How Islamicised is the Pakistan army?

[Conscientious objector]

Yarmouk,

Are you actually suggesting that the Pakistani Taliban (The Tehreek-e-Taliban led by Baitullah Mehsud and Mullah Fazlullah in Swat) are innocent, and that their violent campaign to overthrow the current system in Pakistan and therefore the constitution of Pakistan, through force, is justified?

Why are you automatically linking the overthrow of a ruler with the abolishing of a constitution.

 

[Faruqi]

Why are you automatically linking the overthrow of a ruler with the abolishing of a constitution.

Sufi Mohammed claimed that the constitution is unIslamic & the main aim of these people is to get Islmaic law in place, therefore it's assumable that Sufi & his ilk wanted to abolish the constitution, as they see it as unIslamic. Now, I have a question for you - how can you support a group that uses suicide attacks on Friday prayers as a means to spread itself?

 

[Conscientious objector]

Sufi Mohammed claimed that the constitution is unIslamic & the main aim of these people is to get Islmaic law in place, therefore it's assumable that Sufi & his ilk wanted to abolish the constitution, as they see it as unIslamic.

O.K point taken, I assumed the constitution itself was Islamic as it is that of the Islamic republic of Pakistan and that all that would be required would be to apply it correctly, I guess I was wrong about that

Now, I have a question for you - how can you support a group that uses suicide attacks on Friday prayers as a means to spread itself?

I'm not suggeting any means justifies any given end result, if we are to accept that the methodology of a particular group might be incorrect that is not to say the aims and objectives are also incorrect.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AgNoStIc MuSliM,

In wars there are seldom any complete innocents. PA and its Supreme Commander (which happen to be Zardari) certainly are not. Those who bomb public places aren't either.

A campaign to overthrow this unislamic system is justified Islamically (theologically speaking). Using violent means for the same is subject to ijtihad (scholarly study and verdict). I believe the latter too is justified if civillian casualties are avoided. In this case, both sided aren't doing the last.

So while their violent campaign to overthrow these puppets and their imported system is justified, targeting innocents (which they deny) is not.

Whether you agree with Zardari's policies or character or not, his government was legitimately elected per the constitution of Pakistan.

If you consider the system and the PPP government 'un-Islamic', the same mechanism that brought this government to power can be utilized to elect people more in sync with your viewpoint, and the necessary changes can be enacted in the system through constitutional amendments.

As such, whether Zardari or the Army are 'innocents' or not does not matter - what matters is that they represent the policies of a government elected by the people of Pakistan, and in approximately 3.5 years, those who disagree can attempt to remove them.

The Taliban on the other hand function under no such legitimacy - they have been conferred no authority by the people of Pakistan or Pakistan's constitution to bear arms and use force to spread their ideology and impose their preferred 'system'.

So regardless of 'innocence' (on which count the Taliban are far closer to 'guilty' than any other player), equivocating between the Taliban (or any other militant group that use force against the state) and the State is to advocate in favor of 'anti-Pakistan' and 'anti-State' activities, and such support for criminal and treasonous activity will not be tolerated on this forum.

You can disagree on the best way (strategy, tactics etc.) to handle the insurgent/militant threat, but there should be no question that the State, conferred with legitimacy by the people through the ballot box, is the only authority that can authorize the bearing of arms and the use of force. The Taliban are therefore criminals and the State must act to restore its writ in areas affected by these criminals.

There is no room for compromise here. Continued rhetoric against the Pakistani constitution and equivocation between the democratically elected government and the Taliban will result in a ban.

Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Why are you automatically linking the overthrow of a ruler with the abolishing of a constitution.

The constitution provides for a mechanism to 'overthrow the ruler' - elections and/or the parliament. In 3.5 years that opportunity shall arise again.

Some people however have been arguing that the democratic system itself, enshrined in the constitution of Pakistan, is 'un-Islamic'. They have attempted to justify the use of force to overthrow a perceived 'corrupt regime', which is a violation of the Pakistani constitution.

Given Yarmouk's rhetoric in his past posts, my question was completely reasonable.

 

[Conscientious objector]

Whether you agree with Zardari's policies or character or not, his government was legitimately elected per the constitution of Pakistan.

You've failed to understand that Islamicly the way in which Zardari came to power illegitimate.

If you consider the system and the PPP government 'un-Islamic', the same mechanism that brought this government to power can be utilized to elect people more in sync with your viewpoint, and the necessary changes can be enacted in the system through constitutional amendments.

Again your calling for change through a democratic process, whereas the idea that the people choose which government rules over them whether(democratic elections) Islamic or secular or otherwise is itself UnIslamic. Democracy is kufr do you comprehend?

As such, whether Zardari or the Army are 'innocents' or not does not matter - what matters is that they represent the policies of a government elected by the people of Pakistan, and in approximately 3.5 years, those who disagree can attempt to remove them.

This is really difficult for you to understand isn't it? Democracy itself is illegitimate so how can you expect us as Muslims to resort to it in the hope of a legitimate government

The Taliban on the other hand function under no such legitimacy - they have been conferred no authority by the people of Pakistan or Pakistan's constitution to bear arms and use force to spread their ideology and impose their preferred 'system'.

Because you see the will of the people as being the supreme mandate you do not recognise the supreme mandate given to Muslims which is the Quran.Once you accept the word of Allah as being supreme what people want becomes irrelevant.

So regardless of 'innocence' (on which count the Taliban are far closer to 'guilty' than any other player), equivocating between the Taliban (or any other militant group that use force against the state) and the State is to advocate in favor of 'anti-Pakistan' and 'anti-State' activities, and such support for criminal and treasonous activity will not be tolerated on this forum.

Yet kufr and treason to Allah's laws are not problematic in the least?The state is not our lord we do not recognise kufr governments as supreme deity's to which we are subservient.Allah is our Lord and he has commanded us that we should rule in accordance with his law,the sharia.

You can disagree on the best way (strategy, tactics etc.) to handle the insurgent/militant threat, but there should be no question that the State, conferred with legitimacy by the people through the ballot box, is the only authority that can authorize the bearing of arms and the use of force. The Taliban are therefore criminals and the State must act to restore its writ in areas affected by these criminals.

The Ballot box is not legitimate, the will of the majority is not legitimate,the Quran is.

There is no room for compromise here.

The only compromise that is allowed is when Islam is compromised is it?

Continued rhetoric against the Pakistani constitution and equivocation between the democratically elected government and the Taliban will result in a ban.

So in other words any opposing views will not be tolerated even if the one airing those views does so in a non abusive manner?

 

[Conscientious objector]

The constitution provides for a mechanism to 'overthrow the ruler' - elections and/or the parliament. In 3.5 years that opportunity shall arise again.

Some people however have been arguing that the democratic system itself, enshrined in the constitution of Pakistan, is 'un-Islamic'.

Errm it is unIslamic, if you would like to discuss or challenge this view lets do so in a polite manner, why the threats of a ban?

They have attempted to justify the use of force to overthrow a perceived 'corrupt regime', which is a violation of the Pakistani constitution.

From an Islamic view point the use of force can at times be legitimate,why don't you challenge this view if you feel it is incorrect.

 

[blain2]

From an Islamic view point the use of force can at times be legitimate,why don't you challenge this view if you feel it is incorrect.

Please enlighten us as to what such times are.

 

[A1Kaid]

Have you ever heard of the "beard test"?

It is said you can measure how religious or conservative the Pakistani Army is getting by counting the number of soldiers with beards, as you know in Pakistan having a beard is not really a 'fashion statement' but usually a religious one, in accordance with Islam and the soldier's religious practice.

According to the beard test, the guy on the right is an "Islamic extremist", (Just kidding).



According to the beard test, these guys are "moderates".



No the beard test is not a proven way or 100% correct, but their is a real factor to it that makes it somewhat valid tool to use to measure how conservative or Islamic the Army is getting, of course their are flaws...

 

[blain2]

I'm not suggeting any means justifies any given end result, if we are to accept that the methodology of a particular group might be incorrect that is not to say the aims and objectives are also incorrect.

This thread would not be here and we would not be arguing back and forth for the past many days if it was just about the aim and objectives. The bottom line is the means being used here. There is no room for these means to be used given the circumstances. The folks you are running interference for are misguided and are on a self-destructive path given the fact that their own understanding of the deen is lacking.

You cannot provide cover for their misdeeds by claiming that their aims and objectives are noble. This was indeed the way of the Kharijis as well. Their intention may have been noble in the beginning, but their misguided zeal took them off course and resulted in weakening of the Muslims. These gents representing TTP and others are no different. When in the land of Muslims, worshippers are slaughtered, their ulema are put under the knife and then boldly claimed as the intended targets by the TTP and gents, then no matter what arguments you put up, they ring hollow. In fact you do a disservice to Islam and the rest of us Muslims by defending them.

 

[blain2]

Have you ever heard of the "beard test".

It is said you can measure how religious or conservative the Pakistani Army is getting by counting the number of soldiers with beards, as you know in Pakistan having a beard is not really a 'fashion statement' but usually a religious one, in accordance with Islam and the soldier's religious practice.

According to the beard test, the guy on the right is an "Islamic extremist", (Just kidding).



According to the beard test, these guys are "moderates".



No the beard test is not a proven way or 100% correct, but their is a real factor to it that makes it somewhat valid tool to use to measure how conservative or Islamic the Army is getting, of course their are flaws...

There is no perceptible difference in the outlook of the Army since the 80s. Army is as religious or non-religious as it has been since the 80s. Its a conservative institution and depending on where the recruitment is being drawn, the outlook will slightly change, but my suggestion would be to stay away from such cosmetic observations (mostly put to use by the foreign diplomatic corps in Pakistan with pretty useless results).

 

[A1Kaid]

There is no perceptible difference in the outlook of the Army since the 80s. Army is as religious or non-religious as it has been since the 80s. Its a conservative institution and depending on where the recruitment is being drawn, the outlook will slightly change, but my suggestion would be to stay away from such cosmetic observations (mostly put to use by the foreign diplomatic corps in Pakistan with pretty useless results).

I agree with your point, I was just sharing an idea and method of survey some use to measure how conservative or Islamic the Army is getting. Nonetheless, the "beard test" is interesting...

 

[Vassnti]

Because you see the will of the people as being the supreme mandate you do not recognise the supreme mandate given to Muslims which is the Quran.Once you accept the word of Allah as being supreme what people want becomes irrelevant.

?

The advantage of the will of the people is you can ask them.
Unless i missed some thing there hasnt been a recent divine revelation that Baitullah Mehsud is the chosen of Allah.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Errm it is unIslamic, if you would like to discuss or challenge this view lets do so in a polite manner, why the threats of a ban?

If it is 'un-Islamic' then you should be able to convince the people of Pakistan to elect people supporting your POV and change the system to one that you consider 'Islamic'.

Advocating a change in the system by using force (Taliban) is to advocate for anarchy and treason. No doubt people like you and Yarmouk were at the forefront of calling the 'dictator Musharraf' a usurper of power and whatnot - calling for changing the system through any means not outlined in the constitution is the same as Musharraf's actions.

This forum shall not be used as a platform for treasonous and unconstitutional agendas, especially when those agenda's are in favor of a brutal entity the state of Pakistan is currently waging war against.

From an Islamic view point the use of force can at times be legitimate,why don't you challenge this view if you feel it is incorrect.

No use of force is legitimate unless sanctioned under the constitution of Pakistan, and sanctioned by a government elected 'freely and fairly' by the processes outlined in the constitution of Pakistan.

I strongly oppose those who espouse views in favor of another martial law, and I strongly oppose those who advocate for other violent and unconstitutional means of changing the government.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

some of you people are confused.

You think secular means atheist.


Read a dictionary, and learn about countries with secular government. Even though Pakistan is a Muslim majority country, we still have minorities. The purpose of Pakistan's creation was for religious freedom and it was to promote modern principles. If you don't respect Jinnah, then you don't respect Pakistan.



i trust somebody who is educated, can argue cogently, works hard for his/her nation and society, and who has the credentials.

I dont trust some fiery Mullah or some mediocre bigot who thinks he is proper Maulvi to tell me what is right and what is wrong.


I dream of a secular Pakistan. Religion has no business in state affairs. The sooner people realize it, the better.