The Curse of Mullah

Romair,

Kuch to Khuda Ka Khauf karo, itni Ghalat biyani? Yeh sikhata hai Islam tumhe? Jhoot bolna?

Bhai meray.. we, the secular extremists, tried arguing with you... We wrote long posts asking you for answers to simple questions and you couldn`t answer... Stuka, PM, Sameerjb and Dost Mittar are all witnesses to how you refused to answer very direct and simple questions posed by the `secular extremists`... as for religio-extremists not attacking you... your attack on them is mere lip service... if you look at your posts it is the secular extremists you have a thing against... I suspect a much deeper conflict.

You didn`t give us one straight answer ... here is a complete record of the debate between us...

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00002370&channel=civic%20center#interact

It seems that we had to say stuff like `Oh Romair your posts are so balanced` in order for you to think that we actually argue your points. Perhaps like secularism, argument also means something else for Romair... Waisay Please show us where Naqshbandi has actually argued your points by the way... that would be interesting... Aur isn`t it time you acted your age and stopped taking childish pot shots at me?

You`ve shown us your true colors... waisay tell us this... Why did Meraj Muhammad Khan leave your party ? And while we are on that topic... isn`t it a little ironic that Imran Khan switched from being Pro-Musharraf and pro-Afghan war to anti-Musharraf and pro-Mullah in a matter of days especially after he became convinced that there was no chance in hell that he would be chosen to lead as Prime Minister a National Unity government? I used to be a staunch Imran Khan supporter 1997-2001. I realized that not only was he an opportunist, but on top of that he was a really stupid one as well. Between a stupid opportunist and a well educated opportunist I will choose the well educated one. Waisay this is not indicative of my estimate of him as a great cricket captain and an even greater social worker. I will continue to support Shaukat Khanum and continue to praise his efforts in that field till the day I die. Again ... one can do this if one has a holistic view on things.


-Manto


PS I don`t expect any straight answers from Romair... He doesn`t have much to offer when it comes to original thought.

Musharraf is not all what is needed but he is a thousand time better than all masjid-mulllah combinations. Pakistan CAN NOT get any thing better than Musharraf. I wish him luck and wisdom.

Does any body know for sure as to what Islamic dress is. Shalwar Qameez were not in vogue at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh); how then is shawar qameez Islamic dress? There is no clear-cut injunction against the western dress. All that religion prescribes is that the dress should be modest.

How about the modes of transport? Is travelling in a car, bus, train, aeroplain, or any other motorized vehicle un-Islamic? If yes, why? And if no, why? Using telephones, referigerators, air conditioners, electricity in any form; are all of them un-Islamic? There is western stamp (or the stamp of kafirs, if you will) on all of them. Shouldn`t the use of all of them be also banned? How about computers? They are also innovation of the west. Where is one going to draw the line. Life without these amenities is unthinkable in modern times.

If any thing needs to be banned, it is mullahism. No body should be allowed to preach religion in whatever form, until such a person has a graduate degree in science together with a proof of religious competence. Mullahs are illiterate.

Mohammad Gill

Manto:

``it remains relevant only because when Mullahs claim that Pakistan was founded as an Islamic state, Jinnah is an effective rebuttal. ``

Don`t get me wrong. It remains relevant also because it is the most progressive. But, the people carry the vision. It must be inclusive of the awaam and not imposed top down by a secular elite. The backlash would be that secularism would be identified with the elite and so the common people, when blaming the elite for their ills would blame secularism with it as well.

..in fact, that is what is happening. Romair keeps blaming BB and secularism as if the two are tied together. If it turns out Fazlu is a chor, would he blame Islam? No. He would blame Fazlu.

Naqshbandi #41: ``your posts are always well balanced and interesting. If there were elections tomorrow which of the main parties MMA, PML, PPP, PTI, etc. would you vote for?``

Thanks for the compliment.

I find it interesting that I criticise religious and secular extremism equally. And I openly state I do not support religionism or secularism, as a political concept. Yet I get attacked far more from those of secular persuasion than by those of religious persuasion. I have noticed this quite a bit. Those of religiuos persuasion, at least on this site, are more interested in arguing my points, rather than just completely denouncing them. While those of secular persuasion think I am completely wrong, if I don`t support their ideas 100% - even their idiotic ideas of bringing BB back into power.

I support PTI, actively. So I would vote for PTI. I think they are far more genuine than the PPP and PML and far more balanced than the MMA. Interestingly, PTI openly projects itself as a non-secular party. They consider themselves a very moderate and progressive non-secular party. Which is what I think the people of Pakistan want (not the people of Turkey or Saudi Arabia, but the people of Pakistan).

I will not vote for MMA. I do not like people who think they should tell me how to practice my religion. And I think MMA`s leaders are just using religion for political gains. And I do not believe in the concept of Ulema, to begin with. I think Islam forbids professional Ulemas. And I think Ulema, as a group, have done a lot to harm Islam. Though Tahir-u-Qadri seems relatively reasonable.

Amongst big parties, PPP would be my first choice, if it could get rid of Benazir and its other feudal leaders, and allows its urban leaders to lead the party. Until they get rid of BB, I would never vote for it, since I think it is nothing but a vehicle for robbing the country, by feudals.

Ditto for PML.

Amongst the choice of major leaders in Pakistan, currently. I would support Imran Khan for PM. After that, I would support Asghar Khan (more so his late son). There are one or two individuals in PPP and PML (like Aitezaz Ahsan, late Meraj Khalid etc.) I would support also, but they are too far down in their party`s hierarchy (or they are dead). I would also support Zubaida Jalal of PML for PM. As well as Maleeha Lodhi, if she had a voting base (which she doesn`t). Amongst the powerful feudals, I suppose Farooq Leghari and Fakhr Iman are the best of the worst.

So my order of support for current prominent leaders would be: Imran Khan, Asghar Khan, Zubeida Jalal/Aitezaz Ahsan etc. (or any decent progressive PML or PPP person), Musharraf

Imran Khan, Asghar Khan, ZJ, AA etc. have nearly zero shot of becoming leader of Pakistan. This leaves us with the likes of Benazir, Nawaz, Chaudhry Shujaat, Altaf Hussain, Fazl-ur-Rahman, Musharraf. Out of these, I support Musharraf, becuase the remaining will throughly screw Pakistan - if they haven`t already done so. Though, I think Musharraf should have called it quits last October.

However, if BB, NS and Qazi were the only three people alive, and I had a gun to my head, and had to vote, I would vote for Qazi.

Mmanto:

Post 45 and 46..

I agree with you. From an ideological perspective, the fact that Jinnah was staunchly secular provides excellent ammunition.

RSridhar:

I think your question to Manto was unfair. He has been around long enough for you to know that he has stood by his own ideals very consistently. I had in fact published some of his letters to editors when he was away from Chowk as well.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

stuka #22: ````secular populace`` has no meaning. It is the government that can be secualr if it does not adopt an official religion.``

Secular populace is the most important factor in secularism. I am surprised, you think it has no meaning. India is currently not a secular state, even though its govt. is secular, legally and Constituionally speaking. This is because the tendencies of its population are not secular - or no longer secular.

``The legal system in India and Pakistan was completly the same, an inheritence of British Common Law and Indian traditions.``

This is true. And to the best of my knowledge, the British left behind a secular system. Hence your claim of India, not being secular, is incorrect - at least at the govt. level. Even at the populace level, I would say a majority of the Indians wanted a secular state, judging by their support of Congress. A secular state, need not be, 100% secular. It always has religious oppositions.

The pitch given by the leaders of the two countries was quite different though. Jinnah, wanted a country for Muslims. While Nehru wanted everyone, regardless of religion, to live in one country. I assume you do see the differences in this.

``Pakistan did not seperate from India``

If you want to look at it technically, then yes. Pakistan did not separate from the India of today. But it did separate from the India of pre-1947. All texts, Indian or Pakistan, that I have read, refer to Pakistan breaking away from India. In fact, one of the major lines pitched by Indians, used to be (before the rise of BJP) that Pakistan was wrong to separate from India (the word British Empire was not used, since all Indians agree that Pakistan should have broken away from the British).

``was a ``Muslim Majority`` country seperating from a Hindu Majority one.``

This is exactly what I stated. A Muslim majority separated from a country which was by design secular (unless you think India was not by design secular in 1947). All secular countries have a majority of one religion or the other. In India`s case, it was Hinduism. However, Nehru and Co. did not want a religious system of govt.

``The above two points illustrate the hollowness of your claim that raison d`etre of Pakistan was a non secular state.``

Please try to first understand my claims, before declaring them hollow. If you cannot understand them, then ask me. I did not say the raison d`etre of Pakistan was non-secular. I stated that there are contradictions in its raison d`etre. They should be obvious to everyone. Anyone can thus, twist its raison d`etre to suit whatever they want, yet, no one can put up a convincing argument, in either direction. They can just convince the already convinced, and use Jinnah etc. to suit their claims. Jinnah pushed the secular agenda when it suited him and he pushed the religion argument, when it suited him. I think he had good reason in pushing both, and was correct whenever he pushed either. And he realized the reality of the situation, and did not force either down the throats of Pakistanis. He just wanted to ensure that Pakistan did not become a theocratic state. That was his biggest fear, which he mentioned in his speeches.

Anyone who thinks Jinnah was absolutely clear, at a public level, on what he wanted Pakistan to be, has done very little research on the subject. Jinnah, wasn`t even sure whether he wanted an independent Pakistan, up til a few years before independence. He wasn`t even sure whether the Punjab and NWFP leadership would vote for Pakistan, well into the 40s. And he wasn`t even sure, what would constitute the boundaries of Pakistan, till almost the last days. How in the world, could he have a clear vision of a country, he wasn`t even sure he wanted to create?

I will present some history of the speeches to you, which will highlight how extemproneous they were, i.e. he did not plan m,any of the famous statements, he just spoke them as they came to his mind. Unfortunately, too many Pakistanis, are unwilling to discuss Jinnah on a historic basis, without biases. They just want to quote him, out of context, to suit their agendas. Discussion of history should never be tainted with subjectivity.

I do agree with you that people need to look ahead now, and not get locked into what one person wanted 55 years ago. One cannot live in the past.

I don`t have my own definition of secularism. There is a standard definition of Secularism: ``The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.`` (www.dictionary.com)

Stuka,

I agree with your estimate. Ok... So say I agree to the name `Islamic Republic of Pakistan` and we create a state which is secular all but in name. Ok.. but tommorow a Naqshbandi starts creating trouble and saying out loud `Pakistan calls itself Islamic Republic, but why isn`t it Islamic?`` When you surrender on little things like these... you are giving the religious fanatics a foot in the door.

Ok so Jinnah died in 1948 and we have whitewashed his views on the state, but the words of the Hindu MPs who spoke out against the Objectives Resolution still ring true.


Romair,

Kindly list the achievements of the MMA government in NWFP except the banning of Western Dress and forcing women to wear the Burqah? MMA Government in NWFP is going to be the end of the Mullah in of itself.

BTW It says a lot for the `balance` in your posts is that the only person supporting you is Naqshbandi.


Nazarhayat Khan:

I agree with you ... Jinnah wasn`t vague at all. His statement `Pakistan shall not be a theocracy run by priests with a divine mission` was almost prophetic of what is going on in NWFP... the MMA government has made real a mess of things there... apparently we are now to forget all the true ends of Government as per Locke Hobbes and Salmond... the only true end of Government is to force women to wear Burqahs.

Jinnah had clearly foreseen this then which is why he wanted these `priests with a divine mission` out of politics. Forget even the idealistic human rights angle of secularism... it is a practical necessity for the state to simply survive.



ArjunM,

If you read closely, I don`t agree with the Websites` figures either. However it is not a random website but the mouthpiece of the Pakistan Christian Congress which is the convening body of the All Pakistan Minorities alliance.

The truth is somewhere between the 3% official Government figures (CIA Factbook relies of census figures carried out by the country`s administration), and the 10-12% claimed by various minority groups and NGOs. My own estimate is 7-8% and this is the accepted view amongst the Human Rights Activists etc. Acha let us assume that Pakistan Government is right, and there are only 3% Non-Muslims in Pakistan.. that is still 4.5 Million people (As opposed to 12.2 million that I estimate).... Are the rights of those people not important? Should I stop fighting for them because it bothers you Arjun?

I wonder what angle you have in hoping for the plight of Pakistani minorities to continue? And what is this insecurity you have? Why do always feel the need to prove that you Indians are better than pakistan? Accepted.... You Indians are DA BOMB, and we are the scum. Arjun, does that satisfy your various insecurities? Phallic size maybe?



Naqshbandi,

``As for Mawlana Noorani--if only all the factions within the Ahle Sunnat would also vote for him he could be Pakistan`s saviour insha Allah!``

I`ll give you one guess at what Maulana Noorani has in common with Michael Jackson. Amazing... an Ahle-sunnat savior for a country founded by a Shia.

-Manto

rsidhar,

It has become a Muslim country and an Islamic ideological state. Have you ever seen me deny that? Should I then stop struggling for my own ideals?

Stuka

On Jinnah`s vision ... it remains relevant only because when Mullahs claim that Pakistan was founded as an Islamic state, Jinnah is an effective rebuttal.

-Manto

The original bill included the clause: `Western Dress is unislamic`.

It was after the ANP (Frontier Gandhi`s son`s party) legislators got up and repeatedly pointed towards Jinnah`s picture (with the suit) that the Mullahs were forced to amend this clause. Do you understand how that old boy still remains material to pakistani politics?
If yes would you mind explaining it to Feroze K as well?

Had it not been for that long dead Jinnah, NWFP legislature would have declared western dress unIslamic, and hence it would become an apostasy to wear Pant and shirt.

-Manto

``The result has been that the very Mullahs that Jinnah fought so hard to defeat, today stand ready to bulldoze whatever is left of Jinnah’s vision.``

Wake up pakistanis, jinnah is dead. One should not even think of living in another mans dream. Pakistan of today is the outcome of the actions of pakistanis, and it is time that you all accept it. The evolution of pakistan has not been haphzard, it has followed a patters of evolving into a unique versuion of islam, jihadic islam.
Jihadists are going across afghanistan now and killing. They are coming to kashmir and killing. They are coming to delhi and killing. They have gove to the US to kill. Start accepting the reality of unique pak version of islam, jiahdic islam.
Now most of the saudi funds are cut, and it is the abduls of pakistan through a few paises from every one supporting their vision of pakistan, a jihadic pakistan.

#38, nazarhayatkhan:
Standing ovation to you!!
Could you write an article on the developments in Pakistan during 1947 to 1950. That will put alot of things in perspective since I am confident that you have the decency, objectivity and goodwill to do justice to truth.

sameerjb:

from what i hear, part of the deal the MMA is to strike with the gvt. invovles allowing the assembly legislature to control and regulate the finances of the local bodies. This is MMA`s demand as the provincial MPA`s aren`t happy at the local bodies officials who came to power earlier. Obviously, with the acceptance of this demand, local bodies will dead. So this is once area where MMA`s influence will increase.

Personally I feel insulted. I had actually thought these local bodies would be of some value and had gone around helping put up advertisements as well as help organize gatherings and rallies for garnering votes for a friend who was running as a labor councilor-nothing hi fi but a little contribution all the same. What a total waste and a sham. The same friend was then kidnapped by a serving brigadier to make sure he and others vote for Mian Aamir as the chief Nazim of Lahore.

re:#31 by Mantolives
Would you deny that Pak, which started out as a ``country for muslims`` has not become a ``muslim country``?
Sridhar