Rescinding the &#8217;Concordat&#8217;

#425 Posted by ballukhan on October 17, 2003 12:11:00 am

Forget putting any Religion before any Constitution Manto, forget your stupid schemes about the Council of Islamic Ideology- such forums would always be hijacked by the extremist literal interpreters of Islam. I again reiterate only by practicing SECULARISM strictly in public matters you can ``dis-empower the mullahs``. Also, there should not be any person who JUST lives off religious charities- these mullahs must be made to earn their living and all the charities must be subjected to intense yearly audit . Only then you can make the mullahs experience the REALITIES of this world.

Enjoy this small piece on how cosmopolitan india found solutions which TNTs would not like::

Bollywood`s secular credentials revealed
By: Hemal Ashar
August 8, 2003

“We had given a 30-day intent to marry court notice. At that time, we gave a friend’s address as our address. In that 30-day period, the poor guy was destroyed. He had the Hindutva people shouting outside his house as well as the Muslim groups. My friend used to crib, “The Muslims come in the morning, the Hindus in the evening, gaali dete, mere ko tune marvaa diya’ (they curse, saying, you have really killed me).”
— Shah Rukh Khan on his marriage to Gauri in Colas, Cars & Communal Harmony

A book on Bollywood, ready for release on August 15, celebrates the secularism of the Indian film industry. Startling revelations like Shah Rukh’s pepper the book called Colas, Cars & Communal Harmony, written by well-known film journalist and editor of MovieMag International,
Bharathi S Pradhan.

The book features filmi Hindu-Muslim couples, hybrid families (like Salim Khan’s — his first wife, Susheela Charak or Salma, is Hindu, his second wife Helen is a Roman-Catholic, his daughter-in-law Malaika Arora is a practicing Roman-Catholic, daughter-in-law Seema is Hindu, while son-in-law Atul Agnihotri is Hindu).

Excerpts show it has a few never-before quotes, as stars prove that only the box office, not religion, matters in the industry.

Shah Rukh and Gauri, Arshad and Maria Warsi, Nadira and Raj Babbar, Baba and Tanvi Azmi, Aditi Govitrikar and Muffazal and Hrithik Roshan-Suzanne, all co_ck a snook at the communal clamour.

Says Shah Rukh in the book, about the reservations Gauri’s parents had about him initially, “On top of being a Muslim, I was going to be a film star and they did not like my hairstyle too!” He adds, “I told Gauri’s parents I am not going to make Gauri a Muslim and I cannot do anything about my circumcision either!”

This is just one revelation made by the star, who had to stop dancing atop a train for the famous Chaiyya Chaiyya number to convince an irate mob that there was no blasphemy of jannat (heaven) in the lines ‘Jinke sar ho ishq ki chaon, paon ke neeche jannat hogi’.

The secular colours of the industry are at their most vivid in the Salim Khan household, whose most controversial member Salman once found a Hindu mob at his door demanding an apology when he was having an affair with Aishwarya Rai.

“How can you change what you were when you came out of your mother’s womb?” Salim asks in the book. He adds, “People have written that we have connections with the Muslim underworld. On the contrary, when we had to hire security for two years, it was to guard Salman from the Muslim underworld!” He says, “I honestly feel Muslims are isolating themselves. They should live like the rest. Topi lagake, daadhi badake, they are gradually isolating themselves from the mainstream.”

About his daughter Alvira’s marriage to Atul Agnihotri, he says, “My sister called me from Pakistan and said, ‘There are 14 crore Muslims in your country. Could you not find one Muslim for your daughter?’ Her psyche had changed after going to Pakistan.”

Hrithik-Suzanne’s traffic-stopping love (literally, as Hrithik fell in love after seeing Suzanne at a traffic signal), is less shrill. Hrithik says his parents were cool about Suzanne’s religion. He says, “I blurted out to my mom, ‘She is a Muslim’.” My mom said, ‘So?’ That was it! That was all she said. So I said ‘good’ and walked away.”

The Mumbai-based author agrees the book may create a flutter as it contains some unconventional opinions. Pradhan is quite prepared for the possibility that Colas, Cars & Communal Harmony may have carry another C after it hits bookshelves — controversy

#424 Posted by MantoLives on October 11, 2003 10:19:42 am

After a thorough examination of Pakistan`s current constitution in its most mangled form, I have come to the conclusion that Pakistan`s road to a Modern, Democratic, Pluralistic and Progressive nation-state lies through convincing the people of Pakistan that such a vision is in no way a contradiction to their religious beliefs...

Using the current constitution, I believe we have to take our weak points and turn them around.... sovereignty over the Universe might belong to God according to Pakistan`s constitution, but people of Pakistan exercise the sovereignty in the borders of Pakistan. The objectives resolution, though theocratic and stepping stone for the mullah, guarantees, freedom of religion, association, and development of cultures of all minorities... egalitarian society must mean complete political, legal and social equality. .. this should be implemented in letter and spirit. Half of our problems will automatically be solved if this was the case...

We should use the articles about Council of Islamic ideology... the most liberal and progressive of the researchers of Islam should be recruited as experts ... retrogressive mullahs should be completely sidelined. Then using these Liberal and progressive interpretations of Islam, we should do away with any and all discrimination that exists in supreme law, and our legal statutes against non-muslims and women.

An `Islamic` Republic which can theoretically have a Non-Muslim as a president, which is based on the `democratic ideals of Islam` which are `equality, fraternity and justice`.. where religion is not imposed but rather facilitated, and where religion is a personal matter of an individual, will find no objections from people like me.

-YLH

#423 Posted by MantoLives on October 11, 2003 7:55:42 am

ballu Khan,

How many Pakistanis on chowk have you found to be `theologically` inclined other than a few exceptions?

-YLH

#422 Posted by ballukhan on October 10, 2003 10:01:16 pm

#417 by pmishra2 on October 10, 2003 7:16am PT

Thanks , at least my Indian friends have the decency to appreciate ``religiousness`` rathar than ``religions`` like some of my theocratically inclined fellow Pakistani friends . Unfortunately, there are less takers for people like Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan who talked more about the ``heart`` . The ``shaitan`` inside some of the guys is working overtime, over-heating their brains filled with hatred towards all and love towards none. It is time these guys spent more time in ``remembrance`` of the GOd rathar than the DEVIL.

#421 Posted by MantoLives on October 10, 2003 8:25:36 pm

Seems like urstruly has retreated...

From his post he quoted Mohammed Ali Jinnah as saying:

``In any case Paksitan is not going to be a theocratic state - to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims - Hindus, Christians, and Parsis - but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan ``

Then he said Objectives Resolution embodied Quaid`s vision... how does the following part follow from the one above...

From the Objectives Resolution:

``Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan, through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust; ``

1) This is the establishment of theocracy... Jinnah had clearly said no theocracy.

2) Jinnah had repeatedly said : Sovereignty will belong to the people...

If you take out this first line and the part about enabling specific communities to blah blah, the rest of the objectives resolution is indeed in line with Jinnah`s vision.

-YLH

#420 Posted by sattar2 on October 10, 2003 9:34:02 am

Manto: ``The Ottoman Khilafat collapsed in 1924...``

... but Urstruly continues to persist in his foolishness. Apparently somethings never end ...

Urs, kaHNa ho yaar? ... seems like you have slipped away once again ...

All it takes is a few interactors who can put two and two together ... and the sheer idioicity of your Islam becames all too apparent.

#419 Posted by MantoLives on October 10, 2003 9:03:44 am

Urstruly,

The Ottoman Khilafat collapsed in 1924...

-YLH

#418 Posted by MantoLives on October 10, 2003 9:01:34 am

P-mishra

Here is another one...

This is quoted from the `Jinnah-Rafi Foundation` Newsletter.... it was narrated by an American correspondent... I am paraphrasing :

An Englishwoman asked Mr. Jinnah in England as to whose progeny was he? Aurangzeb or Shivaji? ... This was a loaded question obviously. Jinnah replied with a grim disappointed face `Both madam`.

#417 Posted by pmishra2 on October 10, 2003 7:16:24 am

#391 ballukhan

[quote]
Om Allâh
Om Allâh

lâ ilâha illa-llâh
lâ ilâha illa-llâh
satyameva jayate
[end-quote]

Thanks for this beautiful composition. It represents exactly the historic spirit of indian culture (the phrase bharateeyata has been used as a counterpoint to narrow minded hinudtva) and the essence of indic civilization. I salute your positive and creative efforts.

#416 Posted by jang on October 9, 2003 8:15:30 pm

Its ecomomy stupid! If Pakistan becomes economically interesting, I am sure, that Urdu classed in Mumbai and Liverpool will be full. On the other hand Yoga classes are full from Antwerp to Zurich. In short, whataever works..... I bet there is is latin/arabic/sanskrit proverb re this.

#415 Posted by dost_mittar on October 9, 2003 2:42:04 pm

Sattar397:
Thanks. The reason I asked that question was that I thought that the sharia thinking re. Imams and Hazrat Ali might bring them closer to the Ahmediya beliefs.

#414 Posted by puyu on October 9, 2003 2:25:59 pm

Urstruly!!!
++

1. Should Pakistan be a pluralist, representative, republican democracy with all citizens equal under the common law of the land?

I agree with the first part of your question but not the common law of the land part. Just as a christian or a Hindu would not want to live under Islamic law we should apply the same principle to Muslims too and ask why should they live under someone else`s law, especially secular law. This is common sense. Our Holy prophet (pbuh) has put this principle into practice himself. So throuout the history of Muslims, Islamic law has never been applied to non-Muslims. All non-Muslims are given juristic autonomy to formulate their own laws. This principle remained in practice until 1928 when Ottomon Caliphate collapsed. During the Ottoman Caliphate this system of autonomous jurisprudence was called the Millet System. Then colonial powers took over Muslim lands and we lost our glorious tradition of utmost tolerance because of their influence.

++
What about atheists,communists,sceptics......
Do they get to practise their `religion` in your pure land?APOSTASY again!!
I have more questions. But I am coming from a party and am tired (drunk?).I really would like to engage in a discussion with you.If you dont mind tommorow.

#413 Posted by Urstruly on October 9, 2003 1:51:43 pm

I am not satisfied with your reply but accept your apology. Lets leave it here.

#412 Posted by sigalph235 on October 9, 2003 1:24:01 pm

RE Urstruly

There is a reason that those two sentences of mine (quoted in bold by you) are two sentences rather than one.

I find your arguments about Ahmadi Muslims (be it calling them non-Muslim, supporting killing `apostates` who become Ahmadiya, or attributing scandalous beliefs to them) to be repulsive. That was the thrust of the first sentence.

There is a similar revulsion I feel about the legally sanctioned state-mandated lynching of Ahmadis. That was the thrust of the second sentence you quoted.

Two separate thoughts, two separate sentences on the same theme of anti-Ahmadi discrimination. Remember from your Wren and Martin grammar: A sentence is a complete thought. Does not necessarily mean that you support the state-mandated lynching and does not mean that the state supports (at least so far) your prescription for killing apostates.

Like Manto, I thank you for supporting the repeal of 298 A, B, C and I agree that you`ve mentioned so in the past. If my earlier post appeared less than clear in acknowledging that, the fault is mine and I apologize.

#411 Posted by MantoLives on October 9, 2003 12:14:39 pm

#410 .. first line last paragraph.... `were`