Alleged blasphemy: Mob burns 100 Christian homes in Lahore

[chacha kashmiri]

It doesn't matter if the crooks see each other eye-to-eye as long as they walk hand-in-hand.

'liberal secular' crooks is what happens when you get baathist marxists running your country

 

[Solomon2]

'liberal secular' crooks is what happens when you get baathist marxists running your country

You're not going to find me disagreeing with you here!

 

[Zarvan]

Pakistan - both its radicals and its non-radicals - doesn't have that kind of credibility. For what kind of justice can there be without both prosecution and defense? The mob destroyed Christians' property at the first whiff of an accusation, the police knew in advance, it isn't a one-shot occurrence, and as usual no one is going to be prosecuted for participating or leading the destruction. Secular Pakistan can boast little better, for wasn't Dr. Afridi denied a trial in anyplace other than the Pakistani media? - and I doubt he was the only such example. Finally, the citizens of Swat learned full well not to trust sweet words from the Talibs and their sympathizers.

This is the product of your militancy, Zarvan: once people have despaired, submitted, and been betrayed, they will never trust you or your kind again.

Sir the moment Army returns from Swat Taliban will be back and secondly we have more credibility than USA who have waged wars and killed millions and millions on false and lies and lied to their public Sir and the person who will commit blasphemy will be killed but can't target those who have done nothing they have to be protected by state and those who burnt their houses should be thrown in Jail for ten years

Mullahs gone wild...

But how long will they continue preaching their hate until we clamp down on them. Mullah Jadoon, the man who tried to frame an innocent handicapped girl like Rimsha Masih has been released. Why so? Why have these big, major terrorists been left alive, left to rot the minds of innocent, gullible Pakistani citizens?

What about the Rinkle Kumari case where Mian Mithoo a PPP terrorist was involved in the kidnapping of an innocent Hindu woman?

The problem is the way a lot of us Pakistanis sympathize with these terrorists. That is the crux of the issue. There is no problem with US here. This one we need to fix ourselves on our own. I have argued with the Americans heavily on Pakistani rights but this is more than that. This is about Pakistan and the future we want for our land.

For one we do not want or need the mullah to dictate how we live our lives. I think it is indeed ironic that high profile terrorists are giving speeches and making outrageous demands but innocents are becoming victims of their ire. I don't know if banging my head against the wall will do anything... but I am very frustrated about it.

Terrorist who is terrorist and who is not is another debate Mr and the person who will commit blasphemy will be taken out but for others Non Muslims in Islamic state they are given full protection Sir places of worship houses are fully protected and have to be given full protection by state and Mullahs stopped this other wise it would have gone worse it was Mullahs who stepped in to stop it we need Ulemas to tell us about Islam and keep doing it and Ulemas are given most importance by HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW secular need to see weather they are Muslims or not

 

[Solomon2]

Sir the moment Army returns from Swat Taliban will be back -

A good argument why the Army should never leave Swat.

and secondly we have more credibility than USA who have waged wars and killed millions and millions on false and lies -

"Millions and millions" - the Pakistani propensity for baseless invention you display is impressive yet a cultural change is occurring - some Pakistanis argue HAS occurred - as facts become easier to obtain over the internet. Without the threat of violence radicals can't get people to believe and obey, yes?

the person who will commit blasphemy will be killed but can't target those who have done nothing they have to be protected by state and those who burnt their houses should be thrown in Jail for ten years

Why is it that the mob can kill whom they wish but only the government - not the people - is considered responsible for protecting the accused?

 

[haviZsultan]

Forever. As nuclearpak points out above, the political class allies with the thugs to promote violence and lawlessness to their mutual benefit. (It's Islamic as long as it brings success, right? And you can't point to a fellow Muslim who was injured by the mob, right? So what if the laws were violated, then?) The police were told to hold back, prosecutions will be difficult, guards can be bribed to let the guilty escape, and remuneration and shelter for such people can be arranged.

Until a new broom sweeps clean you can't be rid of this corruption, and that can't happen until liberals can be elected for office with a mandate for establishing a religion-free government, which can't happen because they fear being shot dead, which can't happen because young men like yourself eagerly find excuses not to protect them.

You are wrong and are acting like a typical westerner who looks down his nose at Pakistani people. If you guys spent half the time you spend on being judgemental and instead did something useful to improve the image of US worldwide this mess could easily go to the dustbin of history. Instead we Pakistanis burn in the fires of fanaicism.

We liberals have always struggled for a better Pakistan, a secular Pakistan but you don't support us and support the Zia Ul Haq's and Musharraf's... Shahbaz bhatti and Salman Taseer were heroes of Pakistan who took the bullet for Pakistani liberalism so I have no clue how you are saying liberals cannot come to power at all. Furthermore mullahs haven't even once come to power-to the top through elections. The person who Islamicized Pakistan (Zia) was under the patronage of the USA.

Yes we liberals aren't protected but protection means protection from anyone. That includes Taliban and the US. US policy is to shoot at any one who raises a voice against their mistakes. Your nation is as likely to shoot at me as are the Taliban, friend.

 

[Zarvan]

A good argument why the Army should never leave Swat.

"Millions and millions" - the Pakistani propensity for baseless invention you display is impressive yet a cultural change is occurring - some Pakistanis argue HAS occurred - as facts become easier to obtain over the internet. Without the threat of violence radicals can't get people to believe and obey, yes?

Why is it that the mob can kill whom they wish but only the government - not the people - is considered responsible for protecting the accused?

Army will leave Swat and other areas because they are never going to be deployed their for ever that is why they are trying to talk to Taliban for past one year on their own Government has to implement its on laws and can't allow mob to decide whom they punish or not

 

[niaz]

Pakistan - both its radicals and its non-radicals - doesn't have that kind of credibility. For what kind of justice can there be without both prosecution and defense? The mob destroyed Christians' property at the first whiff of an accusation, the police knew in advance, it isn't a one-shot occurrence, and as usual no one is going to be prosecuted for participating or leading the destruction. Secular Pakistan can boast little better, for wasn't Dr. Afridi denied a trial in anyplace other than the Pakistani media? - and I doubt he was the only such example. Finally, the citizens of Swat learned full well not to trust sweet words from the Talibs and their sympathizers.

This is the product of your militancy, Zarvan: once people have despaired, submitted, and been betrayed, they will never trust you or your kind again.

Firstly let us get one thing straight. Army in all countries except in the communist states is traditionally right wing. Pakistan Army more so. By right wing I don’t mean that everyone sports a beard and diligently observes fasting & prays 5 times a day. It is the mind-set that matters.

For a very long time we have had army/mullah nexus which had a field day during the long era of the bigot Zia when Jamaat Islami, an anti-Pakistan movement extremist right wing party, was part of Zia’s cabinet. Relevance to Dr Afridi’s in the context of attack on minorities is therefore baffling to my simple mind.

Providing information to a foreign country that is detrimental to your motherland is classified as treason in all countries of the world. This is no different than Mordecahi Vanunu whistle blowing on Israel’s nuclear programme to the British press in 1986. I am sure you are fully aware what happened to Vanunu.

Vanunu did it for his principles; Dr Shakil Afridi did it for money. I am an ordinary moderate Muslim with liberal views; Dr Afridi’s actions resulted in ridicule of the Pakistan Army and disgrace to the whole nation, I would have sentenced him to hard labour for the rest of his life. Dr Afridi may be a hero in the US but in my view he is the ‘Benedict Arnold’ of Pakistan. Incidentally, understand Dr Afridi was in fact tried in an Army Court.

Your contention that Pak public presumes everyone is guilty on slightest whiff of accusation is however correct. Extremism in Pakistan today is similar to McCarthyism prevailing in the US in the 1950’s. Then US liberals were witch hunted and branded as Communists. In Pakistan anyone who proposes amendment in the Hudood & Blasphemy laws and/or stands for fundamental human rights and values is labelled ‘Liberal jerk’ by the Taliban lovers and his assassin celebrated as ‘Hero’ by extremist mind-set lawyers and the media.

 

[Armstrong]

@niaz : Niaz Bhai, if I may add on the Army being the 'right wing' kind ! I would actually prefer if some of that character of the Army gets embedded in our National character as a whole. I very much appreciate how the Army is both Muslim & yet Plural in that you can find a very conspicuous emphasis on Islam as our ideal & our dominant narrative but without the bigotry thats widespread in the rest of the society; you've got Christian Major Generals & two of your war heroes from '65 & '71, who are by the way celebrated in the Army, were Ahmedis !

I love that balance - Pluralism & Islam !

 

[Solomon2]

You are wrong and are acting like a typical westerner who looks down his nose at Pakistani people.

Interesting and ironic: I started out 40+ years ago looking up to Pakistanis as role models, now I'm supposedly "looking down" at them. Which parts did I get wrong, exactly?

If you guys spent half the time you spend on being judgemental and instead did something useful to improve the image of US worldwide this mess could easily go to the dustbin of history. Instead we Pakistanis burn in the fires of fanaicism.

When the U.S. does do "something useful to improve the image of US worldwide" what motivation would you have to acknowledge it? Your second sentence already presumes the U.S. is somehow your lord and master who is responsible for everything that goes wrong. You're not willing to look in the mirror and say, "I'm responsible", are you?

We liberals have always struggled for a better Pakistan, a secular Pakistan but you don't support us and support the Zia Ul Haq's and Musharraf's...

It was "liberals" who supported Jinnah when he sent militants into Kashmir, "liberals" who supported Z.A.B. even though he disenfrachinzed the Ahmadis, "liberals" who despite B.Bhutto's years in power couldn't reform the education system or stop the nuclear weapons program, "liberals" who took the lead in robbing the national till, and "liberals" who yesterday couldn't donate a dime or their own time to helping earthquake and flood victims. After decades of observation and experience, Pakistani "liberals" have created the impression that they are all mouth but when it comes to action passive, greedy, or useless. Whether that's a natural inclination or something born out of fear doesn't matter; what matters is that until Pakistani "liberals" can surmount such difficulties they lack the power or will to change matters for the better.

About Mushy and Zia specifically...

Zia was a product of the Cold War. Most of you don't understand why Z.A.B. picked him or how he rose to prominence. The answers can be found in "Black September", 1970, when Zia took the lead at defeating the Soviet-sponsored attempt of the PLO to take over U.S.-supported Jordan, commanding troops in both Jordanian- and Israeli-occupied territory to accomplish the task. Doubtless the U.S. gov't viewed Zia as a hero and earning American gratitude was why Z.A.B. appointed him. That doesn't mean the U.S. viewed Zia the same way once he used his power to become dictator and hung his old boss.

The Afghan insurgency began under Z.A.B. with an American nod of approval. After Zia assumed power U.S. funds to Pakistan started to dwindle - but then the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and with Iran suddenly in Khomeini's hands that left Pakistan as the only country with the will to stand up to Soviet power in S. Asia. If the Sovs took over Iran or Pakistan they could dominate the Gulf and strangle the West's energy supplies. The U.S. had to deal with whomever they could and Zia made sure that the only person the U.S. could deal with was him - and that nearly all funds for the Afghan insurgency were directed through the ISI to its favored ji hadis, with a portion re-directed to the nuclear weapons program.

After Zia insisted that these proxies kick out the Soviet-supported gov't against Washington's desires U.S. military support for Pakistan and Afghanistan both declined. B. Bhutto, limited by the president, tortured by the fear of what the military did to her and her father, became the Army's tool more than its opponent. N.S. tried to exile Zia after the Kargil disaster but Mushy took over instead. Regardless of how much the U.S. prefers democratic allies after 9/11 who, exactly, could the U.S. deal with to defend the U.S. from Al Qaeda but Mushy? Nevertheless, U.S. pressure did have a role in pushing Musharraf to allow Benazhir back - so what democracy you do have today the U.S. should be given some of the credit for, yes?

Shahbaz bhatti and Salman Taseer were heroes of Pakistan who took the bullet for Pakistani liberalism so I have no clue how you are saying liberals cannot come to power at all.

Liberals have to bring change, not just sit on top of the cash pile.

Furthermore mullahs haven't even once come to power-to the top through elections.

From my observations Pakistani elected officials now see themselves as subordinate to the generals - certainly the cabinet officials do, which is why you have your current Foreign Minister. Who knows where the next bullet will come from, or if the assassin is controlled through the COAS' office? There simply aren't enough checks and balances on the Army to establish civilian controls.

US policy is to shoot at any one who raises a voice against their mistakes.

In one Wikileaks document N.Sharif even spoke to the U.S. ambassador about who the U.S. has decided the next COAS will be, which sums up both Pakistani fears and their compensatory psychological mechanism for dealing with the matter. And I don't think "liberals" like yourself think in any different terms than N.S. did, do you?

 

[Solomon2]

Relevance to Dr Afridi’s in the context of attack on minorities is therefore baffling to my simple mind.

It's about justice. In neither the mob case nor Dr. Afridi's can you point to justice being done in a court of law with the defendant having counsel before the "guilty" party was "sentenced" and the sentence carried out.

Vanunu did it for his principles; Dr Shakil Afridi did it for money.

Two things are different: Vanunu took oaths of loyalty and secrecy to the Israeli government and had a trial with defense counsel. Dr. Afridi did not swear an oath to obey government officials nor did he have a trial anywhere but in the Pakistani media. Basically, Afridi was convicted by the mob the same way the Christians were, yes?

- And because Dr. A. was punished the way he was, that means in practice people in Pakistan aren't citizens with inherent rights but subjects who possess only the rights permitted by someone higher up the food chain.

I am an ordinary moderate Muslim with liberal views; Dr Afridi’s actions resulted in ridicule of the Pakistan Army and disgrace to the whole nation.

Americans find it odd that Pakistan's response is to spear the hero, rather than resolve to improve themselves by following his determined example to oppose terrorists, rather than accommodate them as much as possible.

Extremism in Pakistan today is similar to McCarthyism prevailing in the US in the 1950’s. Then US liberals were witch hunted and branded as Communists.

I'm surprised and pleased you recall McCarthyism. Did you also research how the U.S. escaped from it?

In Pakistan anyone who proposes amendment in the Hudood & Blasphemy laws and/or stands for fundamental human rights and values is labelled ‘Liberal jerk’ by the Taliban lovers and his assassin celebrated as ‘Hero’ by extremist mind-set lawyers and the media.

Would they bother assassinating you for doing so? Or for insisting on legal processes rather than mob or military ones to carry out justice?

A final note: I've read that when the Brits were in charge they established an intelligence-and-action organization among Islamic militants in India. The intel part collected information and the action part tried to influence imams' decisions. When the Brits departed they left the reigns for this organization in Pakistani hands. Do you think the Pakistani military abandoned this tool or used it to control the government as it wished?

 

[niaz]

It's about justice. In neither the mob case nor Dr. Afridi's can you point to justice being done in a court of law with the defendant having counsel before the "guilty" party was "sentenced" and the sentence carried out.

Two things are different: Vanunu took oaths of loyalty and secrecy to the Israeli government and had a trial with defense counsel. Dr. Afridi did not swear an oath to obey government officials nor did he have a trial anywhere but in the Pakistani media. Basically, Afridi was convicted by the mob the same way the Christians were, yes?

- And because Dr. A. was punished the way he was, that means in practice people in Pakistan aren't citizens with inherent rights but subjects who possess only the rights permitted by someone higher up the food chain.

Americans find it odd that Pakistan's response is to spear the hero, rather than resolve to improve themselves by following his determined example to oppose terrorists, rather than accommodate them as much as possible.

I'm surprised and pleased you recall McCarthyism. Did you also research how the U.S. escaped from it?

Would they bother assassinating you for doing so? Or for insisting on legal processes rather than mob or military ones to carry out justice?

A final note: I've read that when the Brits were in charge they established an intelligence-and-action organization among Islamic militants in India. The intel part collected information and the action part tried to influence imams' decisions. When the Brits departed they left the reigns for this organization in Pakistani hands. Do you think the Pakistani military abandoned this tool or used it to control the government as it wished?

There is little doubt that real reason why Dr Afridi was sentenced was for providing active assistance to CIA in tracking down OBL. However he was actually tried under Frontier Crimes Regulation, a penal code set up by the British to control the tribal regions. The court was presided over by the Political Agent and consisted of a ‘Jirga’ (a collection of tribal elders). Something similar to the circuit judge & jury in the American West of the 19th century. Dr Afridi was found guilty of belonging to Lashkar-e- Islam, a banned organization. It may be a sham but US Gov’t has prisoners suspected of harming US interest in Guantanamo Bay prison without even a sham trial.

I am old enough to remember internment of hundreds of thousands of US citizens of Japanese origin in the prison camps by President Roosevelt from 1942 to 1944. These people had committed no crime whatsoever except belonging to the Japanese race. I don’t defend the trial procedure of Dr Afridi,but in my opinion when it comes to national security, some rules can be justifiably bent. No one can deny that Pakistan is also under wartime conditions these days.

In my humble opinion, McCarthyism support declined after Senator McCarthy lost chairmanship of the Committee on Operations of the Senate and earned President Eisenhower wrath on his tactics during Senates investigations into the United Sates Army in 1955. By the time of the Kennedys’ New Frontier era, McCarthy had been dead for a couple years and McCarthyism had lost steam.

Demise of the extreme right wing bigot J Edgar Hoover, who headed the US intelligence for 48 years; first as Director of Bureau of Investigation ( 1924 -1935) and later as Head of FBI until his death in 1972; both the extremism & right wing organizations such as Klu Klux Klan had lost popular support. McCarthyism has however never completely died in the US. Even today brown skin accompanied by a beard makes one a terror suspect in the eyes of the American Joe public and the agencies.

The fact that mullahs had accumulated firearms inside the Lal Masjid located very near the ISI Head Quarters, provides ample proof that Pak Security agencies no longer keep a tab on mullah’s activities.

As an ordinary Pakistani discussing among friends I feel no danger when I am visiting Pakistan. However, if I were to express my views on the Hudood & Blasphemy laws or even condemn SSP/LeJ in a televised debate, I risk being branded a secular and/or a Shia kafir and would probably be shot by a zealot.

 

[Solomon2]

There is little doubt that real reason why Dr Afridi was sentenced was for providing active assistance to CIA in tracking down OBL. However he was actually tried under Frontier Crimes Regulation, a penal code set up by the British to control the tribal regions. The court was presided over by the Political Agent and consisted of a ‘Jirga’ (a collection of tribal elders).

Reporting on this "trial" was very spotty. And still my point that his conviction reduces Pakistanis from citizens to subjects escapes you.

Dr Afridi was found guilty of belonging to Lashkar-e- Islam, a banned organization. It may be a sham -

Yes, it is.

-Something similar to the circuit judge & jury in the American West of the 19th century.

Gross. The circuit judge & jury system was nothing like that - if I'm mistaken, please give me references - and abuses sharply diminished with the advance of settlement.

...but US Gov’t has prisoners suspected of harming US interest in Guantanamo Bay prison without even a sham trial.

Everyone agrees that as long as the organizations terrorists have sworn allegiance to are hostile to the U.S. it is legal to hold them in prison. Nevertheless, attempts have been made to bring the ones who haven't been released to trial. International law is still being made here.

What's important to remember is that while Dr. Afridi wasn't loyal to the desire of Pakistani authorities it's untenable to argue that he betrayed the Pakistani nation.

I am old enough to remember internment of hundreds of thousands of US citizens of Japanese origin in the prison camps by President Roosevelt from 1942 to 1944. These people had committed no crime whatsoever except belonging to the Japanese race.

I've read about these camps, too. Treatment seems to have been very polite, but it was still an un-American thing to do. Compensation was paid to the families in the 1990s through a bill supported by a Japanese-American senator representing Hawaii.

I don’t defend the trial procedure of Dr Afridi,but in my opinion when it comes to national security, some rules can be justifiably bent. No one can deny that Pakistan is also under wartime conditions these days.

The man did his best to help locate a terrorist who inspired thousands of Pakistanis to commit violence against their fellow-citizens. So why couldn't "some rules" be "justifiably bent" to give him a medal, rather than ream him for his courage?

In my humble opinion, McCarthyism support declined after Senator McCarthy lost chairmanship of the Committee on Operations of the Senate and earned President Eisenhower wrath on his tactics during Senates investigations into the United Sates Army in 1955.

You're mixing up cause and effect. McCarthy wasn't dethroned until he was publicly exposed and embarrassed first by a then-courageous free press. The KKK started losing influence before that, when Hollywood (yes, really!) infiltrated its Atlanta branch and exposed their secrets and pass-words in broadcasts of the radio serial The Adventures of Superman.

Even today brown skin accompanied by a beard makes one a terror suspect in the eyes of the American Joe public and the agencies.

Must be why so many Jews I know get stopped by Homeland Security.

The fact that mullahs had accumulated firearms inside the Lal Masjid located very near the ISI Head Quarters, provides ample proof that Pak Security agencies no longer keep a tab on mullah’s activities.

Just because they didn't act didn't mean Security agencies were ignorant of what was going on. But they may have been confused about what to do about it and who to do it. For a satirical look at such issues, watch this video: link

As an ordinary Pakistani discussing among friends I feel no danger when I am visiting Pakistan. However, if I were to express my views on the Hudood & Blasphemy laws or even condemn SSP/LeJ in a televised debate, I risk being branded a secular and/or a Shia kafir and would probably be shot by a zealot.

Perhaps the finest moments of the McCarthy era were those Americans who, grilled by a Congressional committee, responded that it was the congressmen themselves who were in violation of the Constitution and its freedoms by their support of blacklists and thuggery. That sort of thing could cost someone a job and career (of course, this being America, one usually starts another one.)

I can't do anything about your life being at risk. Allow me to point out that we Americans surmount the assassination problem by adopting the agenda of the politician attacked. So the U.S. fulfilled JFK's dream of landing men on the moon, and Reagan's desire for increased spending on national defense. Where would Pakistan be today if its politicians responded in a similar vein of outrage to Taseer's assassination by quickly banding together and revoking the Blasphemy Laws and even the Objectives Resolution? Do you think you'd be complaining that you lacked the freedom to speak your mind in public in front of an audience?

However, if you and your circle of friends are all of one mind, why not express your views together as loudly, publicly, and proudly as possible? Zealots go for isolated individuals; they hesitate to attack a member of a group out of fear of retaliation. Taseer was already pretty isolated politically before he was assassinated, yes?

 

[muse]

I love that balance - Pluralism & Islam !

In other words pluralism does not exist in Islam and instead it exists outside of Islam? Have I misunderstood you?

 

[Armstrong]

In other words pluralism does not exist in Islam and instead it exists outside of Islam? Have I misunderstood you?

Like always - Yes !

 

[muse]

Like always - Yes !

Then please explain -