An outrageous ban

[third eye]

Even if the Qadiyani owners of Shezan are allegedly non-Muslim, they are still Pakistani citizens and its a legal business. This is just ridiculous.

Funny that they would eat McDonalds, buy computers/laptops from Jewish made processor chips, give their children foreign imported medicines, watch Indian/English movies and go out for vacations in those 'infidel' countries but would not consume juices from their own country's minority community.

Very apt replies.

Education it appears is not helping . Lawyers are educated people who by profession are at least ' expected' to stand up & ensure the aggrieved get their dues. In this case it seems to be the opposite.

The decision arrived at seems to very discriminatory & selective.Not to mention uncalled for.

Can one expect any of the members of this Bar Association to fight in court for the rights of the minorities if this is their approach ?

 

[Nitin Goyal]

No they are not and that is why they must change. Most of the Islamic states out there, in my opinion, institutionalize religious bigotry and have a tendency to become borderline fascistic. Turkish Millet Concept of the Ottoman Empire, of the Al-Andalusian state in Spain and the earlier Rashidun Empires were all shinning examples of religious pluralism of their time. And in each successive system the level of inclusivity grew depending on how the relationship between the Muslims and Non-Muslims evolved. If we, the successor states, don't take that concept of inclusivity to the next level where our present day notions of nation-state have completely changed the dynamics of allegiances from that of ages past, we're in for one heck of an a** whooping when Kingdom comes.

Sir..U have hit the bullseye. Instituionalization of Bigotry is the main reason for most of the evil.

 

[Armstrong]

Sir still they are minorites and for your information Quran and Hadees are both part of Islam and Sir main duty of Muslim Leader is that he is also the main religious leader of Muslims How can a Non Muslim be Islamic Leader for Muslims Sir if you look the duties of Muslim leader you will know at that very moment that a Non Muslim cannot be a Muslim leader

Sir, this is not the Caliph we're talking about, its the President of Pakistan. And the President is not my spiritual guide, neither is the Caliph for that matter - one of the beauties of Islam is that we don't have a clergy even though now a days the Mullahs have pretty much interjected themselves as our clergymen.

As I said, the dynamics have changed. In ages past, had we conquered any Christian land, the inhabitants would have sided with the Christian army in case of any attempts to retake the land and as such a significant legislating capacity was not given to them. In our time the dynamics have significantly changed and religious sentiments would never evoke anti state activity in Pakistan because our minorities are a part of us. Consequently, the way I see it, 3 kinds of states, involving Muslims, can exist in today's world :

1) An overwhelmingly Muslim majority state (Pakistan, Turkey) - Where the Islamic identity is protected and nurtured by virtue of the democratic voice of the majority. But religious and legal pluralism is not compromised.

2) A state where both Muslims and Non-Muslims are in the abundance (Lebanon) - Where a compromise solution is determined and an ethnicity or language based nationality is formed instead of a religiously motivated dominant culture.

3) A state where the Muslims are in a significant minority (USA) - Same as 1) but with Us having switched positions with 'them'.

 

[Zarvan]

Sir, this is not the Caliph we're talking about, its the President of Pakistan. And the President is not my spiritual guide, neither is the Caliph for that matter - one of the beauties of Islam is that we don't have a clergy even though now a days the Mullahs have pretty much interjected themselves as our clergymen.

As I said, the dynamics have changed. In ages past, had we conquered any Christian land, the inhabitants would have sided with the Christian army in case of any attempts to retake the land and as such a significant legislating capacity was not given to them. In our time the dynamics have significantly changed and religious sentiments would never evoke anti state activity in Pakistan because our minorities are a part of us. Consequently, the way I see it, 3 kinds of states, involving Muslims, can exist in today's world :

1) An overwhelmingly Muslim majority state (Pakistan, Turkey) - Where the Islamic identity is protected and nurtured by virtue of the democratic voice of the majority. But religious and legal pluralism is not compromised.

2) A state where both Muslims and Non-Muslims are in the abundance (Lebanon) - Where a compromise solution is determined and an ethnicity or language based nationality is formed instead of a religiously motivated dominant culture.

3) A state where the Muslims are in a significant minority (USA) - Same as 1) but with Us having switched positions with 'them'.

Sir dynamics doesn't change major Islamic Laws that is clear from all scholars of Islam of all times that a Non Muslim cannot be a leader of Muslim Sir that will only create chaos and even war than doing anything good

 

[Leader]

It should be a personal matter- personal choice of the LBA members-
Its their choice- it should be a non- issue-

Its like saying- "Shame on all the vegetarians- who discriminate chicken and not eat it"-

Lahore bar was one of the most important bar in the subcontinent, after independence most important bar in Pakistan, and the Lawyers movement did give it international fame... but here the paido and jahil culture is taking over, though Ch Zulfikhar is a pro-Jamatiya but was not expecting him to pass such a resolution, they could have just made contact with another company, why ban?

#Nonsense !!

 

[Armstrong]

Sir dynamics doesn't change major Islamic Laws that is clear from all scholars of Islam of all times that a Non Muslim cannot be a leader of Muslim Sir that will only create chaos and even war than doing anything good

My friend, where does the Quran mention the exclusivity of Muslimhood for a Leader in todays world ? Furthermore, if Islamic laws are clear and written in stone, why is it that the penalty of amputation for theft was abrogated whenever exceptional circumstances have arisen (e.g a famine, extenuating circumstances etc.) ? How is it that all the 5 major Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence (Fiqahs) differ from each other on many a core issue ? The world that we find ourselves in today, is much different from the world of our forefathers. The Non-Muslim in our territory is not 'the other', never mind an actual enemy - they are a part of us, an invaluable and cherished part of us. If your apprehension is that a Non-Muslims President may pass a law that is against the fundamentals of the Quran or the Sunnah, than they are unfounded for the Parliament is there and us as being the 97% majority in the country would always have the power to strike down any bill that we deem Un-Islamic, plus our constitutional courts are there to strike down any law which is against Islam (as stipulated in the constitution).

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Funny that they would eat McDonalds, buy computers/laptops from Jewish made processor chips, give their children foreign imported medicines, watch Indian/English movies and go out for vacations in those 'infidel' countries but would not consume juices from their own country's minority community.

and even consume the Jewish medicines

some of our medicines are from India too hehe

by the way I do respect the personal preference but that shouldn't be imposed on others.
just like the British MPs dont want to eat Halal meat. its their choice

no need to criticize them but if they impose it on their Muslim peers and subordinates then thats wrong.
it is true that Ahmedis have a tough time in Pakistan at the hands of the same people who blame Israel for human rights violations of the Palestinians.

the age old law of "Might is right" applies everywhere regardless of the faith of the oppressor or the victim. just flip it and imagine if Ahmedis were in majority then other sunni sects would have had to suffer something similar to what is happening to Ahmedis. yea its all wrong and immoral but so are so many things in this world but we are very selective when we choose to praise or criticize something.

 

[Guest01]

Sad. Specially when considering that Jinnah (only a second generation Muslim) was also a lawyer. So that was one struggle for Pakistan and now this is the new struggle for Pakistan by the current day lawyers (the Qadri kissing ones). Different set of lawyers and utterly different set of objectives. Do they want to carve another Pakistan within the one that is left in its current form? It now seems evident that with the evolution of the current Pakistani version of Islam, there will be more divisions in the society.

How is the drink by the way? Has anyone over here had it?

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Very apt replies.

Education it appears is not helping . Lawyers are educated people who by profession are at least ' expected' to stand up & ensure the aggrieved get their dues. In this case it seems to be the opposite.

The decision arrived at seems to very discriminatory & selective.Not to mention uncalled for.

Can one expect any of the members of this Bar Association to fight in court for the rights of the minorities if this is their approach ?

you and I both know the answer

please dont forget who was showering rose petals on Mumtaz Qadri (the killer of of Punjab governer) during his court appearances
and offering to fight his case for free. Not sure if you have seen videos of some lawyers beating up their own peers for having difference of opinion, beating up police and disrespecting/ threatening judges and magistrates and barging in during court proceeding and throwing chairs and smashing furniture.

these are the same lawyers that were suddenly the darling of the national and international media for standing up to Musharraf but they didnt waste any time to show their true colours. it was all about getting their piece in the whole game of who controls what in Pakistan.

 

[Guest01]

and even consume the Jewish medicines

some of our medicines are from India too hehe

by the way I do respect the personal preference but that shouldn't be imposed on others.
just like the British MPs dont want to eat Halal meat. its their choice

no need to criticize them but if they impose it on their Muslim peers and subordinates then thats wrong.
it is true that Ahmedis have a tough time in Pakistan at the hands of the same people who blame Israel for human rights violations of the Palestinians.

the age old law of "Might is right" applies everywhere regardless of the faith of the oppressor or the victim. just flip it and imagine if Ahmedis were in majority then other sunni sects would have had to suffer something similar to what is happening to Ahmedis. yea its all wrong and immoral but so are so many things in this world but we are very selective when we choose to praise or criticize something.

Slight difference with the Halal meat scenario (evidently the source of the legitimacy sought in this case). They have a problem with the product. Not with the producer!

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Sad. Specially when considering that Jinnah (only a second generation Muslim) was also a lawyer. So that was one struggle for Pakistan and now this is the new struggle for Pakistan by the current day lawyers (the Qadri kissing ones). Different set of lawyers and utterly different set of objectives. Do they want to carve another Pakistan within the one that is left in its current form? It now seems evident that with the evolution of the current Pakistani version of Islam, there will be more divisions in the society.

How is the drink by the way? Has anyone over here had it?

yes i did and I also have its other products they are just fine. like jam, chatni and achars etc and I will continue to do that and prefer it over something that may have impurities and something toxic in it.

I just wonder if Shezan re-brands itself to Haji bandook wala then how popular it will become with the same hypocrites.

---------- Post added at 04:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------

Slight difference with the Halal meat scenario (evidently the source of the legitimacy sought in this case). They have a problem with the product. Not with the producer!

point taken and well said.

 

[untitled]

........They have a problem with the product. Not with the producer!

Then why did they not ask for Kosher to be banned ?

 

[third eye]

you and I both know the answer

please dont forget who was showering rose petals on Mumtaz Qadri (the killer of of Punjab governer) during his court appearances
and offering to fight his case for free. Not sure if you have seen videos of some lawyers beating up their own peers for having difference of opinion, beating up police and disrespecting/ threatening judges and magistrates and barging in during court proceeding and throwing chairs and smashing furniture.

these are the same lawyers that were suddenly the darling of the national and international media for standing up to Musharraf but they didnt waste any time to show their true colours. it was all about getting their piece in the whole game of who controls what in Pakistan.

What is written above is most unfortunate but true.

"Give me a situation and I will give you the rule' appears to the law of the day these days.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Then why did they not ask for Kosher to be banned ?

they (British MPs) were not demanding the ban of any product (Halal or Koshar) they just said that they dont want Halal (only) meat to be the ingredient in their canteen thats what i have understood. just like a Muslim would have said that he wont eat a non halal meat (we would have respected and supported his right).
I dont think MPs demanded the total ban of halal because that would have been against the constitution and what Briton stands for.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

What is written above is most unfortunate but true.

"Give me a situation and I will give you the rule' appears to the law of the day these days.

I take a positive view of all that is happening in Pakistan. its better that such intolerance, bigotry and xenophobia comes out in the open and looses its steam. forcing it with a lid or brushing it under the rug will only make it simmer and gather force to come out with far more force.

you see a flurry of intellectuals, writers and opinion makers who talk about these issues and show us the mirror and point out the wrong approaches we took and point to the right course of action. yes we have the other side as well that wants to take this extremism to the next level but steadily and surely people are speaking out.

read the articles, watch the videos and programs and you see people from all spectrum that are standing up to such madness. its all in the making of a nation. it might be tough and painful but to flush out the impurities we have to burnt to eventually shine.

for every hatemonger I can give you many names of people who talk of love respect peace and understanding and coexistence. what these Lawyers are doing is unsustainable because its impractical, antisocial and defies commonsense. they are pretty much
they are welcome to practice their own beliefs and preferences but they cant make it a law and use it as a peer pressure to impose it to all others who happen to be around them.

I fear that now some zealot lawyers might raid shops and coffees and breakup the merchandise if it contains products from Shezan. (something similar to what the thugs of Lal Masjid started doing after they got charged up by the Burka brothers) and made the lives of the ordinary citizens and traders a painful and fearful experience (I avoided the word living hell because of its excessive use and it has lost its meaning )