Unsettling Precedents for Pakistan

#6 by Naqshbandi on September 11, 2003

``complete and deliberate destruction of Iraq`s civilian infrastructure, use of cluster bombs in civilian areas, daisy cutters, depleted uranium bombs and the directly related deaths of at least 10, 000 Iraqi civilians``

Do you have any evidence that Daisy Cutters were used in Iraq?

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

zeynab74 # 70

USA will try to buy off Pakistan. But Pakistan cannot persist with support of terrorists and nuclear technology deals. If Pakistani military persists in their nefarious activities USA will have no choice but to dismantle the Pakistani regime.

Pakistan is a lot easier than Iraq in some ways - hostile neighbors India and Iran. Nobody cares if Pakistan is balkanized. Pakistan has no oil.

zeynab74 # 70

Excellent article in Time on Pakistan`s dealings with US

# 38 ijaz_gul

It is indeed unfortunate that the Pakistan government continues to follow up with its centre-periphery relationship with the US, paying no heed to the forewarnings coming even from within the US itself such as by all the people that you mentioned. Our policy makers are obviously living in some kind of a delusional reality, almost believing that all of Pakistan’s problems will vanish away one day like a bad dream.

# 17 dost_mittar

You wrote “ Pakistan need not worry about an American invasion in the short or even medium term. The US hands will be full with Iraq for a long time to come. However, if the Afghanistan situation keeps worsening and more evidence of the Pakistani collusion in supporting taliban keeps emerging, then all bets are off. In the long run, the security of Pakistan lies in not continuing to make itself and its relationship with India a hostage to the Kashmir issue. The support for jihadis in Pakistan will continue to be strong as long as hostility with India continues.”

I totally agree with you, Pakistan would be doing itself a favor if it decides to let the Kashmir issue a back seat for a while. I believe the same contention would be true for India too.

Like I said in my article, ‘Pakistan will never face a US invasion like Iraq’ for various reasons. Apart from the economic disincentive, as you mentioned, the disaster in Iraq should make the US think twice about invading another country soon, specially so with the dwindling support within the US public for such military escapades. I worry not about the US invading Pakistan, but more about Pakistan’s never ending dependency on the US which allows it to manipulate our policies in every way possible and figuratively leaves us caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

# 6 Naqshbandi

In retrospect I do agree with your point about the destruction of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure etc. I must admit to my opinion being inadvertently influenced by the ‘liberal’ voice of the US media in this regard. There’s a price you pay for living in this side of the world I suppose.

#4, #8 stuka

This article was meant to be thought provoking, not necessarily alarming. Although, given the incessantly apathetic attitude of our ruling elite, it would do no one harm to be alarmed for a change....I do believe our policymakers need a real wake up call !

I am sorry to have offended you but my opinion was based on actual statements made by Indian politicians like Brajesh Mishra who said in June this year, `India is a regional power and should be treated like one` and Jaswant Singh who proclaimed last year `Pakistan should not equate itself with India in any way, we are not just a neighbor we are a growing world power`.

That is not to say that this is untrue, India is in a totally different league from Pakistan with its superior social, economic and human resource development and it would do us a great deal of good as Pakistanis if we stop competing with India and focus on developing our own resources. And by the way I too do resent statements like those made by Mr. Advani saying `terrorism in India is an outgrowth of Pakistan`s frustration at its own lack of progress`.

#13 Banjaara

Yes, Shahid Zulfiqar is my father

# 38 ijaz_gul

It is indeed unfortunate that the Pakistan government continues to follow up with its centre-periphery relationship with the US, paying no heed to the forewarnings coming even from within the US itself such as by all the people that you mentioned. Our policy makers are obviously living in some kind of a delusional reality, almost believing that all of Pakistan’s problems will vanish away one day like a bad dream.

# 17 dost_mittar

“ Pakistan need not worry about an American invasion in the short or even medium term. The US hands will be full with Iraq for a long time to come. However, if the Afghanistan situation keeps worsening and more evidence of the Pakistani collusion in supporting taliban keeps emerging, then all bets are off.
In the long run, the security of Pakistan lies in not continuing to make itself and its relationship with India a hostage to the Kashmir issue. The support for jihadis in Pakistan will continue to be strong as long as hostility with India continues.”

I totally agree with you, Pakistan would be doing itself a favor if it decides to let the Kashmir issue a back seat for a while. I believe the same contention would be true for India too.

Like I said in my article, ‘Pakistan will never face a US invasion like Iraq’ for various reasons. Apart from the economic disincentive, as you mentioned, the disaster in Iraq should make the US think twice about invading another country soon, specially so with the dwindling support within the US public for such military escapades. I worry not about the US invading Pakistan, but more about Pakistan’s never ending dependency on the US which figuratively leaves us caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

# 6 Naqshbandi
In retrospect I do agree with your point about the destruction of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure etc. I must admit to my opinion being inadvertently influenced by the ‘liberal’ voice of the US media in this regard. There’s a price you pay for living in this side of the world I suppose.

#4, #8 stuka

This article was meant to be thought provoking, not necessarily alarming. Although, given the incessantly apathetic attitude of our ruling elite, it would do no one harm to be alarmed for a change....I do believe our policymakers need a real wake up call !

I am sorry to have offended you but my opinion was based on actual statements made by Indian politicians like Brajesh Mishra who said in June this year, `India is a regional power and should be treated like one` and Jaswant Singh who proclaimed last year `Pakistan should not equate itself with India in any way, we are not just a neighbor we are a growing world power`.

That is not to say that this is untrue, India is in a totally different league from Pakistan with its superior social, economic and human resource development and it would do us a great deal of good as Pakistanis if we stop competing with India and focus on developing our own resources. And by the way I too do resent statements like those made by Mr. Advani saying `terrorism in India is an outgrowth of Pakistan`s frustration at its own lack of progress`.

#13 Banjaara

Yes, Shahid Zulfiqar is my father.

Question: Why Mush wants Niazi`s Revolver back desperately? He could have requested for it!

No, having lost the 1971 war, he wants to steal it so that he can even question the fact of surrender by Niazi and ask everybody to show the proof that any surrender ever happened.

IMA displays Niazi`s revolver- PTI

The Indian Military Academy Commandant, Lt. Gen. T.S. Shergill, showing the revolver handed over by Lt. Gen. A. K. Niazi during Pakistan`s surrender in the 1971 war, at the academy in Dehra Dun on Monday. — PTI

Dehra Dun June 30. The Indian Military Academy (IMA) today displayed before the media the revolver handed over by Lt. Gen. A.K.A. Niazi, during Pakistan`s surrender in the 1971 war and said the security around the museum where it has been kept was being strengthened in view of the theft of a pistol from the National Museum in New Delhi last week.

The pistol, which was earlier believed to have belonged to Lt. Gen. Niazi, went missing on Saturday from the Maritime Heritage Gallery.

The IMA Commandant, Lt. Gen. T.S. Shergill, displaying the revolver and photographs showing its surrender to Lt. Gen. J.S. Aurora, Army`s Eastern Commander in Dhaka, said ``the priceless symbol of our glorious victory was brought to the alma mater and presented to the then IMA Commandant, Lt. Gen. M.Thomas, on December 9, 1982 by Aurora during the golden jubilee celebrations.``

The revolver, which came from the Eastern Command at Kolkotta where it was lying since the surrender ceremony, had been at the IMA museum here since then, he told reporters.

The weapon ``has a very emotive value and is a source of inspiration for out cadets and future Army officers,`` Lt. Gen. Shergill said.

The IMA chief showed a photograph of the handing over of the weapon by Lt. Gen. Aurora to Lt. Gen. M. Thomas in 1982.

On the left side of the weapon is written ``Lt. Gen. Niazi`s personal weapon`` and on the other ``surrendered to Lt. Gen. Aurora PVSM, 1971``.

would like all to read the post for a better historiography on

GENESIS OF RUTHLESS AUTHORITARIANISM AND UNDEMOCRATIC MODE OF GOVERNANCE IN THE EARLY YEARS OF PAKISTAN(1947-’55) [PART I and II]

By M. Waheeduzzaman Manik

#184 by mwzaman on January 3, 2000 1:04am PT

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00000687&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&page=1&chapter=1

I know that one chapter on our present benevolant dictator would also be added to it by future historiographers which would make our succeeding generations wiser !!

gr8 article by young pakistan auther in dailytimes.pk
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-9-2003_pg3_4

Saad Anis

Op-ed: A policy of deceit

Our people have rigid and erroneous opinions on serious issues. Instead of being objective and logical, they are irrational and ignorant. Such an attitude is not surprising, considering the flagrant storytelling prevalent in our educational system

Presenting a distorted version of events to the people is an odious practice but it has been the norm in our country ever since independence. The people are continuously fed propaganda and lies. The objective is to paint a picture that vindicates the stance of the state on the matter at hand, no matter how unjust and incongruous the reality. The history that is taught in educational institutions throughout Pakistan is a case in point; this version of history is replete with half-truths and, in some cases, blatant fibs.

Innumerable examples can be quoted in this regard. Take the Indo-Pak war of 1965. Even today, almost four decades after the altercation, a large majority of our countrymen still believes, in accordance with the propaganda that it has been fed, that India initiated the conflict. One can still vividly recall the many textual lessons recounting how, one night, our devious enemy slipped into our territory unprovoked, with the treacherous aim of destroying our homeland. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

What all such texts fail to mention is the fact that in August 1965, two military operations were launched by the Pakistan government into Indian-held Kashmir. Armed militants infiltrated across the ceasefire line (now the LoC), with the aim of inciting a revolt which would allow the Pakistan army to take Srinagar. It was in reply to these incursions that India launched an offensive on Lahore. It was an act of retaliation, not one of pre-emption. Sadly, we are only told the latter half of the whole affair.

In the same pattern, the Dhaka Debacle, the dismemberment of East Pakistan, makes a truncated appearance in our institutionalised version of history. If the issue is ever brought up, which is rare, it is the usual rant of the entire episode being a conspiracy hatched by the evil Indians. While it is true that India was guilty of gross interference in the Dhaka tragedy, one cannot overlook the fact that the separation of East Pakistan was brought about by decades of West Pakistani dictatorial policies and subsequent Bengali deprivation.

What we are not taught in schools is how Bengali dissent was suppressed when the language issue arose in 1948, or how the substantial Hindu population of East Pakistan was unthinkingly alienated by the Objectives Resolution in 1949. The unfair and unjust treatment consistently meted out to the East is conveniently forgotten.

In 1963, more than half the population of Pakistan comprised Bengalis, whereas the army contained a paltry six per cent Bengali personnel. A similar incongruity plagues the civil services. By 1969, the per capita income of the West was 61 per cent higher than that of the East. The famous dictum that ‘the defence of the East lies in the West’ was a political disaster, whatever its worth in military terms. Instead of highlighting the mistakes made and learning from them, subsequent administrations have embarked upon a futile tirade against Indian interference. None have had the moral courage to point out that the West looked upon East Pakistan as a mere colony.

The advocates of feeding the people a doctored account of history argue that it is imperative for maintaining national morale. They point out that as a nation, we already have to contend with much adversity. Hence presenting a distorted account of history is essential for maintaining high spirits and patriotism. The conclusion is that a biased account of contentious issues is portrayed for the greater good of the country. This is a hollow argument to say the least.

The proponents of this custom do not realise that by keeping the public in the dark, they are endorsing violent jingoism not prudent patriotism. As a result of the misinformation, our people have rigid and erroneous opinions on serious issues. Instead of being objective and logical, they are irrational and ignorant. Such an attitude is not surprising, considering the flagrant storytelling prevalent in our curricula.

Predictably, this approach backfires. Whenever any government tries to adopt a rational policy on any issue, there is a vituperative public backlash. The Kashmir issue is a telling example. Today, the people of Pakistan are unwilling to accept a compromise on Kashmir because of the propaganda they have been fed in the past.

They think the accession of Kashmir to India was illegal, as the majority of the people there are Muslims; rightly it should have seceded to Pakistan. Once again, what most people are unaware of is the fact that according to the rules of partition of the Indian subcontinent, the fate of princely states was to be ascertained solely by their rulers. The populace of the state did not have a say in it, nor were the religious or ethnic affiliations of the people the guiding principles. Thus Maharaja Hari Singh’s accession to India was perfectly legal on that account. In fact, by invoking the same rule, Junagadh, a state with a Muslim ruler but a Hindu majority population, initially acceded to Pakistan. In fact Pakistan still lays claim to the state though it is not an issue that is ever brought up.

Similarly, the Indian army is portrayed as the only perpetrator of inhuman atrocities in the Valley. But the fact is that the militant organisations fighting in Kashmir have also been involved in numerous incidences of violence against the local populace. Owing to the convenient transformation of the Kashmir issue into a religious one, the killing of innocent Kashmiri youngsters by militants simply because the former are not willing to turn to violence has become commonplace. However, our governments ignore this aspect of the conflict.

History is documented so that nations learn from their mistakes. However, by distorting it to suit vested interests, we are nurturing a self-righteous and misinformed population. This policy of deceit will continue to harm the very national interest that it avowedly protects.

Saad Anis is a student at Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Technology

An Encore!
To counter bullukhan`s spam and Harimou`s silly post.

---

#58 by echoboom on September 14, 2003 8:54pm PT
ROMAIR:
This would clear up the garbage being spewed by non-muslims and anti-Islamists.
Zaid, a slave, was adopted BEFORE the beloved-one (pbuh) was a prophet. The wisdom and beauty of the annulment of this practice would be appreciated by all.

Also, inheritence law allow to bequeath 1/3rd of one`s wealth in whichever manner one wants to do so.

Temporal is absolutely right. Thanks to Iranian revolution, Salman Rushdie, Gulf War 1 & 2, and the Twin-towers the yearning for learning is red-hot and we are all, willy-nilly, acquiring madressa education. Even commies, infidels and atheists are scampering to learn.
What they know not is that several rabbis, pundits, bishops/archbishops, mahints, and gurus started learning precisely to counter Islam and ended up its respected adherents and servants.

[Pickthall and Asad, the former Churchills buddy & promising englishman and latter a rabbi,
are well-known translaters of the Qura`an. Asad, a polish jew, was also Pakistan`s first permanent ambassador to UN in 1948.]

There is no other choice for a muslim or an apostate to ignore Islam. The Blanket would just not let go.

THERE IS A DESIGN INDEED!

---

Adoption is forbidden in Islam. But according to authentic Hadiths related by Al-Bukhari, the Prophet adopted a son named Zaid.

Both statements of the prohibition of adoption in Islam and the Prophet`s adoption of Zaid are correct. The explanation of these two apparently contradictory facts lies in their chronological order.

Zaid ibn Haritha was a young child when he was kidnapped by fighters who raided the living quarters of his tribe when their men were out on their business. Zaid was sold as a slave and he ended up in Makkah when he was given as a gift by her uncle to Khadeejah, who later was married to Muhammad, her third husband. At that time, he was 25 years of age. Lady Khadeejah was a rich woman who married Muhammad, having learned much about his character which filled her with admiration. At that time, Muhammad was being carefully prepared by Allah for his forthcoming mission as the last prophet to be sent to mankind. Needless to say, neither he nor Khadeejah knew anything at that time. Prophet-hood came 15 years after his marriage.

Khadeejah made a gift of Zaid to her husband so that he would have a good servant.

Zaid`s father was full of grief when he learned of what had happened to his son. He tried hard to find out where he was carried to. Perhaps, it was a few years before he learned that Zaid was in Makkah, a slave in one of its most distinguished households. He, therefore, traveled with his brother hoping to buy his son`s freedom. When they spoke to Muhammad about Zaid, they requested him to agree to sell Zaid back to them and to accept a reasonable price for him. He made them a different offer saying: ``I will charge you nothing. If he prefers to stay with me, I will not part with anyone who prefers my company.`` They said: ``This is indeed a very reasonable offer.`` When Zaid was called in, Muhammad asked him whether he recognized the two men. On receiving an affirmative answer, Muhammad offered him the choice of going back or staying with him. Unhesitatingly, Zaid chose to stay with Muhammad saying to his father and his uncle, ``I have seen things of this man which make me keen never to part with him.`` When Zaid made his choice, Muhammad took him by the hand and went to the Ka`aba where he addressed the people present saying to them: ``Bear witness that I have adopted Zaid as a son who will inherit me and I will inherit him.`` Zaid`s father was gratified and he went back home with his brother.

This is how the adoption of Zaid by the Prophet came to pass, long before he became a prophet. Ever since that day, Zaid was called in Makkah and everywhere else as ``Zaid ibn Muhammad.`` This continued to be the case throughout the 13 years during which the Prophet preached his message in Makkah and in the early years of his stay in Madinah. It was later that the verses of the Qur`an which speak of adoption were revealed. These make it clear that adoption is prohibited and that every adopted son or daughter must be called after his or her real father. This automatically abrogated the adoption of Zaid who reverted to his original name, Zaid ibn Haritha, in compliance with Allah`s orders.

The Prophet was very kind to Zaid through their association. He arranged Zaid`s marriage to his own wet nurse Umm Ayman who gave birth to Zaid`s son Ussamah, whom the Prophet loved very dearly. Later on, the Prophet married Zaid to his own cousin, Lady Zainab, who only accepted the marriage to please the Prophet. The marriage was an unhappy one and Zaid reluctantly divorced Zainab. The seal on the prohibition was placed by Allah Himself when He instructed the Prophet to marry Zainab. Thus, the Prophet demonstrated practically the nullification of all adoption. Had adoption been of any significance, it would not have been possible that the Prophet marries a former wife of his former adopted son. The fact that the marriage took place and was specifically ordered by Allah left no doubt whatsoever that adoption is totally forbidden in Islam.

---

What the evil-ones like hamidm, the alcoholic islam-hater, just can`t figure out is that the beloved-one (pbuh) could have married this cousin himself in the first place.

CHOWK is becoming better & better and is a good place to understand Islam. THe evil-ones are providing a yeomens service here--just like Rushdie and Osama did.

Staying in the news is staying alive--in today`s multi-media savvy world.

Ref echoboom #58

Somewhere I read that one of the Moghuls married his half-sister. I can look up the details if you want.

Is this also permissible under Islam?

To the admirers of dictators. Here is one eye opener:

The rewards for being a U.S. terrorist arm in South Asia have been lucrative for the Pakistan military`s officer corps. During the war against the Soviets, Afghanistan supplied 60% of the U.S.`s heroin. Pakistani generals ``were deeply involved`` in this drug trade, and three of them were counted amongst the twelve richest generals in the world.

The most prominent was General Fazle Haq, known as ``Pakistan`s Noriega.`` Haq was appointed governor of the Northwest Frontier Province (bordering Afghanistan) by General Zia-ul Haq, Pakistan`s military dictator during 1977-1988. As governor, Fazle Haq was in charge of Mujahideen military operations. He also protected the production of 200 heroin labs near the border. In 1982, Interpol identified Haq as ``a key player in the Afghan-Pakistani opium trade.`` Haq. who had $3 million in his bank account, was protected from drug investigations by Zia and the CIA.

In 1993, Raoolf Ali Khan, Pakistan`s representative to the UN Commission on Narcotics, said that ``there is no branch of government where drug corruption does not pervade.`` The CIA reported to the U.S. Congress in 1994 that heroin had become ``the life-blood of the Pakistani economy and political system.``

Drug trafficking is just one part of the Pakistani military`s parasitism. The armed forces own an airline, sugar mills, chemical plants, a cereal factory, and several hospitals. Officers and their families are supplied with free servants, education, and medical care, and the best real estate in large cities is reserved for them.

The price for their country`s being a U.S. terrorist base has been paid by the Pakistani people, who for 55 years have been massacred, tortured, denied education (the illiteracy rate in Pakistan is 90%), medical care, housing, adequate nutrition, and political rights. Pakistan ranks near the bottom of the UN`s list of countries by every measure of human development, including infant mortality, life expectancy, the poverty rate, and the population growth rate.
Published in The CCPA Monitor, June 2002
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

This is another post regarding our benevolent dictators

An Ex-Army Officer Questions the Khaki Agenda

By AH Amin

WE START with the premise that religion was employed by the Muslim elite right from the very beginning to galvanize the Muslim masses. The masses were galvanized to fight and die in the name of Islam, while the elite classes reaped the harvest. While this was the case from the earliest Muslim invasions of India we shall only discuss Pakistan`s power equation in its present historical context.

The Indo Pak Muslims played a leading part in the 1857 rebellion while the vast bulk of the army that rebelled in 1857 was Hindu. After 1857 the Muslim elite adopted a policy of ``loyalism`` to the British.This policy continued till 1947 and after 1947 the British were replaced by the Americans.

Symbolically although it may sound unpleasant one may compare the Indo Pak Muslims of pre 1947 as a damsel, half raped by Hindu and Sikh resurgence saved by an English knight in the shining armour i.e. the ``English East India Company``. It is unheroic, but remains a fact. By 1803 Delhi the old Muslim capital was firmly in Hindu Maratha hands while Muslim majority Punjab and Frontier was firmly under Sikh control. Muslim ruled Sindh and Bahawalpur were only saved from Sikh occupation since the Treaty of Amritsar of 1809 between the English Company and Sikhs forbade Sikh expansion east of Sutlej and in Sindh.

The Indian Muslims were politically backward and saved from political extinction once the British for their own reasons of divide and rule granted them right of separate electorate in 1909.

The major Muslim leader of pre 1947 Mr Jinnah was initially a pork eating, whiskey drinking Indian nationalist but was forced to adopt slogans of Muslim communalism since Gandhi and Nehru sidelined him from main Indian nationalist leadership since Jinnah was not a Hindu, although Nehru was only a born Hindu and an atheist at heart.

Thus Mr Jinnah without the religious slogan was confined to Muslim minority provinces in 1937 elections. The approach of Second World War and Congress`s anti British stand afforded Jinnah with an opportunity to side with the British Raj in WW Two by encouraging Muslim support to British war effort. The British viceroy Linlithgow then asked Jinnah that he must have a concrete slogan. Thus emerged the Pakistan Resolution of 1940.

In 1947 Mr Jinnah concluded that since now the British who had saved the Indian Muslims from Hindu domination were gone he must find new protectors. Thus the US -Pakistan collaboration.

Mr Jinnah`s successors were removed by the military usurper Ayub in 1958 and Ayub attempted to transform Pakistan into a relatively modern state led by a monopoly of industrialists and feudals. The attempt failed in 1969.

Pakistan`s first and only major ideological leader was Mr ZA Bhutto who coined the term ``Islamic Socialism``. Bhutto created Pakistan`s only solid political party and galvanized the masses by slogans of Islamic Socialism and egalitarianism. Bhutto`s ideological appeal and charisma survived his judicial murder by the military usurper Zia.

Bhutto`s party remained engaged in struggle with the military junta and won the 1988 elections held in the aftermath of the dictator Zia`s aircraft crash.

1988 was the turning point in Pakistan`s political history. Bhutto`s opportunistic daughter Benazir exchanged ideology for power. The army and its intelligence set up and a conservative president was given a share in the power and the great Bhutto`s daughter excelled not in socialist policies but in financial deals.

This situation enabled the military junta to replace Bhutto by a military backed Nawaz Sharif twice in 1990 and 1997. By 1997 Nawaz became politically mature and turned the tables on the military sacking first a naval chief on charges of corruption in a submarine deal and then the army chief General Karamat for corruption charges in the Ukrainian tank deal.

Nawaz then led Pakistan while Pakistan detonated its nuclear device in 1998 and then went forward to make peace with India which was sabotaged by the army`s Kargil faux pas.

Nawaz was overthrown by Musharraf in October 1999 once Nawaz was also planning to remove Musharraf.

Musharraf came to power with high ideals and promises to eliminate corruption but ultimately used the army`s coercive anti corruption organ NAB designed to eliminate corruption to buy corrupt politicians to form a pro military party PML Q.

The events of 9/11 proved that the Pakistani military junta had no guts to resist American pressure and the post 9/11 Pakistani policy again proved a watershed since it divorced the army from Islamic ideology and adventurism which the military had used to secure its very personal trade union of generals agenda since 1958.

The following are the salient features of Pakistan`s power equation:

1. All political parties are now directly or indirectly manipulated by the army`s intelligence agencies either by blackmail, by coercive policies of NAB for involvement in corruption cases or by confinement of various political leaders in jail.Nawaz Sharif and company are politically sidelined, financially on the retreat since their businesses are nearly blocked, and keen to compromise with the army who no longer needs them. Benazir has no ideological agenda and wants power. She lobbies in the West that she is West`s best bet against fundamentalism, an idea which no longer sells since General Musharraf has already proved that he is US` s best collaborator. The religious MMA despite all its slogans of Islam is either in league with the military intelligence or blackmailed by the agencies or keen to enjoy the rewards of power.

2. The judiciary has been bought by the army or reduced to impotence.

3. The common man is in the grip of inflation and unemployment and is disillusioned with politics.

4. The smaller provinces i.e. Baluchistan and Sindh are sidelined and can in the future incline towards secession at some stage.

5. The army has destroyed or corrupted all major political and other institutions and is now fully involved in business and commercial activities of all types.

6. The country`s majority province Punjab is led by collaborator politicians who have agreed to be loyal to the military since their corruption has been condoned by the military.

7. The elite classes and the middle classes are by and large in favor of the military junta since it promises order and security.

Out of this the following scenario emerges:

1. The US can very conveniently strike any deal with Pakistan`s military junta ignoring Pakistani masses aspirations and all political parties since no Pakistani party has any ideology or agenda less personal interest.

2. Within 5 years Pakistan would be as irrelevant to the region as Mexico is to North America or Bhutan to India.

3. The Pakistani politicians if need be would as easily compromise with any occupying power whether it is India or US just to continue to enjoy their personal perks and privileges.

4. At some stage the Pakistani military would lose so much of its credibility that it would no longer be able to control the situation. This is because within the next five years war would no longer be the favored form of policy and the existing geopolitical situation would demand that India and Pakistan`s huge military establishments are reduced.

Conclusion

If this was to be the future of a state created in the name of ideology,sacrificing millions in the name of religion, a united India was a better option.

If the Pakistani state was destined to be ruled by corrupt politicians and generals it would have been better if India was not divided.

But British imperial interest and the interests of the elite classes demanded otherwise. Thus the whole farce in the name of religion. Self deception par excellence!

The writer is a former Pakistan Army Officer and a military analyst and has written several books.

Another post for army lovers

How Army Generals will become billionaires, overnight

Special SAT Report

RAWALPINDI: Top Pakistan Army Generals, and their fortunate juniors, who own prime property in the heart of Islamabad’s sister city, Rawalpindi, are on the verge of turning into billionaires over night.

According to well informed insiders a summary is being prepared recommending that Rawalpindi’s busy Peshawar Road and the posh Mall Road, where army officers predominantly own large properties, be declared as Commercial areas, thus multiplying the value of these properties several times over in one stroke.

The question being raised is why this concession is being restricted to these areas? Insiders confide that it is being done because one of the top most Generals owns land right next to the old Frontier Works Organization (FWO) Headquarters on Peshawar Road and wants to put up a gas station and build a commercial plaza, without paying the conversion fee.

Conversion of residential property to commercial is allowed even now but a hefty fees has to be paid by the owner and that restricts many from opting for the change. If the change is ordered by the Government under a new policy, everybody will benefit though the exchequer may lose.

Real estate experts say one General, owner of a major hospital, who has taken possession of the old Supreme Court building on Peshawar Road on the pretext of running a social welfare outfit, will see the value of his land multiply into billions. The same will be true for all those retired or serving property owners in this area.

Peshawar Road and Mall Road are two of the busiest places in Rawalpindi and properties are pre-dominantly owned by army personnel as this is the center of the military presence, with the Army GHQ located on the Mall Road itself, close to the biggest hotel of Rawalpindi.

There are also reports that conversions in the Saddar Area, which had been limited into a time frame with a cut off date, may now be given a further extension to enable owners to apply if they could not do it so far.

The extension is being done to benefit another top notch General, whose family had earlier shown lethargy in getting its property located near Hati Chowk in Saddar, converted into a new commercial lease.

The management of all properties in military controlled “Cantonment areas” was the sole right of Army authorities but the second Government of Benazir Bhutto cut into this huge commercial asset and changed the old British Act to take discretion away from the Quarter Master General of the Army and the Ministry of Defense.

This Benazir decision raised alarm bells in the GHQ as this meant public scrutiny of whatever would happen in the future in the Cantt areas and was one of the main reasons why the Army hates Benazir Bhutto as an institution.

Under the amended law a policy was drawn up by the Ministry of Defense, but bureaucrats played their tricks with the PPP government and formulated a much softer policy, whittling down the intent of Benazir’s directive in many ways.

One constraint plugged in was that all property owners desirous of converting from old grant to new lease or for converting from residential to commercial must do so within three years.

Secondly, the fee for conversion was to be determined by a Committee headed by Army’s General Officer Commanding (GOC). The other members were Station Commander, Log Area Commander etc. Due to public objections, however, the latter was modified and fixed rates were announced for conversion from residential to commercial.

Most private property owners continued to pay the rather steep fees for conversions. But now if the law is changed and officially a particular area is declared as commercial, it would mean a windfall for the owners.

The summary being prepared under quiet instructions of the top Generals would put the new political government of Mr. Jamali in a difficult position as it would be seen by all as a special favor to the military owners of property.

Interestingly the Ministry of Defense is again headed by a top PPP leader, Rao Sikandar, who has defected from the mainstream PPP to join the Forward Bloc in support of the pro-army government of Mr. Jamali.

But the political leader who will face the toughest time explaining any such decisions would be Information Minister and Rawalpindi’s popular politician Sheikh Rashid Ahmed. He will have to come up with a lot of arguments to convince his voters and constituents, specially living outside the areas which are to be declared commercial.

Another post for the admirers of our army:

Pakistan eaters
Saturday, January 25 2003 @ 07:39 PM CST
Shehla Butt
An analysis shows what the army does to the country that gives the warriors 45% of its budget every year, putting the future generations in a whirlpool of debt. The exalted image of the Pakistan Army that had taken a lifetime to shape up in my mind has been shattered in the past few months, though the fault has entirely been mine. The generals didn`t change a bit in their thoughts in the last five decades; it was my own perception of them, which was wrong all along. I tried to figure out the `achievements` of our warriors in the 55 years of Pakistan`s existence during which the country used to give them 45% of its national budget every year; in the process, putting its population and the future generations in a whirlpool of debt.

Just look at what the military demands and gets from the nation. Besides their gadgets, meant for display and rhetoric alone, there has been an abundance of personal benefits for the military brass. The expensive and often multiple housing properties, the allotment of choice agricultural land, business ventures through on-job connections, fleets of staff cars, duty-free Mercs for the chiefs, thousands of military batmen for household work and quotas for the warriors and their children in every national facility. Add to it the post-retirement jobs for every general and as many brigadiers and colonels as the army chief can accommodate. At present, there are over a dozen generals in foreign ambassadorial assignments alone. The civilian government sector is teaming with hundreds of military officers either still in uniform or on a post-retirement second (or third) stint. This is in addition to tens of thousands of post-retirement military men who are having a second go at employment. This is happening in a country where educated unemployment is a major curse and has forced thousands of talented young men and women to flee the country in search honourable living elsewhere. Our army brass never tires of its competition with the Indian army, yet never compares their own perks with their counterparts in India. Can the generals of the Indian army even dream of the lifestyle of a Pakistani general, serving or retired? After this colossal dole-out, what is the country getting in return?

Has the army ever done the job that it is (over) paid for? In the summer of 1965, Operation Gibraltar was launched by Pakistan`s GHQ to wrest Kashmir from Indian occupation. Not a bad idea. However, the plan fell apart for it was fallacious in its vision, execution and efficiency. The compounded follies allowed India to launch a full-scale offensive on September 6 on the international border, almost taking Lahore while our generals were napping. In the end, it was Tashkent, which provided `Field Marshall` Ayub with face-saving from a disastrous adventure from which he and the country never recovered. As a cover-up, Ayub`s spin-doctors launched an avalanche of propaganda in the local, government-controlled media to hoodwink the nation that the military machine under his command had `defeated` the Indian army that had `sneaked in the dark`.

A similar stupidity was repeated by General Musharraf in 1999 in taking Kargil heights and expecting India to sit back and watch. For India it turned out to be a military, diplomatic and propaganda victory since they found much support amongst the Americans and the Europeans for their viewpoint. Domestically, it resurrected Vajpayee`s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party government from the political grave. Yet Musharraf called the operation `a great military success` in his typical bombastic manner. In any other country, he would have been court-martialled for the disastrous results. Not in Pakistan!

The 1999 coup was not done to dismiss `corrupt` politicians or sanitise the political scene or restore the country`s pride. Generals in Pakistan always emerge `faultless`. What if they cannot defeat the Indians or liberate Kashmir? They can surely defeat their own countrymen and capture the Prime Minister`s House and parliament in no time! A short recap of 1971, lest we forget the humiliation engraved on our hearts. Then, like in 1965, the military as well as the civil leadership was in army hands. It was November 1971; war clouds were looming over the subcontinent after Indira Ghandhi had publicly declared her desire to capitalise on the `opportunity of a century`. Lt General Amir Abdullah Khan a.k.a. `Tiger` Niazi thumping his chest in front of the foreign journalists, declared that the enemy tanks would have to roll over `his chest` before entering Dhaka. But the enemy did not trouble Niazi`s fragile chest. It captured Dhaka in no time, without him having to offer a fight! Niazi happily handed over his revolver to Lt-Gen Jagjit Singh Arora at the Paltan Maidan ceremony. Rest of Pakistan was just stunned with disbelief and dejection.

The disgraced Tiger Niazi, instead of committing a suicide to salvage some honour for himself and his country, held a kebab party for his victorious enemy counterpart. I am not left with any words to shame him. Other commanders like Maj-Gen Farman Ali, fled for their lives and left 90,000 soldiers of the largest Muslim army in the world to surrender in abject humiliation. With the Indian army concentrating its troops on the East, our GHQ cannot claim that their forces were `heavily outnumbered` in West Pakistan. Yet we lost thousands of kilometers of territory in Shakargarh sector in the Punjab, hundreds of soldiers (perhaps more) were martyred in the deserts of Rajasthan in an abortive `offensive` and strategic heights were lost in Kashmir (that were never regained). It was rather kind of Indira Gandhi (more likely it was American pressure to keep its anchor in Pakistan for future needs), which saved Pakistani Army from total rout. Generals Yahya, Hamid, Pirzada, Mitha etc. were in no position to do anything to save Pakistan. `Brave` Yahya, the C-in-C himself was too drunk, sitting in the laps of entertaining women like Aqleem Akhtar Rani, to be able to think or act.

Yet no heads rolled, no court martial, not even any a mock trial. The diluted Hamoodur Rehman Commission Report was hidden away from the people of Pakistan for 30 years, even denied of its existence. Then it was partially released

---

only when the `Times of India` had put the contents on the Internet for the whole world to see. You would have thought there would be some remorse, some apologies to the nation. ``Come off,`` said Musharraf, the Generalissimo currently in charge, ``the 1971 defeat was not a military defeat. It was the politician`s fault`` (hinting at Zulfikar Ali Bhutto). Having said that, he and his men had plenty of other jobs to do, the most important being the complete conquest of their own countrymen. From Ayub`s losses in 1965, to Yahya in East Pakistan and Kashmir, to Ziaul Haq`s loss of Siachen Glacier to Musharraf`s retreat from Kargil and Afghanistan, there is no shortage of military `achievements`. To compensate, from time to time the army launches military operations to conquer its people. In 1970s it was the operation against the civilians in Balochistan, in the 1990s it was the city of Karachi and now, it is the tribal territories of the Pushtoons, at the behest of our American masters.

The helpless and downtrodden people of Pakistan can do little else to influence their own destiny. For the few who dare to oppose the generals, there is always something to sort them out -- the National Accountability Bureau, some hastily discovered corruption/criminal charges, exile or the gallows! It is sufficient for the generals that a few dozen political prostitutes are always around them, eager to sell themselves out and dance to GHQ tunes to give the generals a fake aura of credibility. The army has always insisted on making every civil institution accountable to them yet has never submitted itself to any civilian check. There is always that bogus logic given to us that the military has a foolproof `internal` accountability system. But like the politicians of our country, the generals as well are neck deep in corruption. Dare anyone ask how the sons of Generals Akhtar Abdur Rehman and Ziaul Haq became billionaires? The late General Fazle Haq was quoted to be the richest general in the world in his days. The Afghan war of 1980s made many generals and brigadiers filthy-rich in Pakistan, from kickbacks and even worse crimes that better not be discussed here.

Why is there no talk about the one billion dollars spent on that white elephant called the Al-Khalid tank project. After spending all that money, what was the need to look for tanks from Ukraine and that too under suspicious financial deals? And why is no one taking General Mirza Aslam Beg to task, making him accountable for the 100 million rupees of public money that he squandered on political dish-outs. Benazir Bhutto in her tenure as prime minister once offered the chief of army staff General Waheed Kakar, a `gift` of a denationalised industrial unit, at a throwaway price. What for? It was evidently a political bribe, but was happily accepted and the general was rich by a few tens of million rupees almost overnight. Ojhri camp (ordinance depot) disaster took over a thousand civilian lives in Islamabad and Rawalpindi and billions of rupees worth of damage was done but none of the generals responsible for it was held accountable. The list is endless.

Talking about courts of law in Pakistan touches the sorest of nerves. What the generals have done to the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan was high treason. Period! But imagine their bravado; they not only got away without any fear but have trumpeted around with unabashed arrogance and contempt. This was only possible because the superior courts of Pakistan have become partners in crime with the military generals in subverting the rule of law. Who should the people of Pakistan turn to, for justice? A few weeks ago I was attending a course in one of the universities in the UK, where I happen to meet a group of Muslim students. One of them, a Malaysian, commented on a news item, which reported the killing of a dozen Pakistani Army soldiers by Pakistani tribesmen and their allies fleeing American persecution. In turn, some of the `rebels` had also died. It was a shameful incident in which Muslims on both sides were killed, at the behest of the Americans. The Malaysian student asked me: ``Has Pakistani army become a mercenary army now?`` ``Aren`t you fighting for America and killing fellow Muslims simply because America is giving you a few million dollars?`` she asked. Mercenaries? Beyond my wildest of dreams, I had never thought of Pakistani army being labelled a mercenary army. To me, they have always been soldiers of Islam and defenders of the nation. Yet the accusation had substance and I had no answer to it. My head just hung in shame.

Why is it that nearly 100,000 Pakistani soldiers are fighting fellow Muslims in the tribal belt under supervision of the Americans? They have no business in being there. Their job is in Kashmir or for that matter in Gujarat (if they have any spine). Thousands of Muslims were burnt alive by Hindu fanatics right at our doorstep but Pakistan, with more than a half million army equipped with nukes and missiles, could nothing to save them. No point in running away from the charges. These issues need to be addressed with honesty and introspection. Of course an easy way out would be to dismiss everything by the usual bombast and rhetoric or blame people like me to be `mutineers`. But when your life-long supporters turn into bitter critics, it is time for serious thoughts. (Weekly Independe

ROMAIR:
This would clear up the garbage being spewed by non-muslims and anti-Islamists.
Zaid, a slave, was adopted BEFORE the beloved-one (pbuh) was a prophet. The wisdom and beauty of the annulment of this practice would be appreciated by all.

Also, inheritence law allow to bequeath 1/3rd of one`s wealth in whichever manner one wants to do so.

Temporal is absolutely right. Thanks to Iranian revolution, Salman Rushdie, Gulf War 1 & 2, and the Twin-towers the yearning for learning is red-hot and we are all, willy-nilly, acquiring madressa education. Even commies, infidels and atheists are scampering to learn.
What they know not is that several rabbis, pundits, bishops/archbishops, mahints, and gurus started learning precisely to counter Islam and ended up its respected adherents and servants.

[Pickthall and Asad, the former Churchills buddy & promising englishman and latter a rabbi,
are well-known translaters of the Qura`an. Asad, a polish jew, was also Pakistan`s first permanent ambassador to UN in 1948.]

There is no other choice for a muslim or an apostate to ignore Islam. The Blanket would just not let go.

THERE IS A DESIGN INDEED!

---

Adoption is forbidden in Islam. But according to authentic Hadiths related by Al-Bukhari, the Prophet adopted a son named Zaid.

Both statements of the prohibition of adoption in Islam and the Prophet`s adoption of Zaid are correct. The explanation of these two apparently contradictory facts lies in their chronological order.

Zaid ibn Haritha was a young child when he was kidnapped by fighters who raided the living quarters of his tribe when their men were out on their business. Zaid was sold as a slave and he ended up in Makkah when he was given as a gift by her uncle to Khadeejah, who later was married to Muhammad, her third husband. At that time, he was 25 years of age. Lady Khadeejah was a rich woman who married Muhammad, having learned much about his character which filled her with admiration. At that time, Muhammad was being carefully prepared by Allah for his forthcoming mission as the last prophet to be sent to mankind. Needless to say, neither he nor Khadeejah knew anything at that time. Prophet-hood came 15 years after his marriage.

Khadeejah made a gift of Zaid to her husband so that he would have a good servant.

Zaid`s father was full of grief when he learned of what had happened to his son. He tried hard to find out where he was carried to. Perhaps, it was a few years before he learned that Zaid was in Makkah, a slave in one of its most distinguished households. He, therefore, traveled with his brother hoping to buy his son`s freedom. When they spoke to Muhammad about Zaid, they requested him to agree to sell Zaid back to them and to accept a reasonable price for him. He made them a different offer saying: ``I will charge you nothing. If he prefers to stay with me, I will not part with anyone who prefers my company.`` They said: ``This is indeed a very reasonable offer.`` When Zaid was called in, Muhammad asked him whether he recognized the two men. On receiving an affirmative answer, Muhammad offered him the choice of going back or staying with him. Unhesitatingly, Zaid chose to stay with Muhammad saying to his father and his uncle, ``I have seen things of this man which make me keen never to part with him.`` When Zaid made his choice, Muhammad took him by the hand and went to the Ka`aba where he addressed the people present saying to them: ``Bear witness that I have adopted Zaid as a son who will inherit me and I will inherit him.`` Zaid`s father was gratified and he went back home with his brother.

This is how the adoption of Zaid by the Prophet came to pass, long before he became a prophet. Ever since that day, Zaid was called in Makkah and everywhere else as ``Zaid ibn Muhammad.`` This continued to be the case throughout the 13 years during which the Prophet preached his message in Makkah and in the early years of his stay in Madinah. It was later that the verses of the Qur`an which speak of adoption were revealed. These make it clear that adoption is prohibited and that every adopted son or daughter must be called after his or her real father. This automatically abrogated the adoption of Zaid who reverted to his original name, Zaid ibn Haritha, in compliance with Allah`s orders.

The Prophet was very kind to Zaid through their association. He arranged Zaid`s marriage to his own wet nurse Umm Ayman who gave birth to Zaid`s son Ussamah, whom the Prophet loved very dearly. Later on, the Prophet married Zaid to his own cousin, Lady Zainab, who only accepted the marriage to please the Prophet. The marriage was an unhappy one and Zaid reluctantly divorced Zainab. The seal on the prohibition was placed by Allah Himself when He instructed the Prophet to marry Zainab. Thus, the Prophet demonstrated practically the nullification of all adoption. Had adoption been of any significance, it would not have been possible that the Prophet marries a former wife of his former adopted son. The fact that the marriage took place and was specifically ordered by Allah left no doubt whatsoever that adoption is totally forbidden in Islam.

---

What the evil-ones like hamidm, the alcoholic islam-hater, just can`t figure out is that the beloved-one (pbuh) could have married this cousin himself in the first place.

CHOWK is becoming better & better and is a good place to understand Islam. THe evil-ones are providing a yeomens service here--just like Rushdie and Osama did.

Staying in the news is staying alive--in today`s multi-media savvy world.

Ref hamidm2 #56

[.......... this adoption business was cancelled by allah subhan wu tallah after the prophet (pbuh) wanted to marry zaynab and asked for a divine fatwa .............. god works in wonderous ways to take care of his chosen people]

This reminds of the story about Joseph Smith, the Founder of the Mormon religion. Not only did he make polygamy an official Church doctrine, he convinced the wife of one of his 12 Apostles that God wanted her to marry him. He then married her in a secret ceremony and ``sealed`` the marriage for all eternity. (This is some sort of registration of the marriage with the Highest Authority.)

When the Apostle in question found out about it, he quit the Mormon church and his Apostolic office.

It looks like Joseph Smith learnt well at the knee of Prophet Mohammed (pbuh). Or perhaps, God at the knee of Allah.

At least, Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) did not attempt to steal the wife of one of his Companions (saw, RAW, or whatever letters are supposed to follow here). But then, I don`t know if the adopted son was considered a Companion or not.

PS. You need to get some books on the early history of the Mormon Church -- something other than the sanitized version put out by the Church itself -- to read about Joseph Smith`s shenanigans.

Related to topic and important article.
I have gone through painful days of Agartala Conspary trial and leading brutal chooping of Indians by pakistan as world new Mo. Jinnah created.
I have been living in sindh. Sindhis are burrning by injustice( they think). As Jinnah made Cardinal mistake by declaring national language urdu in Dacca leading to disintegration of his dream come true.

Musharaffs earlier incarnation sold Ravi, bias , Satlej to India as dictector and we have starvation of Sindh.

Musharaaff as Army boss already declared construction of dam. Has any right or parlment is full of monkeys. Its parlment decision not presidents.

I am feeling Pakistan is making mistake by allowing president to make decisions.
When I thi nk of this my stomach turns up.

Nationalists say ‘no’ to Kalabagh Dam

By Quraysh Khattak

PESHAWAR: Pakhtun, Sindhi and Baloch nationalists, and the MMA leaders on Sunday said a ``loud no`` to the construction of Kalabagh Dam and vowed to form a combined national front against the project.

The nationalist leaders at a one-day Anti-Kalabagh Dam seminar at Nishtar Hall here were of the view that construction of the dam was tantamount to triggering a civil war in the country. They said that General Musharraf’s announcement to build the dam despite repeated opposition of elected assemblies of the three provinces meant that ``Pakistan was Punjab and Punjab was Pakistan`` and there was no place for other provinces in the country. The Awami National Party (ANP) arranged the seminar.

ANP central president Asfandyar Wali Khan, MMA provincial general secretary Senator Maulana Gul Nasib Khan, ANP central general secretary Ihsan Wyne advocate, PPPP central leader and former federal minister Khurshid Shah, ANP provincial chief Begum Nasim Wali Khan, Sindhi nationalist leader Mumtaz Bhutto, MNA Dr Farooq Sattar of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, president of Sindh Taraqqi Pasand Party Dr Qadir Magsi, Rasul Bakhsh Paleejo of the Sindh Awami Tahrik, Dr Ishaq Baloch of the Balochistan National Movement, general secretary of the National Awami Party Latif Afridi, president of the Pakhtunkhwa Qaumi Party


Mohammad Afzal Khan, Pakistan Oppressed Nations Movement general secretary and Sindhi nationalist leader Syed Jalal Mahmood Shah, MPA Israr Gandapur of the PPP (Sherpao), NWFP president of the Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party Mutkhtar Yusufzai, and chairman of the ANP Anti-Kalabagh Committee Haji Ghulam Ahmed Blour spoke on occasion.

Asfandyar said office of the president was a symbol of the federation but General Musharraf’s advocacy for Kalabagh Dam had showed that he was party to the dispute between the provinces. ``This shows that the smaller nationalities have no rights in the country and Pakistan means only Punjab and Punjab means Pakistan,`` he regretted.

The ANP chief said Kalabagh Dam was a matter of life and death for Pakhtuns and Sindhis. ``If Pakhtuns are forced to die then they will decide how to die and will not wait for how General Musharraf wants to kill them,`` he warned.

He said Pakhtuns were ready to live like brothers with the Punjabis but would not accept slavery of any one, he added. He proposed formation of a National Anti-Kalabagh and Greater Thal Canal Front. He proposed building a dam at Bhasha instead of Kalabagh.

Senator Gul Nasib Khan assured MMA’s support to the ANP in the struggle against Kalabagh Dam. ``Kalabagh Dam has more harms than benefits and the federal government should shelve the project,`` he added.

He regretted that General Musharraf like his predecessor military dictators was trying to divide the nation and prolong his rule. He said the shortsighted policies of the military dictators led to separation of East Pakistan. He said the parliament and not Musharraf was authorized to initiate such a sensitive national project.

Addressing the jam-packed hall, Begum Nasim Wali Khan said assemblies of Sindh, Balochistan and NWFP had opposed the Kalabagh Dam and Musharraf’s announcement meant that he did not accept these provinces as part of the federation. ``Not accepting the verdicts of three provinces means negation of Pakistan and the military general was committing this sin,`` she added.

``Pakhtuns are a nation. We accepted the status of a nationality for the sake of Pakistan but now we are even not accepted as equal citizens of the country,`` she regretted. She said Kalabagh Dam would turn central districts of ``Pakhtunkhwa`` (NWFP) into marshland and vowed that the dam could be built but only on her body.

Mumtaz Bhutto said Punjab had sold its three rivers to India and had no right over water of the Indus River. He said Punjab had usurped water of Sindh and even in Karachi people were facing drinking water shortage. He suggested formation of a joint front for the rights of the smaller provinces.

MNA Khurshid Shah said PPPP was against construction of the dam and Thal Canal. He said water distribution was a very sensitive issue and its mishandling could lead to civil war. Latif Afridi said Punjab had looted resources of Pakhtuns but now they were being deprived of their right to live. He called upon Pakhtuns to take up arms against construction of the dam.

Dr Ishaq Baloch stressed the need for improving the canal system instead of building the controversial dam. He said there was national consensus against building of Kalabagh Dam as three provinces had rejected the project.

Rasool Bakhsh Paleejo said the Federal Government was agent of the Punjab. He said historical Indus was the river of Sindh and Punjab had no right over a drop of its water. He said building a dam over Indus River was simple stealing of Sindh’s water.

Haji Bilour said Musharraf was a military man and not a representative of the people and had no right to initiate such controversial projects. ``By advocating construction of the Dam the general has become an agent of the Punjab,`` he added. He said Punjab was a usurper and was using 51% of the total water while Balochistan was three times bigger than Punjab but was given only 2% share in water resources.

Ihsan Wyne said common people of Punjab had nothing to do with the dam. He said only a group of civil and military bureaucrats was hell-bent on building the controversial dam. Dr Farooq Sattar said the Kalabagh Dam was political, technical and financial issue and should be resolved keeping all its aspects in mind.

He urged upon the nationalists to educate people of Punjab about the hazardous impacts of the dam. ``We should try to stop the rulers from using the Punjab card,`` he added. Dr Qadir Magsi said Indus River was a symbol of Sindh’s history and culture. He said Punjab had no right over the water of Indus River and Sindhis would not allow construction of the dam. He vowed to resist if the federal government tried ``to destroy Sindh``.

Jalal Shah said the Kalabagh Dam and Greater Thal Canal would usurp water of Sindh. He said the KBD was a conspiracy to turn Sindh into a desert and Pakhtunkhwa into a marshland. He suggested construction of a carry over dam upstream Tarbela Dam.

Afzal Khan said life of KBD was only 25-30 years and the government wanted to waste huge resources on a useless project. He said building dams at Katzara and Bhasha in the Northern Areas would be more beneficial. He said several small dams could also be built in Swat and Dir. He said KBD was a sensitive and controversial issue and could spark civil war in the country.

Mukhtar Yusufzai said the real issue was not KBD but the status of nations in the country. ``We have spent 30 years on discussing pros and cons of the Kalabagh Dam but despite opposition of three provinces the dam building means that they (smaller provinces) were colonies of the Punjab,`` he added. He assured that PkMAP would be in the forefront of any struggle for the rights of federating units.

romair,

.......... islam allows you to take care of a child (like a foster parent), but you cannot give him/her your name and include in your inheritance .......... this adoption business was cancelled by allah subhan wu tallah after the prophet (pbuh) wanted to marry zaynab and asked for a divine fatwa .............. god works in wonderous ways to take care of his chosen people

Romair:
Here is a site to help people seeking international adoptions. It may be of assistance to you. Looks like Muslim countries differ in their practice.

INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION

OTHER NEAR EASTERN AND SOUTH ASIAN COUNTRIES

DISCLAIMER: THE INFORMATION IN THIS CIRCULAR RELATING TO THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFIC FOREIGN COUNTRIES IS PROVIDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY. QUESTIONS INVOLVING INTERPRETATION OF SPECIFIC FOREIGN LAWS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO FOREIGN COUNSEL.

AFGHANISTAN: Islamic law does not recognize adoption (Art. 228 of civil Code of 1980)

BANGLADESH: Primarily Muslim country. Does not permit adoptions of Muslims. Under Hindu law, Hindus may adopt Hindu children. In order to obtain legal custody of an abandoned child delivered to an adoption agency, prospective adopting parents must apply to District Judge under Section 8 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.

IRAQ: Iraq does not permit the adoption of its nationals by foreigners.

ISRAEL: Adoptions are strictly controlled by the Ministry of Social Welfare and the District Courts. Few children are available to foreigners. The adoptive parent(s) must be of the same religion as the child and work through a licensed adoption agency.

KUWAIT: Kuwaiti law has no provisions for adoption.

PAKISTAN: Pakistan is a Muslim state, and Muslim law does not recognize adoption. Some children whose origin is unknown but who have been converted to Christianity by Christian missionaries may be available for adoption.

QATAR: Qatar does not permit the adoption of its nationals by foreigners.

SAUDI ARABIA: Adoption is illegal in Saudi Arabia, which adheres strictly to Islamic Sharia law.

YEMEN: Yemen is governed by Sharia law. Only Muslims would be allowed to take custody of an orphan.

So Allah does allow Muslims to marry the wives of their adopted sons after the dissolution of marriage!

Now people can make foolproof arrangements for their old age - adopt boys, marry them, make husband and wife fight, talak talak talak follows, and in you jump, the 60 year old man!

Really, Allah is the great! Any such divine techniques for old women? Does the perfect God Allah allow them to marry the former husbands of their adopted daughters? :)

re to #48 romair

033.004
YUSUFALI: Allah has not made for any man two hearts in his (one) body: nor has He made your wives whom ye divorce by Zihar your mothers: nor has He made your adopted sons your sons. Such is (only) your (manner of) speech by your mouths. But Allah tells (you) the Truth, and He shows the (right) Way.
PICKTHAL: Allah hath not assigned unto any man two hearts within his body, nor hath He made your wives whom ye declare (to be your mothers) your mothers, nor hath He made those whom ye claim (to be your sons) your sons. This is but a saying of your mouths. But Allah saith the truth and He showeth the way.
SHAKIR: Allah has not made for any man two hearts within him; nor has He made your wives whose backs you liken to the backs of your mothers as your mothers, nor has He made those whom you assert to be your sons your real sons; these are the words of your mouths; and Allah speaks the truth and He guides to the way.

Verse 33:44 clearly stated that your adopted son can not be seen as your son




033.036
YUSUFALI: It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.
PICKTHAL: And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affair; and whoso is rebellious to Allah and His messenger, he verily goeth astray in error manifest.
SHAKIR: And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying.

Verse 33:36 clearly stated that whoever disobey is clearly on wrong path means deviated

033.037
YUSUFALI: Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: ``Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah.`` But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality)
(their marriage) with them. And Allah`s command must be fulfilled.
PICKTHAL: And when thou saidst unto him on whom Allah hath conferred favour and thou hast conferred favour: Keep thy wife to thyself, and fear Allah. And thou didst hide in thy mind that which Allah was to bring to light, and thou didst fear mankind whereas Allah hath a better right that thou shouldst fear Him. So when Zeyd had performed that necessary formality (of divorce) from her, We gave her unto thee in marriage, so that (henceforth) there may be no sin for believers in respect of wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have performed the necessary formality (of release) from them. The commandment of Allah must be fulfilled. SHAKIR: And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favor and to whom you had shown a favor: Keep your wife to yourself and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; and you concealed in your soul what Allah would bring to light, and you feared men, and Allah had a greater right that you should fear Him. But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah`s command shall be performed.

Verse 33:38 clearly stated that Mohammad married zaynab to sat example for believer
So after that they don’t have problem to marry adopted son’s wife

033.038
YUSUFALI: There can be no difficulty to the Prophet in what Allah has indicated to him as a duty. It was the practice (approved) of Allah amongst those of old that have passed away. And the command of Allah is a decree determined.
PICKTHAL: There is no reproach for the Prophet in that which Allah maketh his due. That was Allah`s way with those who passed away of old - and the commandment of Allah is certain destiny -
SHAKIR: There is no harm in the Prophet doing that which Allah has ordained for him; such has been the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before; and the command of Allah is a decree that is made absolute:

continue

for verses 33.4,33.36,33.37,33.38 :
these are three translation of Quran by usufali,pickthal and sakir ali

ahmadzai

You can choose not respond to # 46. That will be understandable. Nazis too chose not to respond. They chose to kill. Like you. Others were unnecessarily scrutinizing Nazism, they said.

You don`t respond to # 39 becaue you simply can not. Defending the perfect religion is like defending the theory that the Sun rises in the West on Mondays and East on Tuesdays; it`s only a matter of interpretation.

Speaking of quite shocking facts about Islam, another one I learnt is that Islam allows you to marry the wife of your son if she is a widow - who we call your `daughter-in-law!` *

I only deal in incontrovertible facts. Since I am not 100% sure about this, I request my Muslim friends to please confirm. After that, let loose the barrage of `its only a matter of interpretations,` `son is not the son,` `wife is not the wife,` `marriage is not the marriage`, `arabic doesn`t say so` `who else better than father-in-law to marry a widow` `why marrying her is the best thing to do` and so on.

It`s hilarious to watch these guys tie themselves in knots, lying through their teeth defending arabic nazism called Islam.

There is an alternative. Just because you were born a Muslim, you don`t have to be a believer in this ideology of pure hate for others. Read about other religions and pick the one you like. Or if religions don`t appeal to you, you don`t have to believe in a religion.

Now watch Islamic nazis like Ahmadzai and Romair scream that making others aware of real Islam is itself hate. That there is no difference :)

* Please do confirm. I`d like to believe that my hatred of Islam is not like the hatred taught by Islam; that it is based on facts that either Muslims don`t know, have been taught to ignore, or simply hide from non Muslims.

#47 by ahmadzai
``However, note that Sameen (an IT specialist) chose to post some thing on an unnecessary matter. ``
arre baba my name is samin not sameen.kyo mera nam bigad rahe ho bhai.
and you are right i choose to put article of akaram siraji that is some thing unneccessary to subject.so i appolige.and i am sorry.this my last post to this board.good bye

saminsha #45: You have not answered my question:

My wife and I actually seriously discussed adopting a child, a long time ago. So I would like to ask you once again, since you have done so much research on Islam: Will we become non-Muslims, according to your understanding and definition of Islam, if we adopt someone? And what should our punishment be, according to your understanding of Islam, if we do adopt someone?

A simple Yes/No answer for the first question will suffice. And a brief one for the second one would be appreciated. If something is prohibited, then usually it has some sort of a punishment attached to it.

I ask this in all seriousness, since you seem to have done a lot of research on the religion. And I would appreciate it if you gave your views on how Islam sees these issues. Not your personal views about the issue, and not any other person`s views on the issue. Just your interpretation of Islam.

Dost_mittar at 40:

Zeynab (or Zainab) that I referred to is different to the one who was the Prophet`s wife. The one I referred to is the daughter of Ali, who was the Son-in-Law of the Prophet, thus making her grand-daughter of the latter.

Zainab, Prophet`s wife is not known in history except for this particular incident that Sameen Shah chose to dig up to start an unnecessary debate. Adoption is allowed all over the Muslim world legally and, like romair said, it is quite common. It may not be allowed in India due to the reverence that Indian founding fathers might have accorded to the stricter religious interpretation of the same incident by Indian Muslim community.

However, note that Sameen (an IT specialist) chose to post some thing on an unnecessary matter. This proves my point expressed in several earlier messages. The point is that it is surprising that unlike ``Talibani infested extremist Muslim terrorist `` from Pakistan, it is the ``secular and pluralist`` Indians who show that they are obsessed with religion. Kindly refer to yet another post by Ralph at # 46.

I bet no Pakistani is religious enough to respond to either Sameen or Ralph. We will have to invite a scholar or two for the purpose.

:-)

The Science of F-16s

By the Grace of Allah, the only true god, a fantastic opportunity has arisen for the lucky believers. A Hindu, no less, has challenged them to prove him wrong. He says he will accept the `true religion` if he loses his challenge. In his article, he establishes quite convincingly, for me at least, that quran is totally clueless about even basic facts of science, let alone about how to build atomic bombs, or how F16s could be easily manufactured in the blooming international Universities of Muridke. It seems for the bomb, some pagan chinese god has to help first.

No doubt, believers in the `science` of quran will not stand for this.

An Open Challenge to my Muslim Friends by Avijit Roy

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/avijitroy/flatearth.htm

You can also read

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Arabic/contradictions.htm

but that would require you to know Arabic, mohammad`s own language (there goes `real arabic doesn`t say that` argument).

``I first learnt this from a real Mullah``
first this is a article not by me but someone akaram siraji. read all 41 and 42
second i cheque references that are true
and i know islam prohibits adoption of children since 2 years and i also taken aback when i come to know first time.
i never told muslims not adopted children. i told islam prohibited it.
this is like that religion prohibit adultaryy but lot of ppl do it.
and generally after adoption if child is girl and parant already had boy then when girl grown up she married to boy.
and when Quran said adoption is unislamic then for unislamic they will get hell fire on judgement day

saminsha #41: ``Islam prohibits adopting children. This is because in Quran Allah does not like this gesture of adopting orphan children.``

This is news to me. I always thought Islam greatly encouraged this.

While I have seen my share of individuals, on this site, trying to appear enlightened through Islam, either by pushing it or opposing it, this is the first time I have heard someone go to this length.

Just out of curiousity, what should happen to a Muslim if he adopts someone. Lets say my wife and I adopt somebody, how should we be punished. Will we cease to be Muslims, according to your definiition of Islam?

I have quite a few close friends who have adopted children, what should I do to them, if they are Muslims, according to your understanding of the issue.

``Muhammad Rushed Ridha``

Who is Muhammad Rushed Ridha?

``I first learnt this from a real Mullah``

What exactly is a real Mullah? Could you highlight.

continued 41#

by akaram siraji

atleast untill mush give blinded support to america,america not harm pakistan by force

re to #37 by ahmadzai
``Saminshah:

If you are a Muslim, then I am amazed to see such blatant ignorance on your part as expressed in your post at # 33. Please note that:

1. Adoption is not prohibited in Islam. ``
``especially you as a female can .............``

now for your kind information first i am male.
second one zaynab is sister of imam hussain not means there could be no other zaynab.
zaynab was wife of mohamad`s adopted son and she had to divorce her husband jaid because mohamad could marry her. and third
Islam prohibits adopting children. This is because in Quran Allah does not like this gesture of adopting orphan children. Muhammad Rushed Ridha states, ``Allah prohibited adoption in Islam and annulled all the judgements pertaining to adoption. The most important one of which was the prohibition of the wife of the adopted son to the fostering father as though he is the natural father. So Allah commanded his prophet to marry Zaynab Bint Jahsh in order to abolish pagan custom (Fatawa al-Imam).`` Al-sabuni states, ``As to Zaynab Bint Jahsh, the Messenger of Allah married for no higher wisdom than to abolish the heresy of adoption (A-sabuni).``

I don`t know, how in the world Allah could dislike such noble deeds. I am not sure what percentage of Muslims actually knows this divine law. I do admit that I never knew this and, I was stunned when I first learnt this from a real Mullah. How and why was this noble custom among human being prohibited?

Pre-Islamic Arab Custom: Adoption of orphan/helpless child was a very popular and moral practice amongst pre-Islamic Arabs. By adopting orphan/helpless child, they used to consider adopted child as their own. And they used to pass onto them the adopter`s genealogy and name, his investment of them with all the rights of the legitimate son including that of inheritance and the prohibition of marriage on grounds of consanguinity.

Post-Islamic Custom: The all-wise legislator of Islam willed to undo the above mentioned Arab practice of adopting children. The divine legislator willed to give the adopted son only the right of a client and co-religionist. For that reason a verse was revealed: ``God did not make your adopted son as your own sons. To declare them so is your empty claim. God`s word is righteous and constitutes true guidance. (Q.33: 4).`` It follows from this revelation that the adopter may marry the ex-wife of his adopted son and vice-versa. Thus Muhammad married Zainab in order to provide a good example of what the All-wise legislator was seeking to establish by way of rights and privileges for adoption. In this regard God further said: ``After a term of married life with her husband, We permitted you to marry her so that it may hence be legitimate and morally blameless for a believer to marry the wife of his adopted son provided that wife has already been divorced. That is God`s commandment which must be fulfilled (Q.33: 37).`` Who, among the Arabs, could implement this noble legislation and thereby openly repudiate the ancient traditions? The truth is, however, that Muhammad was the exemplar of obedience to God; his life was the implementation of that which he was entrusted to convey to mankind. His life constitutes the highest ideal, the perfect example, and the concrete instance of his Lord`s command (M.H. Haykal, page-296-297).

Those who are Muslims and are obedient to the Qur`an will not have adopted sons.


Muhammad`s Marriage to Zaynab Bint Jashsh

Muhammad`s marriage to Zaynab, who was the wife of his adopted son, led to many accusations against Muhammad. The dissimulators said, ``Muhammad prohibits the wives of the son while he himself marries the wife of his son Zaid.`` These incidents are not in harmony with the ethics and conventions that Muhammad introduced to mankind, as Muslims claim. Abdullah Ibn Umar narrated: ``We have always called him [namely Zaid] Zaid Ibn Muhammad.`` Abdullah Ibn Umar said, ``We only called him Zaid Ibn Muhammad till the verse ``Muhammad is not the father of any of your men` was revealed.````

Historical views: There are many conflicting stories about this scandalous happening and all these stories are based on Sahih Hadiths and Muslim biographies and books. It is worthwhile to quote here what Ibn Sa`d and al-Tabari said concerning this story:

Muhammad Ibn Yahya Ibn Hayyan narrated, ``The Messenger of God came to Zaid Ibn Haritha`s house seeking him. Perhaps the Messenger of God missed him at that time, that is why he said, `Where is Zaid?` He went to his house seeking him and, when he did not find him, Zaynab Bint Jahsh stood up to [meet] him in a housedress, but the Messenger of God turned away from her. She said, `He is not here, Messenger of God, so please come in; my father and mother are your ransom.` The Messenger of God refused to come in. Zaynab had hurried to dress herself when she heard that the Messenger of God was at her door, so she leapt in a hurry, and the Messenger of God liked her when she did that. The heart of the Prophet was filled with admiration for her He went away muttering something that was hardly understandable but for this sentence: `Praise be to God who disposes the hearts.` When Zaid came back home, she told him that the Messenger of God came. Zaid asked, `You asked him to come in, didn`t you?` She replied, `I bade him to, but he refused.` He said, `Have you heard [him say] anything?` She answered, `When he had turned away, I heard him say something that I could hardly understand. I heard him say, ``Praise be to God who disposes the hearts.`` ` Zaid went out to the Messenger of God and said, `O Messenger of God, I learned that you came to my house. Did you come in? O Messenger of God, my father and mother are your ransom. Perhaps you liked Zaynab. I can leave her. So when Zaid left her, she finished her legal period after she had isolated herself from Zaid. While the Messenger of God was sitting and talking with `A´isha, he was taken in a trance, and when it lifted, he smiled and said, `Who will go to Zaynab to tell her that God wedded her to me from heaven?` The Messenger of God recited; ` `A´isha said, `I heard much about her beauty and, moreover, about how God wedded her from heaven, and I said, ``For sure she will boast over this with us.`` ` Salama, the slave of the Messenger of God, hurried to tell her about that. She gave her some silver jewellery that she was wearing.``


More help from Allah:

So, this charge that the dissimulators, among others, leveled against Muhammad necessitated the revelation of more Qur`anic verses:

(Sura al-Ahzab Q.33: 40): ``Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but [he is] God`s Messenger and the Seal of the Prophets. God is Aware of everything!``

(Sura al-Ahzab Q.33: 37): ``We married her off to you so that there would be no objection for believers in respect to their adopted sons` wives once they have accomplished their purpose with them. God`s command must be done!``

In the verse (33:37) there is stated a particular purpose for this revelation and action of Muhammad. It is not for himself, but it is for the future of the Muslim community. It is so that in future there may not be a problem if anybody (father-in-law) wants to marry the divorced wife of an adopted son. “We permitted you to marry her so that it may hence be legitimate and morally blameless for a believer to marry the wife of his adopted son.” Without adoption, there cannot be any adopted son either. Therefore, the explicitly stated reason for the revelation of this verse does not exist. Muhammad himself dissolved the original adoption of Zaid when the above revelation came. Also, it is a mystery why in the world, any father-in law will need to marry his adopted son`s wife.



Critical (Orientalist) version:

Muhammad fell in love with Zaynab, daughter of Jahsh, while she was the wife of Zayd bin Harithah, his own adopted son. Once, when he passed by the house of Zayd in the latter`s absence, he was met by Zaynab wearing clothes which exposed her beauty. Muhammad`s heart was inflamed. It is reported that when his eyes fell upon her, he exclaimed, ``Praise be to God who changes the hearts of men`` and he repeated this expression at the time of his departure from her home. Zaynab heard him say this and noticed desire in his eye. Zaynab proudly reported this happening to her husband. Zayd immediately went to see the Prophet and offered to divorce his wife. Thereafter, Zaynab was no longer a docile wife and Zayd had to divorce her. Muhammad married Zaynab Bint Jahsh who was his daughter-in-law. That was definitely taboo in pre-Islamic Arabia, and the Prophet of Islam lifted this taboo in order to satisfy his own lust and fulfill his own desire. They also relate that when Muhammad saw her she was half-naked, that her fine black hair was covering half of her body, and that every curve of her body was full of desire and passion. Others relate that when Muhammad opened the door of the house of Zayd the breeze played with the curtains of the room of Zaynab, thus permitting Muhammad to catch a glimpse of her stretched out on her mattress in a nightgown.



Apologetics views:

Muhammad Husain Haikal, for one, in the course of ``refuting`` the claims of V. Vacca in the Encyclopaedia of Islam regarding Zaynab, speaks about a ``glorious deed`` of Muhammad, which the orientalists and missionaries have turned into a romance. He says, ``As to Zaynab Bint Jahsh, who has been wrapped up by orientalists and missionaries in an imaginary picture of romance and infatuation, true history judges that [Muhammad`s act with] her was one of the glorious deeds of Muhammad. Being the perfect example of faith, he applied to her the Hadith that says, `Man`s faith is not made perfect till he loves for his brother what he loves for himself`.

Apologists conclude that it is one of the truly great facets of Muhammad`s personality. It proves beyond question that Muhammad was the perfect exemplar of his own legislation, especially of such laws as were intended to replace the tradition and customs of pre-Islamic Arabia. He was the exemplar of the new system that God revealed through him as a mercy and guidance to mankind.

On the other hand, Arab custom and tradition demanded that the adopted son inherit from his adopted father, like the latter`s legitimate children. And since this custom too was the object of Muhammad`s attack, his choice of Zayd as the spear point of the first reform, would actually make of him -- if he were prepared to give up the inheritance to which Arabian custom gave him title -- the spearhead of another Islamic legislation prohibiting inheritance to any but the blood heirs and relatives of the deceased. This indeed furnished the revelation: ``No believer, whether man or woman, has the freedom to choose otherwise than as God and His Prophet have resolved in any given case. To do so is to disobey God and His Prophet, to err and fall into manifest misguidance (Q.33: 37)”

The entire melodrama: Zaid`s divorce of Zaynab, Muhammad`s marriage with Zainab and subsequent revelations of several Qur`anic Ayats from Allah to purify this scandalous happening is something to ponder very seriously. There is more in this strange story. That this action is immoral and this revelation/justification of it self-serving and not fitting for a true word of God is an important aspect, but not a contradiction within the Quran - even though contradicting the true character of God, who is moral purity. Prohibiting adoption is no way a moral action. Prohibitions of alcohol drinking, smoking, gambling, sorceries, killing, etc., could be a moral action. But why was there prohibition of adoption?

to summarize, the logical difficulty is that Allah (?) causes a scandal and then sends Gabriel to officially justify the scandalous action of Muhammad with Qur`anic revelations is morally incorrect and too much of a coincidence.

Some after thoughts: Muhammad cannot get away from the culpability of this salacious behavior of his with Zaynab. If he had this forthrightness in his mind, he would have vigorously fight with his conscience and not allow this marriage to go through. But the reality was quite the opposite. He had surrendered to his passion and thus had marred his ``unblemished`` character. . In more enlightened society if a man does what Mohammad did with Zainab he would be looked up as a lascivious character. Not all the Qur`anic Ayats of this world will be able to change that. To have faith is one thing, but to have a blind faith is another matter, altogether!

apologist may like to think this way

Muhammad married Zainab (or Zaynab), his adopted son’s wife to set an example; it was not a marriage out of love/lust.

This is an absolute nonsense. We can demonstrate from various authentic Islamic sources that Muhammad’s marriage to Zaynab was completely based on his desire to have a ‘good time’ with her (I’m borrowing this term to be in tune with modernity!) and nothing else. This truth can never be suppressed no matter how much any Islamic apologist tries to the contrary.

References
1. Holy Qur`an , translated by A,. Yousuf Ali, Amana corp., 1983
2. The life of Muhammad By: M. H. Haykal, 8th ed. 1982
3. Annals of al-Tabari 2:563, 453
4. ibid 4:43
5. Fatawa al- Imam, 5:1910
6. Tabaqat, 8:103
7.Nisa` al-Nabi, 13th ed.

ahmadzai:
`` Adoption is not prohibited in Islam. ``
Are you sure? I believe that they are prohibited under Muslim Personal Law in India. The Canadian Immigration Office in New Delhi routinely rejected adoption applications sponsored by Muslims on that grounds.
`` A good example for a Muslim to give to others for learning and following in their own lives would be Zeynab, sister of Imam Hussain``
Was she the same person mentioned by saminshah?

I think the author is delusional. Pakistani elite is too dependent on the West for survival. 2/3 of your exports goes to the West. 60% of Pakistani exports are textiles - a low margin item. I do not see how Pakistan can withstand combined pressure from USA, Japan and EU.

Zeynab Ali

First my appreciation for a very good article with an imaginative threat perception. You could not have expressed Pakistan`s ``Shot in the Foot Strategy`` in simpler words. Somehow the policy makers have romanticied more and been less current with the trends of time and tide. You wrote:
``Prominent American scholars like Stephen P. Cohen, Michael Krepon and Robert G. Wirsing have recently indicated in different statements that the volatile situation in South Asia, is ‘pushing the Bush Doctrine to disproportionate and dangerous lengths’ and ‘could force the unwilling involvement of the United States’. These analysts have circumspectly conjured possible scenarios of the US saving the world from ‘the horrors of a nuclear war by taking out Pakistan’s nuclear facilities and assets’ in case it ever decides to use it against India``.

I for one, have had many a tete a tete with Stephen Cohen, Ashley Tellis, Peter Levoy, Chris Smith and Michel Kreppon. They have been persistently trying to pass this message to Pakistan for many years. RAND has war gamed scenarios of intervention in Pakistan. No doubt now that Pakistan finds no supporters of its Kashmir Policy mainly because the instruments projecting it find no relevence in Post Cold War era and is a forbidden fruit in post 9/11 scenario.

I agree with you regarding Pakistan being vulnerable for the reasons you cited. Three years ago it would have been incomprehensible but now is a reality that USA Troops are conducting joint high altitude exercises with Indian army in Kashmir albeit a disputed territory. Soon like the West Bank and Jerushalem, there will be opening of consulates and cricket matches etc.

I have theorised earlier and reiterate that USA`s `War on Terrorism` and `WMDs in Iraq` will ultimately become a war of hate between the high tech and the minimalists, who unfortunately happen to be Muslims. The Muslim world is in dire need of a good leader. The seeds of misery implanted in Afghanistan,Iraq, Palestine and Kashmir will unfortunately germinate into a wave of high tech and primordial violence. What we do not know is whether it will be a total burnout or not.

Saminshah:

If you are a Muslim, then I am amazed to see such blatant ignorance on your part as expressed in your post at # 33. Please note that:

1. Adoption is not prohibited in Islam.

2. A good example for a Muslim to give to others for learning and following in their own lives would be Zeynab, sister of Imam Hussain, who after the martyrdom of the House of Mohammad, took the leadership of the remaining ones and made an impressive series of speeches both in front of Yazid and the public that won the supporters back to Islam. What we (Muslims and non-Muslims) and especially you as a female can learn from this example is that we should never give in to tyranny no matter how strong the opponent. This is also a good example to learn about the leadership qualities for Muslim women.