What's new

In Pakistan, a shrine to murder for 'blasphemy'

Please keep in mind that it was the rule of law that made it all possible for USA to progress, ever since its early days. Everything else came after that basic foundation. Where is Pakistan with regards to establishing the rule of law nearly 70 years after independence? Nowhere. And not even looking to do so.

Hahahaha .. conveniently forgot the US civil war before establishment of rule of law you talk of!?
 
Please keep in mind that it was the rule of law that made it all possible for USA to progress, ever since its early days. Everything else came after that basic foundation. Where is Pakistan with regards to establishing the rule of law nearly 70 years after independence? Nowhere. And not even looking to do so.

Hahahaha .. conveniently forgot the US civil war before establishment of rule of law you talk of!?
 
Hahahaha .. conveniently forgot the US civil war before establishment of rule of law you talk of!?

Even the US civil war was an exercise in the rule of law. You really should read up more on that if you don't believe that statement.
 
Extremism is so entrenched in Pakistani society now that it simply cannot be uprooted without a civil war.

I doubt we need to go as extreme as civil war but obviously extremism in society is a creation of certain political factions who out to replace natural forces with a man made bogeyman of Islamism..so they can stand at the election dice and say look..if you don't vote for us...the alternate is the mullah..Bhutto seeded the ideology and Benazir matured it..the stupid nation is reaping it...then is the accountability for military..it is beyond doubt that patronage exist between Pakistani military and Islamic extremist...and the Jehadist at times have been the volunteer guerrilla unit of military..

If all else fails..civil war may be coming...it could be the rise of people against the mullahs..and you will see bearded people being accumulated and shot point blank in mass graves..!
 
I doubt we need to go as extreme as civil war but obviously extremism in society is a creation of certain political factions who out to replace natural forces with a man made bogeyman of Islamism..so they can stand at the election dice and say look..if you don't vote for us...the alternate is the mullah..Bhutto seeded the ideology and Benazir matured it..the stupid nation is reaping it...

The only problem with that strategy is that it is ultimately self-defeating. As I mentioned above, ignorance, education, health, nutrition, social development, that is where the real dangers to Pakistan lie.
 
Even the US civil war was an exercise in the rule of law. You really should read up more on that if you don't believe that statement.

And Zarb-e-Azab is what exactly?

USA didn't become a civilised country from the red-indians and slave killing one overnight. It took lot longer than mere 70yrs you are banging on.

As long as Pak has an army that public has a strong bond with, we will not sink.

And US civil war was won by the army that had the highest public backing. Had there been no army and a strong leadership in USA of then, it would've remained the killer nation.
 
As long as Pak has an army that public has a strong bond with, we will not sink.

I fully agree with that statement. As long as it holds true. Please keep in mind that the public support is a fickle thing. After all, the same Pakistani public and cheered when dictators took over and cheered when they are driven away. The version of radical Islam that has taken hold in wider society will take over the military too, given the changes we can already see. And if the military resists this change, it will end up losing the support of the majority of the people. Either way, your statement will break down.
 
Last edited:
I fully agree with that statement. As long as it holds true. Please keep in mind that the public support is a fickle thing. After all, the same Pakistani public and cheered when dictators took over and cheered when they are driven away. The version of radical Islam that has taken hold in wider society will take over the military too, given the changes we can already see. And if the military resists this change, it will end up losing the support of the majority of the people. Either way, your statement will break down.


The military will be hunted by the bogey man it created..simple as that!
 
I fully agree with that statement. As long as it holds true. Please keep in mind that the public support is a fickle thing. After all, the same Pakistani public and cheered when dictators took over and cheered when they are driven away. The version of radical Islam that has taken hold in wider society will take over the military too, given the changes we can already see. And if the military resists this change, it will end up losing the support of the majority of the people. Either way, your statement will break down.

Certain foreign powers have been trying very hard to break that connection, would you agree on that too? You should, afterall liberal Fascists are part of that plan.

And there is no radicalisation in the Army. Sermons in army mosques are standardised (as they should be all over Pak and as they are in Iran) and there's no sect colour to the army either.

And if having a strong belief in Quran and Prophet (S.A.W) makes one radical (minus any influence of sects), then so be it. I'll always be supportive of such a radical army.

The military will be hunted by the bogey man it created..simple as that!

If bogeyman can be created, it can be killed as well.
 
Last edited:
Ypu know more about thos oncident than i thought a westerner would hmm
On Shebaz Bhatti he got killed for no reason at all they cant even use the the flawed Taseer argument on him
I do read slot about several countries, plus I like doing my own research about certain issues, I don't always take things at face value or rely on one source. Plus traveling opens the mind alot I must confess.
Anyway, Pakistan is very unfortunate that it ever had a hard core Islamist leader like that Zia hul aq or whatever his name. He is the one who put Pakistan in such an irreversible downward spiral of extremism/radical Islamisation, which is unfortunate, since Pakistan was doing fairly well and things could have turned out very differently for the country. Funny how one man can change the course of a country/entire generations, reason a political system with strong institutions with check and balances is often crucial. That's the advantage and rigidness of the U.S system for example.
Anyway, this should serve as a lesson to other regional countries who might face similar issues as Pakistan at one stage I guess.
 
Last edited:
I do read slot about several countries, plus I like doing my own research about certain issues, I don't always take things at face value or rely on one source. Plus traveling opens the mind alot I must confess.
Anyway, Pakistan is very unfortunate that it ever had a hard core Islamist leader like that Zia hul aq or whatever his name. He is the one who put Pakistan in such an irreversible downward spiral of extremism/radical Islamisation, which is unfortunate, since Pakistan was doing fairly well and things could have turned out very differently for the country. Funny how one man can change the course of a country/entire generations, reason a political system with strong institutions with check and balances is often crucial. That's the advantage and rigidness of the U.S system for example.
Anyway, this should serve as a lesson to other regional countries who might face similar issues as Pakistan at one stage I guess.
Zia was a symptom not a cause imit was Bhutto who axtually started appeasing Mullahs to strengthen his govt but now i feel that we are moving in the right direction the supreme court and the parliament looks interested on doing something about it the pace is slow but its in the right direction and the media is fully onboard on this issue
 
If the Bhutto can have a mausoleum then why can't Qadri have a shrine? After all both of them were punished according to the laws of the land and there aren't any further laws which establish what people shouldn't do with their graves. The expressions "Freedom of this" and "freedom of that" shouldn't be selectively applied. Unless there is a law which restricts his family and protagonists to not venerate him, there isn't much to talk about.
Exactly! Unfortunately some people would rather be selective in giving others the very freedom they claim they stand for.

Reason you wish to pay homage to a killer and a traitor?
He is not a traitor. He only implemented law of the law which Taseer took an oath to uphold. Taseer was the traitor.

now look at the case realistically, he was a bloody governor, who would dare to act against him and arrest him while he was spreading fitnah and calling 295b a black law?
Politicians are above the law in Pakistan. No one would have dared to punish him for breaking the law of the land.

Qadri job was to body guard the governor..the is nobody to question a person to whom he is effectively appointed as naukar..it was partially mistake of Taseer that his liberal mind was not immediately able to pick up hints of radical Islam and terminate him immediately..eventually leading to his own demise..the episode of Taseer and Qadri set the record in society straight as arrow...to never entrust, believe or even walk in shadow of religious person..!
Taseer should have kept his mouth shut. But being a typical arrogant and stuck up liberal White wannabe he opened his mouth and insulted the laws that protect our religion thinking he would face no repercussions. Pakistani liberals and their arrogance has no limits. When you don't know your limits then it is natural that someone else will show you your limit.

Quaid-E-Azam and Allama Iqbal were humans and humans are prone to make mistakes no human is perfect.
AFAIK Quaid-e-Azam and Allama Iqbal were not arrogant liberals who spat on the traditions and cultures of their own common people. These Taseer types are nothing but corrupt Politicians who think themselves above the law.

He protected constitution when he killed a sitting governor without a trial?
Oh, you mean the trial that would never actually come?
 
AFAIK Quaid-e-Azam and Allama Iqbal were not arrogant liberals who spat on the traditions and cultures of their own common people. These Taseer types are nothing but corrupt Politicians who think themselves above the law.
That post was a reply to a guy who every time brings in ilm deen and starts giving example of how Quaid-e-Azam fought his case and Allama Iqbal supported him.
 
The version of radical Islam that has taken hold in wider society will take over the military too,
No, it won't. THe high water mark for radical Islam was I believe 2010. Now it is a gradual slope down to normalcy although it going to take decades.

Zia was a symptom not a cause imit was Bhutto who axtually started appeasing Mullahs to strengthen
Not quite. The road to perdition began in 1947. That was when religion was first openly used as tool to get a political goal - Pakistan. However this Pandora's box could then have been closed shut and nailed forever after achieving the political goal of Pakistan. Extenuating circumstances might sometimes require extreme methods. Making a country is one off thing so we can forgive the use of religon in 1947.

However the ML elite post 1947 mostly from India who migrated to what became Pakistan soon found themselves ruling ruling a Punjab, Frontier, Sindh and Baluchistan which had never been their support bases. So when it was time to nail the Pandora's box they retained the 'Muslim' card as a device to gain traction with the Punjabi, Pashtun, Sindhi majority country. Islam had animated these very people in birth of Pakistan. Now again it was mobilized so that ML could gain traction with these peoples. That is why no elections were held. The second uses of religion was when the ML elite introduced the Objective Resolution in 1949. Having no mandate they began to toy with Islam to gain legitimacy. Objective Resolution formally included the vocabulary of religion into the bloodstream of the state. To my eyes this is where the clock starts ticking.

On the face of it Pakistan continued being a secular country. However that was more to do with history then Pakistan. From 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s most officials were products of British rule. As decades moved forward that generation slowly retired and British rule became confined to history books the 'desi' or native products of Pakistan began to assert themselves.

So although Objective Resolution introduced Islam as state religion but Pakistan continued to be ran by pre-independance British recruited officials. However the seed had been planted in 1949 Objectives Resolution. To make matters worse the ML elite also allowed entry into Pakistan from India large body of religious groups who had actually been against the idea of Pakistan. Examples of this are Maududi who -

He arrived in Pakistan from India as a migrant and scholar with the ambition to turn what to him was a nationalistic abomination into becoming a 'true Islamic state' based on the laws of the shariah.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1154419

The ML elite used the Jamaat Islami and other religious groups most of them migrants from India as way to gain traction within Pakistan and secondly counter the leftists socialists in the country. This found common ground with US with what then was the Cold War era. This is the third use of religion. Soon Ayub Khan took over Pakistan in military coup. Again the secular tradition from British era continued but Jamaat Islami under Maududi and other Mullahs slowly worked hard on the ground spreading their tentacles across Pakistan although they found most suppport base with migrants from India like in Karachi. The anti Ahmadiya riots of 1953 were warning of what was to come. However the administration was still 6 years distant from British rule showed exemplary efficiency and the riots were controled with ring leaders arrested including Maududi.

However these groups were slowly spreading their toxin in the general Pakistani population. By 1969 the religious groups were strong enough to cause Ayub Khan to resign. By the time Bhutto took over it would have required a Stalin or a Kemal Ataturk to push the monster back into the Pandoras box. For all intents and purposes it was all over.

Bhutto of course tried to placate this monster but it did not save him. Gen. Zia merely rode this wave to extend his rule. 1980s can be best described as the consummation of a project that had began in 1947.The fourth use of religion. Afghan jihad gave opportunity for the religious groups to come out of the shadows and take public positions. The remarkable fact is the community that primarily had been responsible for using religion in aid of politcs - the migrants (mohajirs) from India abandoned the religious parties in 1980s and chose the ethnic based MQM to represent them.

It is going to take another 3 decades I think before this process can be tamed. I still think we saw the high water mark at 2010 and now are slowly going to go downhill.

AFAIK Quaid-e-Azam and Allama Iqbal were not arrogant liberals who spat on the traditions
Proper 'desi' boy our Jinnah was. He neve spat on any traditions did he? Married his first cousin who was a devout Muslim. His child a devout Muslim lives in India. [secret: His wife was Parsee. His daughter lives in India and is a Parsee. He loved wearing expensive Western clothes]

Dina-Jinnah.jpg



jinnah-and-dog.jpg



Hey man I love his brogues. Typical Pakistani style.


4d3977363b90141973d63975cf678952.jpg



Below is video with a clip of Dina Wadia the Parsee daughter of Jinnah who lives in India at 3:40

 
No, it won't. THe high water mark for radical Islam was I believe 2010. Now it is a gradual slope down to normalcy although it going to take decades.

I would like to hear your assessment of any evidence that suggest that radical Islam is on the downswing since 2010. In my view, it seems to still be seeping into all segments of society, including the military, at the same insidious pace ever since it was cross-infected from the trained snakes into the ignorant general public.

Certain foreign powers have been trying very hard to break that connection, would you agree on that too? You should, afterall liberal Fascists are part of that plan.

And there is no radicalisation in the Army. Sermons in army mosques are standardised (as they should be all over Pak and as they are in Iran) and there's no sect colour to the army either.

And if having a strong belief in Quran and Prophet (S.A.W) makes one radical (minus any influence of sects), then so be it. I'll always be supportive of such a radical army.



If bogeyman can be created, it can be killed as well.

Trying to blame the changes in Pakistani society, and the military that it has nurtured, on foreign powers is absolute balderdash. It is the creation of proxies to attack neighbors that has landed Pakistan in this trouble, since, as time has gone by, these snakes have becomes more and more autonomous. At one hand you blame foreign powers to attack the connection between the military and the people, yet on the other hand you also admit that the bogeyman is indeed the creation of the military. Evidence also shows that it is now out of their control, directionless and self-propagating.

Merely saying that there is no radicalization in the Army is not enough. How many officers and jawans have been investigated, side-lined and indeed tried for attempted subversion born of their radical views? How does one explain the involvement of military personnel in attacks that have always been hushed up? How many of the APS conspirators were there in total and how many were not outsiders?

The questions go on and on.

The military will be hunted by the bogey man it created..simple as that!

Look at all the military and civilian casualties to date and it is clear that what you say above it already true.
 
Back
Top Bottom