What's new

Irony and paradox

qsaark,
You state that liberal facists somehow wants to impose their agenda on whole Pakistan.Where as in reality it's religious facists/bigots who want to impose their agenda on PAkistan.Is Pakistan not Islamic now?What more do you need?You said you like America because no one interferes with your personal life as long as you are not doing anything illegal so why is it that you don't want to see the same thing in Pakistan and wants to see Pakistan turned into an extreme Islamic state like Iran.
 
.
Dear Mr. Ahmad

Violence, coersion, threats, distortion of Quran to fit their political agenda, these are mother's milk to Islamists, whereas Muslims do regret it and do reject it. These Jamati and Ulema kha think that we will forget that they labeled the Quaid e Azam, a Kafir, and derided Pakistan as Napakistan - indeed we shall not forget.

Below is a piece I think you will find interesting - if you like you may also wish to post on your PAF Hero sets Islamist straight, thread


What Jinnah wanted

Saturday, May 23, 2009
K Hussan Zia

In his article, "Islamisation: Cure of all evils," Qazi Hussain Ahmad wrote in The News of April 20 that "Pakistan is a result of the Two-nation Theory that clearly spells that the life of Muslims is governed by the Islamic system based on Quran and Sunnah. Until we harmonise our lives, economy, society, Constitution and legal system with Islam, our society will continue to suffer from internal strife and friction."

The All-India Muslim League never officially defined or elaborated on the so-called "Two-nation Theory." It was a loosely coined term, probably first used by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan to express the Muslim identity in India. With the exception of Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, no Muslim religious leader of any standing supported the idea, right up to the time of independence. The president of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema, Husain Ahmad Madani, issued a fatwa in October 1945 declaring it haram for Muslims to join the Muslim League, the party that had proposed the creation of a separate Muslim state. (Pakistan, The Formative Phase, by Khalid bin Sayeed, p. 216.) Significantly, the Lahore Resolution of 1940 that formed the basis of Pakistan makes no reference to the Two-nation Theory, nor did it envisage Sharia law for the proposed Muslim state. Jinnah made this very clear on numerous occasions subsequently and no one disagreed with him at the time.

Amir Ahmed Khan, the Raja Sahib of Mahmudabad who was personally very close to Jinnah, records that as a young man he was very keen that Pakistan should be an "Islamic state." "My advocacy of an Islamic state brought me into conflict with Jinnah. He thoroughly disapproved of my ideas and dissuaded me from expressing them publicly from the League platform, lest the people might be led to believe that Jinnah shared my view and that he was asking me to convey such ideas to the public. Now that I look back I realise how wrong I had been." (Raja of Mahmudabad: "Some Memories," in Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives, 1935-47 by Philips and Wainwright, pp. 388- 9). At the Muslim Legislators' Conference in Delhi in April 1946 Jinnah said, "What are we aiming at? It is not for theocracy, not for a theocratic state."

What Qazi Sahib has stated is strictly the Jamaat-e-Islami's current view and not that of the Muslim League, and the vast majority of Muslims in India at the time. Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi wrote: "As a Muslim, I have no interest in their (Muslim) rule in those areas of India where the Muslims are in a majority. For me the primary question is whether in this 'Pakistan' of yours the basis of government will be the sovereignty of God or, in accordance with the western idea of democracy, the sovereignty of the people. In the first case it will certainly be 'Pakistan,' otherwise it will be as much of 'Na-Pakistan' as that part of the country where, according to your scheme, the rule will be that of non-Muslims: in fact, in the eyes of God it will be 'na-pak' -- and damned. (Musalman aur Maujooda Siyasi Kashmakash, Vol. III, Office of the Tarjman-ul-Quran, Pathankot, 1942, p. 92, 108.)

The Holy Quran does not specify any system of government as such; only that Muslims should resolve any collective issues through mutual consultation and consensus (42:38 and Maulana Maudoodi's own Khilafat-o-Mulukiat). The Holy Prophet (PBUH) also did not express a preference for any particular administrative regime (Al-Farooq, by Maulana Shibli Naumani, p. 575). When Syria, Egypt and Iran were first annexed, the Khulafa-e-Rashideen only changed the laws that were contrary to the Quranic injunctions. The rest were left in place. Similarly and for the record, when Pakistan framed the Constitution in 1954 based entirely on democratic principles, Maulana Maudoodi issued a statement that the Constitution was, to a very large extent Islamic in character, and urged its adoption (Dawn, Oct 15, 1954).

Of the 6,666 ayats in the Holy Quran only 570 are specific or address issues with certitude; all the rest are open to interpretation. It is only natural that different individuals should interpret the latter differently. According to Maulana Maudoodi, among others, this is perfectly acceptable. (An Introduction to the Quran, p. 20.)

It is not clear what Qazi Hussain Ahmed means by "Islamisation." Are the vast majority of Pakistanis not already Muslim? Do we really need to change the Constitution and all the laws of the country to make them good and proper Muslims? There are only 70 verses in the Koran that deal with personal law, another 70 with civil law, about 30 with penal law and 20 with issues of testimony and justice. In other words, less than three percent of the Quran is about laws and related legal matters. This in itself should be an indication of the relative emphasis to be laid on this particular aspect of the religion.

Preoccupation with taking control of the instruments of government in the name of religion is a dangerous notion that will not serve the cause of Islam. If the object is to make good Muslims it can only be achieved by personal endeavour, and not through coercion by the state. (The Quran 2:256.) The latter will inevitably lead to the institution of Spanish-style Inquisition. Islam is much more than controlling the levers of power and manipulating the personal lives of individuals. Let us not defy its spirit and spoil its good name through misplaced zeal, as happened under Taliban rule in Afghanistan.


The writer is author of Muslims and the West: A Muslim Perspective and the forthcoming Pakistan: Perspective and Genesis. Email: hsnzia@rogers.com
 
.
Dear Mr. Ahmad

Violence, coersion, threats, distortion of Quran to fit their political agenda, these are mother's milk to Islamists, whereas Muslims do regret it and do reject it. These Jamati and Ulema kha think that we will forget that they labeled the Quaid e Azam, a Kafir, and derided Pakistan as Napakistan - indeed we shall not forget.

Below is a piece I think you will find interesting - if you like you may also wish to post on your PAF Hero sets Islamist straight, thread


What Jinnah wanted

Saturday, May 23, 2009
K Hussan Zia

In his article, "Islamisation: Cure of all evils," Qazi Hussain Ahmad wrote in The News of April 20 that "Pakistan is a result of the Two-nation Theory that clearly spells that the life of Muslims is governed by the Islamic system based on Quran and Sunnah. Until we harmonise our lives, economy, society, Constitution and legal system with Islam, our society will continue to suffer from internal strife and friction."

The All-India Muslim League never officially defined or elaborated on the so-called "Two-nation Theory." It was a loosely coined term, probably first used by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan to express the Muslim identity in India. With the exception of Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, no Muslim religious leader of any standing supported the idea, right up to the time of independence. The president of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema, Husain Ahmad Madani, issued a fatwa in October 1945 declaring it haram for Muslims to join the Muslim League, the party that had proposed the creation of a separate Muslim state. (Pakistan, The Formative Phase, by Khalid bin Sayeed, p. 216.) Significantly, the Lahore Resolution of 1940 that formed the basis of Pakistan makes no reference to the Two-nation Theory, nor did it envisage Sharia law for the proposed Muslim state. Jinnah made this very clear on numerous occasions subsequently and no one disagreed with him at the time.

Amir Ahmed Khan, the Raja Sahib of Mahmudabad who was personally very close to Jinnah, records that as a young man he was very keen that Pakistan should be an "Islamic state." "My advocacy of an Islamic state brought me into conflict with Jinnah. He thoroughly disapproved of my ideas and dissuaded me from expressing them publicly from the League platform, lest the people might be led to believe that Jinnah shared my view and that he was asking me to convey such ideas to the public. Now that I look back I realise how wrong I had been." (Raja of Mahmudabad: "Some Memories," in Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives, 1935-47 by Philips and Wainwright, pp. 388- 9). At the Muslim Legislators' Conference in Delhi in April 1946 Jinnah said, "What are we aiming at? It is not for theocracy, not for a theocratic state."

What Qazi Sahib has stated is strictly the Jamaat-e-Islami's current view and not that of the Muslim League, and the vast majority of Muslims in India at the time. Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi wrote: "As a Muslim, I have no interest in their (Muslim) rule in those areas of India where the Muslims are in a majority. For me the primary question is whether in this 'Pakistan' of yours the basis of government will be the sovereignty of God or, in accordance with the western idea of democracy, the sovereignty of the people. In the first case it will certainly be 'Pakistan,' otherwise it will be as much of 'Na-Pakistan' as that part of the country where, according to your scheme, the rule will be that of non-Muslims: in fact, in the eyes of God it will be 'na-pak' -- and damned. (Musalman aur Maujooda Siyasi Kashmakash, Vol. III, Office of the Tarjman-ul-Quran, Pathankot, 1942, p. 92, 108.)

The Holy Quran does not specify any system of government as such; only that Muslims should resolve any collective issues through mutual consultation and consensus (42:38 and Maulana Maudoodi's own Khilafat-o-Mulukiat). The Holy Prophet (PBUH) also did not express a preference for any particular administrative regime (Al-Farooq, by Maulana Shibli Naumani, p. 575). When Syria, Egypt and Iran were first annexed, the Khulafa-e-Rashideen only changed the laws that were contrary to the Quranic injunctions. The rest were left in place. Similarly and for the record, when Pakistan framed the Constitution in 1954 based entirely on democratic principles, Maulana Maudoodi issued a statement that the Constitution was, to a very large extent Islamic in character, and urged its adoption (Dawn, Oct 15, 1954).

Of the 6,666 ayats in the Holy Quran only 570 are specific or address issues with certitude; all the rest are open to interpretation. It is only natural that different individuals should interpret the latter differently. According to Maulana Maudoodi, among others, this is perfectly acceptable. (An Introduction to the Quran, p. 20.)

It is not clear what Qazi Hussain Ahmed means by "Islamisation." Are the vast majority of Pakistanis not already Muslim? Do we really need to change the Constitution and all the laws of the country to make them good and proper Muslims? There are only 70 verses in the Koran that deal with personal law, another 70 with civil law, about 30 with penal law and 20 with issues of testimony and justice. In other words, less than three percent of the Quran is about laws and related legal matters. This in itself should be an indication of the relative emphasis to be laid on this particular aspect of the religion.

Preoccupation with taking control of the instruments of government in the name of religion is a dangerous notion that will not serve the cause of Islam. If the object is to make good Muslims it can only be achieved by personal endeavour, and not through coercion by the state. (The Quran 2:256.) The latter will inevitably lead to the institution of Spanish-style Inquisition. Islam is much more than controlling the levers of power and manipulating the personal lives of individuals. Let us not defy its spirit and spoil its good name through misplaced zeal, as happened under Taliban rule in Afghanistan.


The writer is author of Muslims and the West: A Muslim Perspective and the forthcoming Pakistan: Perspective and Genesis. Email: hsnzia@rogers.com
I just finished reading Sajjad Haider Book and the damage done by Islamists and General Zia will take decades to recover Pakistan otherwise Pakistan is doomed.The hoodod laws degraded women, the 54 riots by Molvis destroyed the vision Qaid had about Pakistan.
What Mullahs gave us is
1)Secterianism.
2)Discrimination of other Religions People.
3)Extremism
Interestingly, he stated that some Mullahs came to President for some islamic laws discussion.They wanted to declare all Qaidnis non islamic and 2nd grade citizens but guess what when Prayer time came All Mullahs prayed in different rooms because they were from different Sects.Islam should have nothing whatsoever with State Control like India where hinduism has nothing to do with Government.
 
Last edited:
.
I just finished reading Sajjad Haider Book and the damage done by Islamists and General Zia will take decades to recover Pakistan otherwise Pakistan is doomed.The hoodod laws degraded women, the 54 riots by Molvis destroyed the vision Qaid had about Pakistan.
What Mullahs gave us is
1)Secterianism.
2)Discrimination of other Religions People. (Qassrrk states that all Pakistani Chrisitans are bhangis..wow)
3)Extremism

Interestingly, he stated that some Mullahs came to President for some islamic laws discussion.They wanted to declare all Qaidnis non islamic and 2nd grade citizens but guess what when Prayer time came All Mullahs prayed in different rooms because they were from different Sects. Islam should have nothing whatsoever with State Control like India where hinduism has nothing to do with Government.


Indeed, it is beyond sad - but yet I will inform you that there is a deep sympathy for "Islamists", jamaatis and suchy - in places you will be suprised, where you would not expect - in the name of "diversity" of course Apni billi apne se...;) .

But as is clear it is only through obfuscation and distorting history that these operate, after all, who were supporters of the Talib? and you will note that they still have not issued any statment that clearl,y UNEQUIVOCALLY, condemns and rejects the talib nor any statment that seeks to reexamine some of the positions they have taken.

When people are influenced by such as these, is it any suprise that "Muslims", who above all else should be champions of all FAITHFUL, refer to Christians as "Bhanghee" and who do persecute Ahmadi Muslims for "infractions" such as reciting the kalima.

Jinnah's Pakistan is reawakening, the spell of the Islamist will not hold and Pakistan will be a free peoples once again, the Islamist can make peace with it or I am sure there is much more in the Rub al Khali for them, InshaAllah, we can be rid of them and they can have their chance at creating their utopia.
.
 
. .
Yes, i admit it was not related to religion but frankly qasrk Pakistan condition will not improve with Islamic Government.The only way we can improve government is by having strong check and balance system on everyone, government officials, generals, MOD etc.Judiciary should be 100% free.Even Generals should be accountable for everything!.
 
.
Yes, i admit it was not related to religion but frankly qasrk Pakistan condition will not improve with Islamic Government.The only way we can improve government is by having strong check and balance system on everyone, government officials, generals, MOD etc.Judiciary should be 100% free.Even Generals should be accountable for everything!.
I am glad that you admitted that. Saad, never once I said that a theological government is what we need. First it is not possible; Americans and Europeans will never let this happen. Second, the so called leaders and the members of Islamic political parties are as much or perhaps more corrupt and devoid of any moral values as the leaders or members of other political parties. So no, I personally feel much safer in a Pakistan ruled by PML, PPP, even Military than by a so-called Islamic party. My posts mentioning my disgust for JUI (F) and JI are on the record. I don’t know how many times I have to make it clear that I am not defending the Islamic political parties, or anybody who uses the name of Islam solely for forwarding his dirty agenda. We are all Muslims, practicing or not, we are Muslims. Hence, every political party in essence, because of the faith of its members, is an Islamic party. There is no need to establish political parties in the name of Islam. I have mentioned this before that I really want these so-called Islamic parties totally banned, as they have done more harm than good.

What I am fighting for is the religion. I want all you guys, Muse, and Niaz sahib, to please separate Islam from the rest of the things. Please do not defame Islam just because few bastards are using its name for their own benefit. Its like Morphine, because few people abuse it, doesn’t mean that we have to ban this excellent pain-killer. A murderer may have used a gun, but it doesn’t mean that the gun is bad; it is the fault of the person, not of the gun. You can show your disgust for the Taliban, but penalizing their religion is not correct. You want to follow or not what Islam has told you is your personal business; but trying to justify your wrong actions and deeds and wanting others to accept them as well is wrong. You want to drink alcohol, fine, go ahead and drink but don’t try to justify it, nor try to convince others that it is allowed for this or that reason. The Islamic laws are very clear on Halal and Haram, right and wrong and you are free whether you want to follow them or not. Hence there is the concept of ‘jaza and saza.

At any rate, I’ll keep arguing with you guys if I find that my religion and its teachings are being misrepresented, for this is my duty. On the day of Judgment, Allah and his Rasool will ask me whether I defended their religion. I can afford if I am disliked by the members of this forum, but I can’t afford that I am disliked by my creator and his beloved messenger.
 
.
When people are influenced by such as these, is it any suprise that "Muslims", who above all else should be champions of all FAITHFUL, refer to Christians as "Bhanghee" and who do persecute Ahmadi Muslims for "infractions" such as reciting the kalima.
Those who pass on information without confirmation (whether it was correct or not) are called 'liar' in hadith. Did you bother to go back and search whether I called all the Christians 'Bhangis', and if I did, what was the context?

As far as Ahmedis or Qaadyanis are concerned, they are not Muslims because they believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was 'Masih', the Jesus.

There are several things associated with the return of Jesus as per hadith, they are:

In the time of Mehdi
In the time of Dajjal
Jesus will break crosses
Jesus will kill swine
Jesus will abolish Jizya
During his time as the leaders of the Muslims, wealth will pour forth to such an extent that no one will accept it.

Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: By Him in Whose hand is my life, the son of Mary (may peace be upon him) will soon descend among you as a just judge. He will break crosses, kill swine and abolish Jizya, and the wealth will pour forth to such an extent that no one will accept it. Sahih Muslim, Vol.1, p.92.

Mirza first said he was Mehdi, than he claimed he was Jesus. If indeed he was Mehdi, and he was Jesus, where is the Dajjal of his time? Which cross did he break? Which swine(s) did he kill? When did he abolish Jizya? How much Muslims became wealthy in his time?

"spite, mutual hatred and jealousy against one another will certainly disappear" during his reign when returns Sahih Muslim, Vol.1, p.93

Did spite, mutual hatred and jealousy against one another disappeared during his time?

There is no prophet between me and him, that is Jesus (peace be upon him). He will descend (to earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man medium height, reddish hair, wearing two light low garments, looking as if drops were falling from his head though it will not be wet. Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol.3, p.1203.

Did the Muslims of Hindustan recognize Mirza in this form?

According to Christian tradition: Jesus himself described how he will return to earth at the end of time. He told his disciples:
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken; then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." Matthew 24.29-31.

Did this happen?

For Niaz Saheb: Niaz saheb, thanking a post is good, but before pressing the button, atleast read the whole post. Do you also believe in 'Ahmadi Muslims"? especially in the light of the above hadiths.
 
Last edited:
.
More from hadith centraL, in association with Kafir central, the same good folks who bought you Takfir - come get your hadith, fresh, hot, custom made and interpreted to suit any need, come get you some, cheap, araby approved:


Allah Hafiz to Khuda Hafiz

Nadeem F. PARACHA
Sunday, 24 May, 2009 | 01:21 AM PST |


The first time Allah Hafiz was used in public was in 1985 when a famous TV host, a frequent sight on PTV during the Zia era, signed off her otherwise secular show with a firm ‘Allah Hafiz.’

As most Pakistanis over the ages of six and seven would remember, before the now ubiquitous ‘Allah Hafiz’ came ‘Khuda Hafiz’.

The immediate history of the demise of Khuda Hafiz can be traced back to a mere six to seven years in the past. It was in Karachi some time in 2002 when a series of banners started appearing across Sharea Faisal. Each banner had two messages. The first one advised Pakistani Muslims to stop addressing God by the informal ‘Tu’ and instead address him as ‘Aap’ (the respectful way of saying ‘you’ in Urdu). The second message advised Pakistanis to replace the term Khuda Hafiz with Allah Hafiz.


The banners were produced and installed by Islamic organisations associated with a famous mosque in Karachi. Ever since the 1980s, this institution had been a bastion of leading puritanical doctrines of Islam. Many of the institution’s scholars were, in one way or the other, also related to the Islamic intelligentsia sympathetic to the Taliban version of political Islam and of other similar fundamentalist outfits.

However, one just cannot study the Allah Hafiz phenomenon through what happened in 2002. This phenomenon has a direct link with the disastrous history of cultural casualties Pakistan has steadily been suffering for over thirty years now. Beyond the 2002 banner incident, whose two messages were then duly taken up by a series of Tableeghi Jamaat personnel and as well as trendsetting living room Islamic evangelists, a lot of groundwork had already taken place to culturally convert the largely pluralistic and religiously tolerant milieu of Pakistan into a singular concentration of Muslims following the “correct” version of Islam

The overriding reasons for this were foremost political, as General Ziaul Haq and his politico-religious cohorts went about setting up madressahs in an attempt to harden the otherwise softer strain of faith that a majority of Pakistanis followed so they could be prepared for the grand ‘Afghan jihad’ against the atheistic Soviet Union with a somewhat literalist and highly poaliticised version of Islam. The above process not only politically radicalised sections of Pakistani society, its impact was apparent on culture at large as well.

For example, as bars and cinemas started closing down, young men and women, who had found space in these places to simply meet up, were forced to move to shdy cafes, restaurants and parks which, by the mid-1980s, too started to be visited by cops and fanatical moral squads called the ‘Allah Tigers’, who ran around harassing couples in these spaces, scolding them for going against Islam, or, on most occasions, simply extorting money from the shaken couples through blackmail.

Then, getting a blanket ideological and judicial cover by the Zia dictatorship, the cops started to harass almost any couple riding a motorbike, a car or simply sitting at the beach. Without even asking whether the woman was the guy’s sister or mother (on many occasions they were!), the cops asked for the couples’ marriage certificate! Failing to produce one (which in most cases they couldn’t), hefty sums of money were extorted as the couples were threatened to be sent to jail under the dreadful Hudood Ordinances. The same one the Musharraf government eventually scrapped.

Some of these horrendous practices were duly stopped during the Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif governments in the 1990s, but the cat had long been set among the pigeons. Encouraged by their initial successes in the 1980s, Islamist culture-evangelists became a lot more aggressive in the 1990s. Drawing room and TV evangelists went about attempting to construct a “true” Islamic society, and at least one of their prescriptions was to replace the commonly used Khuda Hafiz with Allah Hafiz.


This was done because these crusading men and women believed that once they had convinced numerous Pakistanis to follow the faith by adorning a long beard and hijab, the words Khuda Hafiz would not seem appropriate coming out from the mouths of such Islamic-looking folks. They believed that Khuda can mean any God, whereas the Muslims’ God was Allah. Some observers suggest that since many non-Muslims residing in Pakistan too had started to use Khuda Hafiz, this incensed the crusaders who thought that non-Muslim Pakistanis were trying to adopt Islamic gestures only to pollute them. The first time Allah Hafiz was used in public was in 1985 when a famous TV host, a frequent sight on PTV during the Zia era, signed off her otherwise secular show with a firm ‘Allah Hafiz.’ However, even though some Islamic preachers continued the trend in the 1990s, it did not trickle down to the mainstream until the early 2000s. As society continued to collapse inwards — especially the urban middle class — the term Allah Hafiz started being used as if Pakistanis had always said Allah Hafiz.

So much so that today, if you are to bid farewell by saying Khuda Hafiz, you will either generate curious facial responses, or worse, get a short lecture on why you should always say Allah Hafiz instead — a clear case of glorified cultural isolationism to ‘protect’ one’s comfort zone of myopia from the influential and uncontrollable trends of universal pluralism?


I’m afraid this is the case.
 
.
More from hadith centraL, in association with Kafir central, the same good folks who bought you Takfir - come get your hadith, fresh, hot, custom made and interpreted to suit any need, come get you some, cheap, araby approved:


Allah Hafiz to Khuda Hafiz

Nadeem F. PARACHA
Sunday, 24 May, 2009 | 01:21 AM PST |


The first time Allah Hafiz was used in public was in 1985 when a famous TV host, a frequent sight on PTV during the Zia era, signed off her otherwise secular show with a firm ‘Allah Hafiz.’

As most Pakistanis over the ages of six and seven would remember, before the now ubiquitous ‘Allah Hafiz’ came ‘Khuda Hafiz’.

The immediate history of the demise of Khuda Hafiz can be traced back to a mere six to seven years in the past. It was in Karachi some time in 2002 when a series of banners started appearing across Sharea Faisal. Each banner had two messages. The first one advised Pakistani Muslims to stop addressing God by the informal ‘Tu’ and instead address him as ‘Aap’ (the respectful way of saying ‘you’ in Urdu). The second message advised Pakistanis to replace the term Khuda Hafiz with Allah Hafiz.


The banners were produced and installed by Islamic organisations associated with a famous mosque in Karachi. Ever since the 1980s, this institution had been a bastion of leading puritanical doctrines of Islam. Many of the institution’s scholars were, in one way or the other, also related to the Islamic intelligentsia sympathetic to the Taliban version of political Islam and of other similar fundamentalist outfits.

However, one just cannot study the Allah Hafiz phenomenon through what happened in 2002. This phenomenon has a direct link with the disastrous history of cultural casualties Pakistan has steadily been suffering for over thirty years now. Beyond the 2002 banner incident, whose two messages were then duly taken up by a series of Tableeghi Jamaat personnel and as well as trendsetting living room Islamic evangelists, a lot of groundwork had already taken place to culturally convert the largely pluralistic and religiously tolerant milieu of Pakistan into a singular concentration of Muslims following the “correct” version of Islam

The overriding reasons for this were foremost political, as General Ziaul Haq and his politico-religious cohorts went about setting up madressahs in an attempt to harden the otherwise softer strain of faith that a majority of Pakistanis followed so they could be prepared for the grand ‘Afghan jihad’ against the atheistic Soviet Union with a somewhat literalist and highly poaliticised version of Islam. The above process not only politically radicalised sections of Pakistani society, its impact was apparent on culture at large as well.

For example, as bars and cinemas started closing down, young men and women, who had found space in these places to simply meet up, were forced to move to shdy cafes, restaurants and parks which, by the mid-1980s, too started to be visited by cops and fanatical moral squads called the ‘Allah Tigers’, who ran around harassing couples in these spaces, scolding them for going against Islam, or, on most occasions, simply extorting money from the shaken couples through blackmail.

Then, getting a blanket ideological and judicial cover by the Zia dictatorship, the cops started to harass almost any couple riding a motorbike, a car or simply sitting at the beach. Without even asking whether the woman was the guy’s sister or mother (on many occasions they were!), the cops asked for the couples’ marriage certificate! Failing to produce one (which in most cases they couldn’t), hefty sums of money were extorted as the couples were threatened to be sent to jail under the dreadful Hudood Ordinances. The same one the Musharraf government eventually scrapped.

Some of these horrendous practices were duly stopped during the Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif governments in the 1990s, but the cat had long been set among the pigeons. Encouraged by their initial successes in the 1980s, Islamist culture-evangelists became a lot more aggressive in the 1990s. Drawing room and TV evangelists went about attempting to construct a “true” Islamic society, and at least one of their prescriptions was to replace the commonly used Khuda Hafiz with Allah Hafiz.


This was done because these crusading men and women believed that once they had convinced numerous Pakistanis to follow the faith by adorning a long beard and hijab, the words Khuda Hafiz would not seem appropriate coming out from the mouths of such Islamic-looking folks. They believed that Khuda can mean any God, whereas the Muslims’ God was Allah. Some observers suggest that since many non-Muslims residing in Pakistan too had started to use Khuda Hafiz, this incensed the crusaders who thought that non-Muslim Pakistanis were trying to adopt Islamic gestures only to pollute them. The first time Allah Hafiz was used in public was in 1985 when a famous TV host, a frequent sight on PTV during the Zia era, signed off her otherwise secular show with a firm ‘Allah Hafiz.’ However, even though some Islamic preachers continued the trend in the 1990s, it did not trickle down to the mainstream until the early 2000s. As society continued to collapse inwards — especially the urban middle class — the term Allah Hafiz started being used as if Pakistanis had always said Allah Hafiz.

So much so that today, if you are to bid farewell by saying Khuda Hafiz, you will either generate curious facial responses, or worse, get a short lecture on why you should always say Allah Hafiz instead — a clear case of glorified cultural isolationism to ‘protect’ one’s comfort zone of myopia from the influential and uncontrollable trends of universal pluralism?


I’m afraid this is the case.

hmmmm sounds intersting
 
.
Refering to muse's post above I think that in the upper liberal society one gets the look when he says Allah Hafiz which I have experienced a lot of times as well, amazing how we Pakistanis can differenciate ourselves with a small difference we have always been like that, Nothing is correct in the eyes of all Pakistani's we will be skeptic on anything and everything unfortunately if this is the remaining case we won't need to be a nation because we were and will never be like minded, notice the Irony and Paradox in that.

I feel that the statement is hundred percent true, 'put all Pakistanis in a ten foot ditch and they will all die inside'.
 
.
Regarding "Allah Haafiz to Khuda Haafiz". As all of us know that the word "Khuda" is a Persian word for "Allah". It is reasoned by many Ulema that the word "Allah" is a preferred word, which may indeed be very true. It has often been argued that the name "Allah" encompasses all conceivable attributes of His. It is also said that "The name "Allah" cannot be translated into any other language. Besides, the nouns and adjectives used by Allah in the Qur'ân to describe His own being, attributes, and actions, are all implicit in the name Allah".

However, we the Muslims of South Asia also have a culture of our own. I personally do not see any problem in using the word "Khuda", and in my personal opinion, asking for using the word "Allah" instead of "Khuda" for simple things like "Khuda Haafiz" is kind of pushing things unnecessarily. Besides, there is no one Ayat from Quran or any Hadith specifically suggesting that word "Allah" is better or preferred and must be used. Hence I am pretty much on Muse's side on this particular issue.

I must add though that I do not totally agree with the author of this article, for he drifted pretty far away with his assumptions on why the word "Allah" is being advocated by certain people. The author failed to address the issue in a scholarly manner and tried to deal with the issue on a personal basis.
 
Last edited:
.
:pop:
I am pretty much on Muse's side on this particular issue.

Lo ji Kaar lo gal -- Thank you brother, that's might white of you; I don't know when I've been less overwhelmed. .

I must add though that I do not totally agree with the author of this article, for he drifted pretty far away with his assumptions on why the word "Allah" is being advocated by certain people.

Indeed, and where has the miserable author failed in his noble task?

The author failed to address the issue in a scholarly manner and tried to deal with the issue on a personal basis.

Ah, scholarly, yes, it's really rather peculiar how few seem to realize that that what's important is not the truth but a scholarly approach, after all, for the persuaded anyways, there is a way to approach exposition;)

:pop:
 
.
Oh, I forgot, Musharraf and Hameed Gul are still alive, they should be hired for training the prospective cadets in PMA on how to hire people like Sharif uddin Peerzada to mutilate the constitution, how to erect pro-dictatorship political parties from nowhere, how to impose emergency to depose the CJ, and how to fire PMs in a row.

You forgot Zia too and then you also forgot supporters of Gen Zia.

Was it intentional?

We have corrupt and opportunist politicians like Nawaz Sharif who made their careers on Zakaat funds and Afghan Jihad money so we will always have an army which will play a role in governing Pakistan.

Nawaz Sharif is the man who supported the Gen. Zia the most and in return Nawaz Sharif benefitted the most as well.

I wonder how did NS expanded Itefaq Group?

May be CJP or Ansar Abbasi would like to shed some light on it!
 
.
^^^^^^^
Wonderfull I would love to get some links on this information the blame game is too much.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom