regarding the Feudals and the Colonials both were very happy with the division, one to consolidate their wealth which they have managed to to this day, the others to use us for their many dirty tasks which they have to this day. Perhaps the major commonality among the MAJ and the other "dog ugly" person, is that MAJ fragmented the Muslim political power and voice in India, thereby fragmenting our solidarity and ensuring that those left behind in India live as third class citizens because of that reduced political power and the reactionism produced by his shenanigans. Musharraf is doing the same to fragment Pakistan today. They are both alike and they both are/were damn criminals...

Re: # 9

shishapa

"If Mr. Jinnah had perpetuated him for eight years,
may be you could then have compared him with Musharraf."

Specualtive, unrelated and baseless. Had MAJ lived for another eight years, its quite possible Pakistan wud have had a totally different chapter in democracy. This theory holds more credence given Jinnah's democratic credentials in united India. Who knows, Jinnah may eben had dominion status that he so fondly wished. Specualtive.

Re: # 9
Fair enough!! If Jinnah perpetuated himself against the will of people then would be the same consequences as of Mush'.
Most were admirer (admiration not devotion) of Mush for his policies till he revealed his despotism. He could'nt turn into devotion but lost admiration as well.

i dont understand y those who r really heared, dont demand for reinstatement of independent minded constitutional judges beside lifting of emergency, restoration of constitution and free and fair elections...

Re: # 8

That is not a fair comparison. You should compare first year and half of Musharraf. I think he had
millions of devotees then.
If I remember correctly, except zeemax, almost
every Pakistani on the chowk was his devotee.
If Mr. Jinnah had perpetuated him for eight years,
may be you could then have compared him with
Musharraf.

Re: # 4
masadi, your analysis is debateable but one must not use such offensive terms for customary respected leader.

There can be lots of arguments but the one major distinction that prevail over every theory of resemblence: Jinnah had/has millions of devotees but what about Mush...hatred by millions.

Aisha boudi,

Welcome back. Well written article. Like any other nation Pakistan's well being would depend on ALL its citizens being fanatics about establishing the rule of law in the country.

Masadi sahib,

(Both admire the ata-turk)

And what is wrong about it. The guy was a genuine hero who saved his nation. Coming to the two -MAJ (pbuh) created one, Mush is trying his level best to destroy one.

(Both subverted democracy by assuming dictatorial powers)

Completely untrue in the case of MAJ. He was elected by the reprsentatives of the Muslim community in India. His status was based on support from ML members and ML's standing was based on the electoral support of Indian Muslims.

(Both killed their own for ulterior motive by following a farce, MAJ the colonial/Feudal farce of the "two nation theory")

Untrue again in case of MAJ- The violence was becuase the leaders were overtaken by incidents and Lord M's karnamas.

(Both are dog ugly)

Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, so I will not comment on this.

(Both had/have no clue about Islam but are hell bent on using it for ulterior political motive)

MAJ was rightly concerned that Muslims may get a bad deal in united India and wanted to give them a nation of their deal. He was more concerned with giving Muslims a nation of their own rather than establish an Islamic state.

(Both were/are peons of the West.)

Dont see how a man who fought for the independence of his nation from Brits can be considered a peon of the West.

Regards

Re: # 4

what happened maasadi? did'nt get your daily dose of attention? I consider this below your general average, surely u can do better than this.

(1) Both admire the ata-turk? good for them. Although MAJ was honest in his likings, compared to wonder-dog who seems to change his qibla depending upon the change of winds.

(2)Both subverted democracy by assuming dictatorial powers

MAJ led a life of clean, honest beliefs founded in the principles of justice and was a true follower in principles of democracy. If u fail to c that, that is your loss. As for the current demo-krasy whiz-kid, well less said the better.

(3)Both killed their own for ulterior motive by following a farce, MAJ the colonial/Feudal farce of the "two nation theory", and Musharraf the US farcial WOT.

Two nation theory was successful in achieving MAJ (ML) objectives. How many politicians can emulate the same? Not many. As for the killing bit, well MAJ cannot be blamed for the partition murders. Mushy is guilty every single bit, then again he too successfully hoodwinked the west in believing his story.

(4)Both are dog ugly

Looking in the mirror?

(5)Both had/have no clue about Islam but are hell bent on using it for ulterior political motive

MAJ never advocated use of Islam, his policies were secular, lifestyle western, choice of marriage or clothes represented a modernized man. As for the current general, seems to have no clue at all.

(6)Both were/are peons of the West.

Carrying all the inferiority complex must be truly agitating. Not to worry, take some joshanda and isbaghol kee bhutwee, inshallah istifada hoga.

This person doesnt make me feel like "all are welcome to read and write on chowk" especially the use of the term dog

Enough of this Jinnah worship. Jinnah and Musharraf have more things (in broad perspective) in common than you can imagine:

1. Both admire the ata-turk
2. Both subverted democracy by assuming dictatorial powers
3. Both killed their own for ulterior motive by following a farce, MAJ the colonial/Feudal farce of the "two nation theory", and Musharraf the US farcial WOT.
4. Both are dog ugly
5. Both had/have no clue about Islam but are hell bent on using it for ulterior political motive
6. Both were/are peons of the West.

The reality is not just the dictator. It’s the entire coterie of opportunist.

Benazir who looks up to Washington while allowing the jialas to be killed and jailed in a Noora Bonanza.

MMA, the B Team who put a spanner in the dissolution of NWFP Assembly and then got Imran arrested in a most disgraceful manner.

Waiting in wings politicians ever ready to jump the boat, latest being Salman Taseer and that great PPP lobbyist from USA.

Media like CNBC and Business Plus with Mubbashir Luqman now