What's new

Made in Pakistan DU shells

Originally posted by Sid@Feb 23 2006, 12:00 AM
I think you've misunderstood what my post meant. It clearly says that the 'mullahs' are a cancer to our society NOT the religion. I'm sure that it is clearly understood this time round.

Another misconception that I would like my fellow Pakistanis to understand is that Pakistan was NOT created by Jinnah in the name of Islam. It was created in the name of FREEDOM for Muslims of the subcontinent. The truth is that the 'mullahs' were opposed to Pakistan's creation (reading a few good books should help everyone here).

Till his death, the Quaid promoted moderation and tolerance for all while preaching all were equal in the state of Pakistan. As soon as he passed away, the 'mullahs' put their spin on it and gave it an ideological twist by getting Pakistan to be renamed as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (which it was never meant to be by the Quaid). Now the same 'mullahs' ruin public life and property by carrying out mass rallies which result in deaths of their own countrymen. They do not realize how fragile a geo-political situation is Pakistan in and what cross-roads is it at these days; they just want their own selfish objectives to be fulfilled.
[post=6130]Quoted post[/post]​


IF Pakistan was meant to be secular then why its called "Islamic Republic of Pakistan." ?


Pakistan was created for "muslims", so they can practice their faith freely and enjoy other rights.


THere is no doubt that Jihhah was a great man:
Mr. Jinnah, who fixed his monthly salary Re. 1/- for the sake of setting example for his people

Please dont hate Mullahs, there are always few bad apples in the society.

The same mullahs went to Afghanistan and helped our borthers to fight against communism.

The same Islamic jamaats were the first one to help and give Aid to the victims of Oct eatrhquake

The same mullahs are protecting our country ( in the army many ppl are with religious jamats)

would you call the above points selfish objectives?.

The muslims should be governed by the Islamic laws as told by the creator of the world, Allah
 
.
See thats exactly what I was talking about. Many Pakistanis don't even know the proper history of their own country. They only know what the government propaganda teaches them or if its not that, then the propaganda by religious parties and other self-motivated forces.

First of all, there's a difference between being 'fanatic', being 'moderate' and being 'secular'. Now I'm not too sure if Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be secular but what I do know is that he wanted it to be 'moderate' and NOT 'fanatical' as some of the Mullahs running around today would want it to.

That is the reason (Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be atleast moderate if not secular) that Pakistan was just named Pakistan. In 1956, Pakistan became a republic but even then, the name was Republic of Pakistan but when Zia Ul-Haq came in, 'he' was the one to change the name to ISLAMIC Republic of Pakistan because of his religious zeal. History will never forgive that man.

See, you are confused here. You are right when you say that Pakistan was made for 'Muslims' but that does NOT mean it was made to be purely Islamic at all. That is the difference you fail to understand. It was made as a 'Muslim majority state' just like India was Hindu majority state; just like America is today a Christian majority state but was NOT founded on the basis of Christianity. Think about it.

As far as bad apples goes, unfortunately, the Mullahs 'are' the bad apples of the Pakistani society. So far they have done NOTHING for the country's betterment, instead carried out rallies and continue to do so, and cause harm to public life and property. That scares the foreign investors away and in the end it is Pakistan that suffers. Their rallies don't have any effect on any western countries at all. That shows how narrow-minded and self-serving they are.

The Mullahs did NOT go themselves to fight against communism if that is what you think. They sent illiterate poor young men who had nothing else to do with promises of Heaven and finances for their families (which the US and Arab states were ready to grant). They still continue to do so. Hell, they don't even send their own sons or relatives to fight because they know that at the end of the day, its all politics and religion is only being used as a pretext so why waste one's own family when you have millions other who would do anything for a few hundred dollars so that their families can have food on their tables for a few more days?

Its no big deal that the Islamic jamaats were the first ones to help earthquake victims. Obviously when they have militant training camps already established there and manpower available with finances in their accounts as well, they'll definitely jump in to fill in the vaccuum created to boost their standing amongst the poor masses. The army couldn't get there because it did not have soldiers stationed as close to ground zero plus it, itself suffered around 500 casualties which meant that even it found difficult to cope with the massive scale of devastation. In the end, the army faired better than anyone else when it got hold itself and its operations.

Mullahs protecting our country? NO! The Mullahs I am talking about here, are the political leader Mullahs of different parties and organizations. I'm not talking about a poor Private ranked soldier who has a beard and is more religious than others. That person would be called a Maulana. Mullah is a political term to make it clear. And talking about soldiers' attachments to religious jamaats, that is also the mistake made by Zia Ul-Haq the ultimate fanatic. Sure, religious interaction between soldiers is not bad, but it MUST NOT overshadow their sense of duty of protecting their country by becoming over-zealous.

Yes there is no doubt that Muslims should be governed by Islamic laws BUT provided that there are safe-guards against their abuse and misuse by the very people whom they're meant to govern. Take our Hudood laws for example. Such 'mockery' of Islamic laws, I think only exists in Saudi Arabia apart from our country. According to present Pakistani laws, if I don't like you, I can easily blame you for blasphemy or something similar and get you to suffer in jail in which way I would've settled by personal vendetta. Same goes for rape laws in our country. Utterly useless! The poor woman becomes the target of the authorities instead of the accused person.

Take Saudi Arabia for example, WHERE in Islamic jurisprudence does it say that women should not drive? or vote? Once again, Islamic laws are only good when they are NOT abused and misused by the people themselves. But that also applies to any other type of laws, doesn't matter if their Islamic or non-Islamic.

I hope the above explanations addressed some of the confusions in here.
 
.
Sid I will get back to you after 2 days, I have an Exam tomorrow.

Ok take care man.
 
.
Originally posted by Sid@Feb 23 2006, 11:58 PM
First of all, there's a difference between being 'fanatic', being 'moderate' and being 'secular'. Now I'm not too sure if Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be secular but what I do know is that he wanted it to be 'moderate' and NOT 'fanatical' as some of the Mullahs running around today would want it to.

It was made as a 'Muslim majority state' just like India was Hindu majority state; just like America is today a Christian majority state but was NOT founded on the basis of Christianity. Think about it.


The Mullahs did NOT go themselves to fight against communism if that is what you think. They sent illiterate poor young men who had nothing else to do with promises of Heaven and finances for their families (which the US and Arab states were ready to grant).


[post=6162]Quoted post[/post]​

Interesting use of the words fanatical, moderate and secular. You cleverly potray the ONLY alternative to fanatism as Secular. Hitler didn't go to Church often, of course according to Sid that prevents him from being called fanatical. Only people who believe and practice their faith are fanatical according to Sid and not those who gas millions of people to death.

A person can be a fanatical Secularist, Nationalist or Religious. A person who is fanatical is a person who is extreme, in what they say and do. What is "extreme" or moderate is different across places and time.

America was founded by ruthlessly and brutally destroying the native indigenous population and taking their property and lives with the gun. Of course it wasn't founded on Christianity, it was more aligned with the Darwinian concept of survival of the fitest. Of course Sid agrees this bloodshed was quite moderate and Secular and certainly wasn't extreme. Tens of millions of people dead, who cares they can't speak against this injustice because they are all dead.

All my life I have known a Mullah to be a person who leads prayers, teaches Quran to children and who gets very basic wages for this duty of God. Of course on T.V. you can see "Mullahs" being violent and irrational, of course you see the same by Secular or as Sid would put Moderate forces in Iraq.

You are also being patronising and disrespectful of the tens of thousands of poor religious (Sid: Fanatics) illiterate men who gave their lives fighting against a Secular (Sid: Moderate) Communist forces which were raping women in front of their husbands and destroying the cities of Afghanistan. Is the sacrifice of their lives by illiterate men any less compared to educated men? The men that Prophet Muhammed led was filled by mainly illiterate men, does that make their sacrifices any less? Does that make Prophet Muhammed manipulative and deceitful because the rank and file of his army was filled by men who were illiterate?

Did Blair and Bush go to fight personally in Iraq? Has Tony Blair sent his young strong sons to fight for secularism and colonialism in Iraq? Do Indian politicians go or send their sons to fight in Kashmir? They do not.
 
.
sigatoka, I would urge you to read my posts a hundred times before replying to them since you do not seem to be understanding my points well.

The post of mine that you are quoting dealt with the religious part of a society only. Ofcourse fanaticism can be of sorts, no doubt about that. Secondly, for me the best option and solution to everything is 'moderation' NOT 'secularism' which I see you've failed to conclude.

About America, yes the white folks conquered the New World by ruthless force spurred on by their greed for everything. That is NOT in religious context which was the context used in my last post.

Now when you mention knowing a 'Mullah', teaching Quran, getting basic pay, etc that person is called a 'Maulana' just to make it clear. 'Mullah' is a political term specifically associated with 'Mualanas' or 'Maulvis' who have left their designated role of being religious teachers, etc to becoming politicians and using religion as a pretext to further their political goals. Hope you get the difference now.

Now this just shows that you yourself have not idea what you're talking about and where you are steering the discussion (completely off course) by bringing in the Prophet and his companions, etc out of context. There time was 1400+ yrs ago when hardly anyone was literate (hell, writing and reading hadn't been established) but now the world is a different place and requires different approaches. The Afghan 'jihad' had nothing Islamic about it. It was political and the 'mullahs' used it to further their cause of a pan-Islamic state (which they still seem to believe in) stretching from God knows which end to which of this planet. They fail to realize those days are long gone. And now they want Pakistan as well as other Muslim states to adopt laws based on their narrow interpretations of Islam so that Muslim societies can go back in time to the medieval ages. They hardly know anything about today's geo-political situation and that is the truth of it; they somehow still believe that this is the 7th century and they can behave like that.

There is no comparision between Blair, Bush and the 'mullahs'. The former two are heads of states and in their younger years were part of their respective armed forces. 'Mullahs' are a faction of ideologically and theocratically motivated individuals none of whom is a head of state.



P.S. Once again I repeat, all my comments are Pakistan specific unless otherwise specified. Taking them out of context and applying them to a thousand other scenarios worldwide and historically shows lack of arguing ability on your part in the comments' original context.
 
.
Originally posted by Sid@Mar 8 2006, 04:33 AM


Now this just shows that you yourself have not idea what you're talking about and where you are steering the discussion (completely off course) by bringing in the Prophet and his companions, etc out of context. There time was 1400+ yrs ago when hardly anyone was literate (hell, writing and reading hadn't been established) but now the world is a different place and requires different approaches.

Bush and the 'mullahs'. The former two are heads of states and in their younger years were part of their respective armed forces. 'Mullahs' are a faction of ideologically and theocratically motivated individuals none of whom is a head of state.
[post=6810]Quoted post[/post]​

Writing was invented approximately five thousand years ago by the Sumerians (around Iraq).

I don't think Blair ever served in the military. Bush served in the National Guard in Texas by using his fathers connections to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam conflict.
 
.
I think he ment that reading and writing were not universal.

As for the name bit, Sid I am sorry its always been "Islamic Republic of Pakistan". The name controversy is something different.

The controversy is which one is the correct name, i,e Federation of Pakistan or Islamic Republic of Pakistan? And its not about religion, its a constitutional question. Both names are used, the later on Visa's and Passports and official titles, the former on Government documents.
 
.
sigatoka, I meant, reading and writing weren't established in the Arab world of the time of the Prophet (PBUH) as a means of communication, learning, etc because the culture was more 'orally expressive'. Reading and writing only became common in the late 7th or 8th century or perhaps even later.


Spartan, I haven't even pointed to any such problem as a contest between 'Federation of Pakistan vs 'Islamic Republic of Pakistan'. My point was simply, that at the time of independance, Pakistan's name was just 'Pakistan'. It later became a Republic and then Islamic was added later on when the country's leadership peaked its religious zeal.
 
.
Originally posted by Sid@Mar 26 2006, 02:53 PM
sigatoka, I meant, reading and writing weren't established in the Arab world of the time of the Prophet (PBUH) as a means of communication, learning, etc because the culture was more 'orally expressive'. Reading and writing only became common in the late 7th or 8th century or perhaps even later.
Spartan, I haven't even pointed to any such problem as a contest between 'Federation of Pakistan vs 'Islamic Republic of Pakistan'. My point was simply, that at the time of independance, Pakistan's name was just 'Pakistan'. It later became a Republic and then Islamic was added later on when the country's leadership peaked its religious zeal.
[post=7822]Quoted post[/post]​


are you sure?

Then how did prophet wrote letters and sent invitation of Islam to the kings?
 
.
Originally posted by ARKhan+Nov 24 2005, 04:45 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ARKhan &#064; Nov 24 2005, 04:45 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>There are four ideal locations for tank war fare an all those areas have been covered by armoured units, anti tank infantry and other specially equipped units.
[/b]

Bangladesh is not tank country. Its a tank trap.
<!--QuoteBegin-ARKhan
@Nov 24 2005, 04:45 PM
DU shells should be very effective and will almost certainly be purchased to counter Indian armoured numerical strength.
[/quote]
:cool: Sorry to disappoint you. But you are wasting your money.
We are not interested in attacking you. To remove some misconceptions, the Indo-Bangla relations are strained due to economic illegal migration and recent use of BD as a launch pad against India by the ISI.

BD is not an adversary.
 
.
Originally posted by A.Rahman@Mar 26 2006, 03:03 PM
are you sure?

Then how did prophet wrote letters and sent invitation of Islam to the kings?
[post=7824]Quoted post[/post]​

Yes that has been a dilemma facing quite a lot of historians and archeologists. I took up courses on Islamic & Arab history back in the days at university and we used to get up-to-date information about scientific digs, discoveries, etc.

One of the most widely accepted explanations is that just like medieval Europe, in the Arab world, only a few &#39;elite&#39; families knew how to read and write (this means that it was NOT in common usage among average citizens of the time) because acquiring the ability to read and write was a luxury back then and only the well-off people could afford it.

It was not until the late 8th or 9th century that reading and writing started becoming common and the &#39;average man&#39; could then read and write.


sword9: The other day a pigeon was flying past one of Delhi&#39;s high-rises and someone just flicked the window open smashing the pigeon, which fell dead to the ground. Must have been ISI, right?
 
.
Originally posted by Sid@Mar 28 2006, 03:25 AM
sword9: The other day a pigeon was flying past one of Delhi&#39;s high-rises and someone just flicked the window open smashing the pigeon, which fell dead to the ground. Must have been ISI, right?
Quite possible.
 
. .
Originally posted by Sid@Mar 28 2006, 10:48 AM
Am hardly surprised.
[post=7947]Quoted post[/post]​
Read these articles (for whatever they are worth).
‘ISI agents entering India via Bangladesh’ - Bangladesh media.
&#39;&#39;The Threat of Islamic Extremism to Bangladesh&#39;&#39; - US media

A media article states that the ISI had attempted to assasinate the former Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina Wajed (Mujib&#39;s daughter) by the ISI by using LTTE cadres. Thereby attempting to keep the seemingly anti-India/ pro-fundamentalist Begum Zia as the only leader of consequence in BD capable of winning an election.
http://www.lankalibrary.com/pol/hasina.html
But then this discussion is for a different thread.
 
.
Originally posted by Sid@Feb 23 2006, 01:09 AM

The Mullahs were no good to Pakistan when it was born and they are no good today. They are a cancer to our society&#39;s development and modernization.
[post=6112]Quoted post[/post]​

[Mod Edit: Please use &#39;acceptable&#39; language and control your emotions. Your emotions cannot refute the claims you have quoted. If you have &#39;facts&#39; and the &#39;insight&#39; to refute them, we would be glad to find out]
 
.
Back
Top Bottom