Faith, Religion and National Direction

vicky #28 :

[``every now and then we require fodder; food for thought. And what could be better than to dissect an expert opinion? ``]

how true. point well taken !

Urstruly

Post#36

I understood the author`s article a lot better after you highlighted salient points.

Many Thanks

I`d like you to clarify something that I did`nt quite understand:

{{I have never considered Indian efforts as a threat to our Ideology; it`s just a minor nuisance and inconvenience but not a threat. }}

What efforts has India made to be a threat to your ideology? True, there are a few older generationals who wistfully talk about a united India. However, I feel the overwhelming majority of Indians dont want reunification & really dont care what governmental ideology Pakistan adopts.

India only ``interferes`` or diagrees with Pakistan regarding your claims to Kashmir. In 71 ,India intervened in the Pakistan civil war because millions of refugees poured into India. If no refugees came from Bangladesh, India would`nt have invaded.

In Pakistan`s brief history, it has changed from civilian to military rule (& vice versa) by its own doing. I dont think India has interfered; so kindly enlighten me.

The tragedy of Pakistan is that it is a poorly envisioned state.

What I am producing below is not fiction. This is all from the Surah. This is what is taught in Islamic schools to young children.

* Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you may dislike it. But you may

hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for

you. God knows, but you do not. (Surah 2:216)

* Let believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful --

he that does this has nothing to hope for from God -- except in self-defense.

(Surah 3:28)

* He will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. They serve other

deities besides God for whom He has revealed no sanction. The Fire shall be

their home; dismal indeed is the dwelling of the evil-doers. (Surah 3:151)

* Those that deny our revelations, We will burn in fire. No sooner will their

skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may

truly taste the scourge. God is mighty and wise. (Surah 4:56)

* Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever

ye find them, and take them [captive], and besiege them, and prepare for

them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the

poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

(at-Taubah 9:5.10)

* Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day... nor acknowledge the

religion of truth, and fight people of the book, until they pay Jizya with willing

submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Surah 9:29)

Only a set of nitwits with really blurred sight and insight could have come up with trash like this, and trust our brethren to believe all this word for word. I can assure you Allah would not be party to any of this. It is the Ulema and the martial leaders in all Islamic societies that have indoctrinated the peoples with such low-life drivel and continue to do so. Pakistan is a prime example. And we have educated intellectuals who will come up with all manner of explanations to justify such crap. I tell you, please free yourselves while you can of such rot. Even the prophet never intended it this way. Also, please any of you thinking that the days of the prophet were so utopian and model for any society, please don`t be delusional in your ignorance.

The only way out is to de-institutionalize religion. Religion is personal and private, the state has no part in it. Enforced religion is no religion, it is just politics.

Don`t even talk about Jihad. If everybody in this world just quoted out of some book and took it upon themselves to terrorize other human beings, just imagine the outcome. Please, please there are other human beings other than Muslims. They have hearts, souls and are more in number too. There must be something to their religions and cultures as well. There is no need that everybody should be Muslim.

General Pervaiz Musharaf, if you had said in your independence day speech, ``My brethren, lets give India the finger and let us focus on our problems - many of you have no food to eat, no jobs, no education, our women and children are abused, let me set right these things first and then let me focus on how we can help the Kashmiris. When we ourselves are begging, what can we offer Kashmiris?`` - I would have saluted you.

-JR

Crypto reply #30,

Regarding refugee migration, following is an article from an Indian online newspaper from a month ago.

Does this change your point of view ?

Peace.

from rediff.com

Defection of villagers is propaganda victory for Pakistan

Tara Shankar Sahay in New Delhi

The crossing of nearly 300 Kashmiri villagers into Pakistan occupied Kashmir alleging brutalities by Indian security forces has provided Islamabad considerable propaganda material.

`` The government is helpless as there was an intelligence failure. How such a large number of people crossed over is a mystery. It is a fact that Pakistan will use it for anti-Indian propaganda by featuring the villagers on Pakistan Television. The villagers invariably give exaggerated accounts of brutality,`` admitted a senior home ministry official.

Another official pointed out that incidents like these have been occurring periodically right from the early 1990s but successive central governments, whether of the Congress, the United Front or the ruling National Democratic Government, have been unable to prevent them.

While ``exploitation `` of such incidents by Pakistan is routine, the international fallout is far graver.

Such incidents provide grist for human rights organisations like Amnesty International which is overzealous in portraying the alleged enthusiasm of Indian security forces in tackling anti-national elements.

Army officials in South Block, however, fume at the ``sheer one-sidedness `` of the human rights groups` reports pertaining to activities of the Indian security forces in Kashmir.

`` Why don`t these human rights groups report how the Indian Army suffers cowardly attacks by foreign militants in Kashmir? They are only interested in concocted details provided by villagers in border areas. The army has been maintaining commendable restraint during combing operations in border villages but there is no question of laxity when we flush out militants,`` an official in the valley told rediff.com.

He, however, indicated that the army would do its job without bothering about what human rights organisations were reporting.

He also claimed that many army personnel had been brutally killed by militants and that `` they can expect little mercy once apprehended.``

Bharatiya Janata Party vice-president Jagdish Prasad Mathur said he could not comment on the issue. He said Pakistan`s Inter Services Intelligence may have exploited the villagers` `` religious affinity``.

Major General (retd) Afsir Karim underscored that ``terrorism is considered essential to coerce the passive Kashmiri population to rise in revolt against Indian security forces.`` He pointed out that the ISI has been trying to inject radical Islam among the Kashmiris and small groups like Allah Tigers and Ul-Umar were terrorising villagers.

Articles on Civil-Military Relations in Pakistan available at:

http://www.idsa-india.org/an-aug-600.html

and at

http://www.india-today.com/ntoday/extra/71war/index.html

Oh no, I never said Muslims in India are being persecuted brutally and being killed haphazard. There are indirect ways of doing that, ways that the US is particularly good at. I think Muslims in India enjoy the same freedom that African Americans enjoy in the US. The freedom to earn high amounts of money in the entertainment and sports industries. That`s about it. Other than that, and token occasional ministers and intellectuals, Muslims in India don`t really have much power internally, considering the fact that they are the largest minority group in India.

At least the US has equal opportunity programs to curtail some of the inequalities.

Bilal #34:

``I concur with the spirit of your post. I commend you for writing it. Equal treatment of minorities is a challenge that the people across the world need to accept to the best of their abilities. However, the State agencies in both India and Pakistan have failed to sufficiently protect the rights of their citizens (de facto or de jure).``

I agree with you that equal treatment of minorities is something ever civlized society should be concerned about. But is it fair to lump countries like India and Pakistan together in the same category? Despite all its flaws, India does provide equal rights to all its citizes irrespective of any differences. Minorities are ``de jure`` equal in India. Can you say the same about Pakistan? Only a country that provides ``de jure`` equality to its minorities has a chance of achieving it ``de facto``. A country that stamps the religion of its citizens on their passports, asks them to declare what religion they belong to, and decides who can call himself what; has a long way to go towards achieving that goal.

As long as any country`s ``matlab`` is ``La Illaha Illallah`` or ``Hindu Dharm ki Jay`` or `` Christ is the only savior``,it can never provide equality to its minorities. I am glad that my country doesnt have any of these as its matlab. And so I resent it being grouped as far as minority rights are concerned, with some country that does have it.

Satyavadi

Mateen:

Your feelings which have taken words here are palpable. Apart little differences, it is a south asian saga. We as a community and as an individual have given form to our weaknesses as destiny. Barring few exceptional incidents we have always failed to raise ourselves to our conscience and others have always fended on it.

That is why we always end up blaming the system while doing nothing to fight it. Most of us join it or look the other way.Few of those gifted ones` who choose to fight are either advised against it`s presumed futility or better still- ridiculed. Survival at any cost, a cockroach existence has (or was it always!) become our trademark.

Being an armyman does not mean that you will not have your degree of helplessness. But considering that Army can do things in pakistan and going by Chowk Posts I believe it is quite respected too, your feelings only make it appear worse.

You have rightly blamed social and political factors while you are criminally silent on the role of Army.

Religion however great cannot retain it`s self when asked to team with politics. We are seeing it`s problems in India too. Even a modern and vibrant religion like sikhism is falling prey to Akali politics.

So it`s time to give religion it`s coveted place while politics keeps making strange bed-partners.

Religon guides an individual, a society not a nation.

Pullu

I must say that I would much rather live in an Islamic country such as Abdul Wahid`s Indonesia than in Islamic Pakistan, Islamic Afghanistan, Islamic Iran, Islamic Saudi Arabia. The key difference being Abdul Wahid looks on Islam as the faith of an individual. Turkey is same as India where essentially secularism has been given precedence over Islam despite the strength of the Islamic faith. (I prefer Indonesia to Turkey because Abdul Wahid celebrates faith, Trukey suppresses it.) In India, secularism has been given precedence over Hinduism despite the strength of Hindu faith and Hindu chauvinism. My point: with education, Islam will end up as a private faith.

As Oliver Wendel Holmes said (paraphrased): ``A mind once stretched never reverts to its original size``. Anybody who has lived in the West knows that individual liberites and no active state religion appeals to the innate tolerance in every man. Islam, as a constitution for a country, is an anachronism and the constant efforts of Pakistan to include Islam in its state policy is an attempt to square a circle. It will not succeed because one constantly has to be hypocritical. Even the bost basic concept, the whole idea of a capital structure (debt and equity) for funding private enterprise is in conflict with Islam.

As Yasser Arafat says, you cannot hide the sun with your hands. As a private religion, Islam will be around forever succesfully and this is a Pakistani`s joy. As a state religion, Islam is hopelessly out of date and this is Pakistan`s fundamental problem. Jinnah`s 1947 speech showed there was no difference between Pakistan`s and India`s objectives - however it was contrary to Islam because Islam requires the religion to be part of the state. You need a Martin Luther to tell you that separation of church and state is a good idea but when one is going against the word of God, it is an uphill battle.

Ras Siddiqui:

Thank you for your poetry. To be taken seriously, I would recommend you disassociate from the Hindu-hating paknews.com. You may be able to salvage your reputation.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/09/kaplan3.htm

From the mottled-ocher battlements of Attock Fort, I gazed down on the Indus River, which marks the geographic divide between the Subcontinent and the marchlands of Central Asia. Mogul, Sikh, and British conquerors, and then the new state of Pakistan, had all rearranged borders, but the river still expressed a certain inexorable logic -- evinced by the resentment that the Pashtoons of the North-West Frontier on one bank felt for the more settled Punjabis on the other. Here, at this broad and majestic crossing, is where India truly begins, I thought. A forty-five-minute drive east of Attock lay Taxila, where amid the enervating heat and dust are the ruins of Persian, Greek, Buddhist, and ancient Indian civilizations: a lesson in history`s transmutations, with one culture blending with and overturning another. If there is any common thread, it is that India has always been invaded from the northwest, from the direction of Afghanistan and Central Asia -- by Muslim hordes like the Moguls, the builders of the Taj Mahal. And given the turbulence within Islam itself, it is hard to believe that this region has seen the last of its transformations -- or that Pakistan constitutes history`s last word in this unstable zone between mountains and plains.

At the end of my visit to Pakistan, I sat with a group of journalists trying to fathom why Nawaz Sharif, when still Prime Minister, had reportedly turned down an offer of several billion dollars in aid from the United States in return for agreeing not to test nuclear weapons. A Pakistani friend supplied the simple answer: ``India had tested them, so we had to. It would not have mattered who was Prime Minister or what America offered. We have never defined ourselves in our own right -- only in relation to India. That is our tragedy.``

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/09/kaplan.htm

The tribal lands of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border reveal the future of conflict in the Subcontinent, along with the dark side of globalization

The Raisanis, numbering some 20,000, speak a Dravidian language of southern India -- unlike the Turco-Iranian Baluchis and the Indo-Aryan Pashtoons, whose languages borrow heavily from Persian. The Raisanis are traditional enemies of the Bugtis, an ethnic-Baluch tribe. ``I will not disarm, because I do not trust the government to protect me,`` Mir Lashkari told me. He added, ``Only the army needs Pakistan.`` The tribes and ethnic groups, he said, can defend themselves without the state. Indeed, the international arms bazaar and the unrestricted flow of drugs and electronic goods have increased the tribes` autonomy.

Inside Mir Lashkari`s compound, surrounded by a sandpaper desert and bare saw-toothed escarpments, it occurred to me that a topographical map would explain, at least partially, why both military and democratic governments in Pakistan have failed, even as India`s democracy has gone more than half a century without a coup -- and why, I believe, Pakistan and its problems will for the next few years generate headlines.

Pakistan, in fact, could be a Yugoslavia in the making, but with nuclear weapons. In the Balkans the collapse of both communist authoritarianism and the Cold War security structure unleashed disintegrative tribal forces. But in South Asia globalization itself could bring collapse. South Asia illustrates that globalization is not a uniform coat of paint. It can lead to war and chaos as easily as to prosperity and human rights. Just as the media`s fascination with Poland, Hungary, and the rest of Central Europe after the collapse of the Berlin Wall obscured for a time the dissolution that had already begun in Yugoslavia, the current consternation over the extremist government in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, and the fighting in Kashmir obscures the core issue of South Asia: the institutional meltdown of Pakistan. And as was true of Yugoslavia, it is the bewildering complexity of ethnic and religious divisions that makes Pakistan so fragile. My comparison to 1980s Yugoslavia, a place that I also saw firsthand, is not casual. In both cases it was the very accumulation of disorder and irrationality that was so striking and that must be described in detail -- not merely stated -- to be understood.

Begin quote:

``The `secular` credentials of India had always been suspect, more so when the leading lights of their Centre kept hammering on the impasse in Indo-Pakistan relations based upon what they saw as a flawed theory of `two nations` and the repetitious shrieks on Pakistan’s involvement with the cause of the freedom fighters.``

End Quote

Maybe I`m dense or something but I fail to see the flow of logic here (or is there none?)

How does raising the issue of Pakistan`s involvement refect negatively on indian secularism?

#33 Crypto

Your logic is wasted. Umairr never responds when challenged. He has a fixed set of ideas and is unwilling to examine them. Instead he will try to asphyxiate you with his long-winded, tedious theses repeating essentially the same points over and over again.

Dear Mr. Mohajir,

Now, finally, I am able to decipher your article, perhaps originally written for only Martians to understand. Several times, while reading I imagined Ms. Mariam Webster and Mr. Roget hiding under their beds, eyes shut, and shivering. By the time I reached the last paragraph my frustration had turned into pounding headache. Yes, I had an option to click the ``Back`` button on my browser and walk away, but I ``grudgingly`` :) admit that you have made some extremely valid points. As a matter of fact the three main points of your article are worth their weight in gold.

There are several issues that need to be further elaborated. I would really appreciate your insightful response.

I am thoroughly convinced that as far as Islam is concerned any system of Government will fail if religion is not made part of it. That is the reason, which makes Islam as a unique religion. I always fail to understand why the system of Governance that Prophet Mohammad gave us as a politician and a leader should be treated any different from the idealistic/dogmatic doctrines of Plato`s Republic, Secularism, Democaracy, Adam Smith or Carl Marx. Our Prophet gave us a practical example how a society based on the principles of Social Justice is established whereas humanity is still struggling with Marxism, Capitalism, and what not.

I think our first and most important challenge is the re-establishment of the institution of Ijtehad. It has to be Democratic in nature. Do you think a legislative body like a Parliament could be an equivalent to an institution for Ijtehaad. Or is it more feasible to have a directly elected Senate as a legislative part of the Parliament and a National Assembly as the Executive part; whereas the institutions of Islamic Ideological Council (IIC) and Federal Shariat Court (FSC) should have a role of consultancy. The only reservation that I have with this system, which is the current system, (if you ignore the current ``interruption`` and hope it lasts only for three years) is the ``undemocratic`` nature of appointments in IIC and FSC. Do you think that the appointments should be made by the Parliament? In addition, should Senate also be a directly elected body?

What should be the qualifications for the members of the Parliament- whether the members should have a certain religious qualifications as in Iran or they can be ordinary people. What is your opinion? In my opinion the members of the Parliament should be ordinary people with or without a certain degree of religious qualification. It does not make a difference. I don’t think that all the members of US congress or British Parliament are lawyers by profession. So my argument again is that the appointments in FSC and IIC should be democratically (s)elected by the Parliament based on their religious qualifications. In my opinion, this setup will take care of the sectarian nature of divide.

Shouldn`t FSC and IIC be the part of the Supreme Court? I think FSC, IIC, and Supreme Court should be merged as one, where the new entity, lets call it the `Supreme Court` should definitely be separate from the Executive.

I am asking you these questions since it is argued from certain circles that first Ullemas should resolve their differences and set up a democratic institution of Ijtehad and then they should think about getting into the matters of governance. In my opinion, it is an impossible demand, which defies all the laws of logic and common sense. One must not forget that the system of Islamic Governance is the need of the people and not the Ullema`s. It is us the people, who should be responsible to set up such institutions and have Ullema work for us and not the vice versa. Isn`t it similar to the struggle for a Republic by French people?

Traditionally and historically the non-Muslim minorities had always been dealt with their own system of Penal Code if they object to be treated under Muslim set of laws. Separate judicial systems had always been a tradition. So my question is how will the minorities be represented in the democratically elected legislative system. Would it be feasible to let them have their separate legislative body or we will have majority decide their fate.

Any answer to the above question then rightfully raises the question of the validity of two controversial laws- 1. Constitutional Amendment to Declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims 2. The Blaspheme Law. It can be argued that both laws were enacted under democratically elected Governments in a democratic fashion taking care of all the constitutional requirements-so they are democratic. It can also be argued that the Ahamadi law has actually protected the rights of Ahmadis by declaring them a non-Muslim minority in a society where they were being treated as social outcastes already. But still the question remains that is it in the fine tradition of Islam to interfere in other religions. What is your opinion on the interference of Majority (democratically elected) to interfere in Minority religious issues.

I do not agree with you that the Islamic and Pakistani Ideology is not in any danger. Unfortunately, this ideology, which defines our history, our culture, our heritage, our legislation is under threat not only from outside but inside as well. I have never considered Indian efforts as a threat to our Ideology; it`s just a minor nuisance and inconvenience but not a threat. But after collapse of Soviet Union the neo-colonialism in the guise of Globalization is the real threat. One of their main agenda is to establish a uniform Global Culture. Their forward line has already penetrated our first line of defense in the guise of NGOs. They are openly interfering with our curriculum and insist on changing our history in the name of conflict resolution. That is unacceptable. Therefore, the military regime`s interference in Madrassah system is also unacceptable. Unless there are clearly defined national objectives, (preferably set up by a democratically elected Islamic Government) this interference cannot be tolerated. We must also keep NGOs away from our system of education and legislation.

Allow me to add the following to your quote, that was, ``A winner makes commitments, a loser makes promises”. I would say that, ``Only a potential winner dares to face the challenge, a loser chooses to walk away with his tail between his legs- A winner makes commitments and takes action with a faith in himself and his destiny, a loser makes faithless promises.``

Re: Brig. M.M.

I have one question and since you were in the uniform, you might know the answer. If you chose not to reply, I can also understand that.

I know that Pak Army has a tradition where junior officiers can openly question their seniors and since COAS has to rely on his corps commanders for his authority, the corps commanders have to rely on their divisional commanders and so on and so forth down chain of command.

My question simply is, what are the corps commanders telling the COAS/CE about the army`s inner most thoughts? What are the young Turks of Pak army saying in their conferences with their COs, especially since Pak Army has suggested that its primary threat perceptions stems from Pakistan`s internal problems and not from external sources since the May, 1998. Hence, Gen. J. Karamat`s suggestion for a national security council and the present administration including a national security council in Pakistani politics.

The COAS/CE`s power rests on an animity of opinion with his corps commanders and the corps commanders need a unity of opinion from their subordinates. What is the lower and middle ranks (captains, majors and colonels) opinion?

Ciao!

In response to Kabuliwalla (Reply # 33)
Dear Kabuliwalla:

I concur with the spirit of your post. I commend you for writing it. Equal treatment of minorities is a challenge that the people across the world need to accept to the best of their abilities. However, the State agencies in both India and Pakistan have failed to sufficiently protect the rights of their citizens (de facto or de jure).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad