What's new

No country for brave men

they just want an easy-way-out by shouting and holding signs over relatively petty, superficial issues
Didn't you know?

Its far more important to discuss what foot to put first when entering a masjid, the status of your toenails, and what finger to pick a booger with, than any of those silly social issues such as poverty, disease, family planning.

In any case, most of those issues are a Western conspiracy to make Muslims impure.
 
Pakistanis should not fight with each other.

Dont make indians happy.
Right, we should only kill, imprison and openly discriminate against those Pakistanis who do not share our religious views.

I think the Indians will be far happier with the vision of Pakistan that MB Qasim has, than with any of us criticizing him or others for promoting intolerant laws and an intolerant and discriminatory system.
 
Right, we should only kill, imprison and openly discriminate against those Pakistanis who do not share our religious views.

I think the Indians will be far happier with the vision of Pakistan that MB Qasim has, than with any of us criticizing him or others for promoting intolerant laws and an intolerant and discriminatory system.

You are too paranoid. I would want India to be better than Pakistan in every way. But never desire Pak to be screwed up beyond repair. MBQ's ideologies toe along those lines.
 
Last edited:
Though religious discussion is not allowed but the all the problems are associated with religion today in Pakistan. And very sadly, when other countries are going ahead, Pakistan is just lagging behind just for religious problems and division. Our govt is talking about secularism, I did not like that before. But now after seeing PK's conditions, I think I need to change my view. We are also Muslim country but we do not have many laws which PK has and which are hurdles to prosper.

Today I can see that how the main three objects peace, patience and tolerance in Islam are misunderstood by myopic extremists. Today those people are seeing only the opposite way of peaceful way and misleading other people by manipulating the Islam badly. They are not seeing the other options except extreme options to tackle the problems that they face, may be due to lack of knowledge and edu.

If someone does not like to follow everything of Islam then nobody on this Earth can make him like to do so forcefully. After all, anyone takes and obeys Islam when he finds it easy, interesting and suited to him. It's totally mater of mind, logic and personal choice whether someone would obey Islam or not and how much of Islamic rules he would follow. Here I have seen many people who did not obey Islam seriously and I have seen my friend to use bad language against Allah and our prophet, but later those people become very religious by the grace of Allah.

Now think, as an almighty, if Allah would kill him by his super power instantly for doing blasphemy, then would he get the scope to rectify his misconception and faults? No. I think there are lots of sinners on the Earth, and Allah is giving them time and opportunity but not killing them instantly for their sins. So do not decide everything by yourself, but take time and let the Allah decide. Today who is a sinner, may because of he has no reason and feelings that can make him understand to stop committing sin. So make him understand, and give him chance, otherwise, that could be your fault and irresponsibility.

Another important thing to me:

It is said that there shall be no good people before Quamaat on Earth which is a criterion and sign of Quamaat. Now would you kill everyone for that before the time of Quamaat or let the Allah decide about their punishment in their afterlife? I wonder if it is their definite predestination to be sinner before Quamaat then what is use of implementing Allah's law or inviting them to way of peace in future??? After all, nothing can make them obedient to Allah, and nothing would refrain them from committing sin as it is criterion of Quamaat. So, something there to be decided by Allah for those people.

So, do not turn Pakistan into Afghanistan. I think pure Islamic rule has made Saudi a nation of dot dot in today's progressive world............ but on the other hand, Dubai is economically strong country for being liberal. So I prefer the moderate way.
 
Last edited:
I think the Indians will be far happier with the vision of Pakistan that MB Qasim has, than with any of us criticizing him or others for promoting intolerant laws and an intolerant and discriminatory system.

Maybe you now understand our fears a bit better. When most of us see Pakistan we don't see you, we see him. If the likes of him can have so much hate for those of you who are fellow Pakistanis, fellow muslims simply because you don't share their views, what gives us any reason to be optimistic about what lies in store for us. Those of you who are liberals in Pakistan (and I must stress on Pakistani liberals because quite a few of you would not qualify as liberals anywhere else), who have access to good education (that as we have seen does not mean anything by itself) are all at the mercy of illiterate guys with a bullet with your names on it. We have plenty of reason to watch with trepidation the goings on in Pakistan. In this fight, if you guys choose to fight it, we are not your enemies.

I must confess, my concern is not based on altruistic thoughts alone. We can have disagreements with you, the so called liberals on many issues, sometimes very heated ones but I like to think that once we are done with all the fighting, we can maybe go have dinner before turning up on another day to repeat our performance. I'm not sure that would be possible with this other lot. Maybe there will be a funeral to attend & no promises of another day's performance but dinner would be pretty much out of the question . We in India love our food, attending funerals(voluntarily or otherwise), not as much.
 
I do not believe Salman Taseer was a hero or a martyr, I believe he was also a corrupt man. Nevertheless, his death is a tragedy because he was the governor of our province and a leader of Pakistan. Apart from that, I hope that this incident provokes the government into doing something substantial about changing the blasphemy laws.
 
Mohd bin Qasim. Tariq bin Ziad. Omar1984.
Three nice peas in a pod! The last one forgot to add exposed photos of Taseer's daughter lately.
I wish there can be an 'ignore' button on this forum.

@Solomon2:
I have not forgotten to respond to you.
But here is a thought provoking piece by Mahir Ali at Dawn. He chooses his words very carefully. Perhaps the most careful usage in Pakistan's English journalism that I am aware of. And he echoes what I feel: Despair. A pall of gloom intensified by the support for this assassin.
And Mahir probably wrote his column before Taseer was gunned down.

www.dawn.com - Security Verification

On the cusp once more
Mahir Ali
Yesterday
WHATEVER may lie ahead, it hasn’t been a happy new year for Pakistan’s ruling party.

Should the hectic efforts to salvage what’s left of its coalition and to bolster it sufficiently to fend off potential parliamentary motions of no-confidence come to naught, perhaps the likeliest outcome will be another bout of direct military rule.

That has always been a profoundly unpleasant prospect. It was particularly so in 1977, when Gen Ziaul Haq’s coup pre-empted a formal truce between Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s government and its political opponents, and led to the murkiest phase in Pakistan’s history, whose appalling repercussions continue to reverberate. But even in 1958 and again in 1999, when sections of the population welcomed military intervention as a form of temporary salvation from the shenanigans of self-obsessed politicians, the consequences were largely unsalutary.

Most Pakistanis ought to have realised long ago that if Pakistan has a future — and it’s arguably a bigger ‘if’ now than ever before — it lies in consolidating civilian rule, establishing a coherent modus operandi for coexistence with India, and easing out of the clutches of the US without conceding ground to violence-prone obscurantists.

It’s a tall order, no doubt, and the task is obviously confounded by the calibre of the politicians Pakistanis have to contend with. But there are no other feasible options. Direct military rule — and the deliberate implication in describing it as ‘direct’ is that the army has effectively never been completely out of power since 1977 — would be a case of two steps back without a face-saving one step forward.

At the same time, it ought to be acknowledged that the PPP’s political rivals offer little scope for comparative advantage. The MQM accurately accuses Nawaz Sharif’s faction of the PML of having been created by the military, but in doing so overlooks the circumstances of its own genesis in the early 1980s under a more ethnically specific nomenclature, when its emergence was facilitated by a regime that welcomed civil strife on the basis of ethnicity as a distraction from political challenges to its legitimacy.

Both these parties have evolved since then, but hardly in directions that could be deemed politically desirable. Much the same could be claimed about the PPP, of course. Notwithstanding its transformation within the first decade of its foundation in 1967 from a potential vehicle for social democracy into a profoundly personalised political entity characterised by autocratic zeal and a high degree of opportunism, circumstances in the late 1970s propelled it into the role of a pro-democracy force. The popular enthusiasm that greeted Benazir Bhutto’s return to Pakistan in 1986 must have caused the spontaneous soiling of more than one pair of khaki pants.

She lost little time, however, in demonstrating a tendency to imbibe the wrong lessons from the nation’s recent past. She had seen how her father had incurred the wrath of Uncle Sam by ploughing his own furrow in the field of international affairs, and by openly pledging to build a Pakistani nuclear deterrent after India had carried out a test in 1974. Although there are no WikiLeaks cables to substantiate the claim, it is widely believed that the US was complicit in Bhutto’s overthrow in 1977 and put up no meaningful resistance to his judicial murder two years later.

At the very least, one would think a certain wariness of Washington ought to have been the logical response of a bereaved daughter. She evidently decided, instead, that the only feasible route to power in Pakistan passed through Capitol Hill. And the extent to which she was willing to ingratiate herself is demonstrated during a particularly cringe-worthy movement in Bhutto, the documentary produced by her lobbyist-publicist friend Mark Siegel, when in an audio-clip Benazir seeks to clarify that Henry Kissinger’s notorious threat to ZAB, to the effect that a “horrible example” would be made of him should he persist with his nuclear ambitions, was in fact “a friendly warning”. She evidently couldn’t bring herself to suspect — or at least to say — that the US could do any wrong.

Which helped, of course, to propel her to power in 1988, after Zia got his comeuppance in midair. Perhaps ‘power’ is something of an exaggeration, given that the PPP did not have a parliamentary majority, compromised on continuity (with a hostile president and a military-affiliated foreign minister), and left hardly any discernible marks on the political landscape. The credibility of Benazir’s return to office in the following decade was compromised when her husband was appointed minister for investment, of all things, and a bitterly public estrangement with her mother ensued over the return to Pakistan of Murtaza Bhutto.

Murtaza’s murder in 1996 at the hands of a police posse on the streets of Karachi, just metres from his home, effectively sealed Benazir’s political fate for the time being. Her mortal fate was sealed 11 years later, at least partly on account of her willingness once more to be a pawn in the hands of powers she appears never to have fully understood.

Her political and personality flaws do not substantially detract from the intensity of the tragedy on Dec 27, 2007. In the film Bhutto, though, the attempts to strike a balance are somewhat superficial and ham-handed. A proportion of the sound bites are allocated to detractors, though, including Fatima Bhutto — whose visceral reaction to those she deems responsible for the assassination of her father, Murtaza, is much more human than that of her aunt. The movie provides a momentary counterpoint to the official narrative on this score with the image of a clean-shaven Asif Ali Zardari at a condolatory function in the aftermath of his brother-in-law’s demise.

A considerably more poignant clip — unlikely to have ever been seen before — depicts, all too briefly, ZAB in his prison cell. It serves as a reminder of what has been lost since the fleeting period back in the early 1970s when there were grounds for being optimistic about Pakistan’s future. Who on earth can bring back that feeling?
 
@Ahmad,
You asked if other guards are also arrested. Yes, they and many others.
As to your question about PPP gaining the so-called sympathy vote, let me dispel that rumor as well: Even a towering figure like Benazir Bhutto's assassination could not make PPP gain a mere 100 seats in the 2008 elections. And PPP was the largest party in the 2002 elections despite when, everyone know, Musharraf would not allow PPP power. In 2008 elections PPP had the blessing of the Establishment. But still did poorly. The party is a sorry carcass since the assassination of ZAB. But un-analytical conspiracy theorist kids still want to come here and posit ideas about PPP trying to do more 'Shahadat' politics. Sure, the Jiyalas do chant Jiye this, Jiye that. But that is their right. They can only mourn or chant while the State of Pakistan keeps giving them their martyrs on regular intervals. Zardari, Rehman Malik, and Sherry Rehman are next. Run guys. Run away from Pakistan!!!

Taseer's death is a huge blow to the PPP in Punjab. He knew how to deal with the likes of the Sharif brothers.


Oh, here is the story about the guards.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
Qadri joined Punjab Constabulary in 2002 and later served in Special Branch. He was transferred from Special Branch by the then SP Nasir Khan for being religious hardliner and igniting religious sectarianism.

Nasir Khan, during his tenure at Regional Police Officer (RPO) also pointed out five officials including Malik Mumtaz Qadri not to assign VVIP duty for their hard religious views.

So far he had done six VVIP duties and including the last one in which he killed Taseer near Kosher Market in Islamabad.

However, the police have also arrested four officials of elite force who were in the governor’s squad but finished their duty before the duty time.

So far 36 officials of elite force, police and special branch have been arrested in the assassination case for investigation.
 
i just have to make one point , doesn't all of this takes our mind back to Christan dark ages i mean nearly all our "Faith" related incidents and trends are mimicking Christianities darkest period and the struggle of illogical church and common man"?? .....so good to be in a "qila of islam" then ...!!
 
If so, what the **** are you doing in UK? Why don't you join the Taliban in Afghanistan? After all, they weren't 'corrupt'. In the 1990s, they killed all the 'corrupt' politicians. And as you can clearly see, Afghanistan was the best country in the world then. Right?

This Mohd. bin Qasim and his ilks in foreign countries should be on the watch list of intelligence agencies. Seriously!

But you raise an important point here about 'corruption' vs 'clean' politicians. In my opinion the corruption of Pakistani political class is not unique in the world--at least not by 3rd world standards. I think as much as 3rd of Indian parliamentarians are tainted in some ways. And gosh, the 'image' of Congressmen in America is getting lower and lower.

So why are the Pakistanis so hell-bent to dispose off their elected leaders, only to have the military come to power. And then they turned against EVERY of the 4 military rulers.

I don't know the answer to this. But, time and again, in this forum I have stuck my neck out and pleaded for a civilian rule despite them being 'corrupt'. I know Zardari is probably a hundred times more 'corrupt' than Mullah Umar of the Talibans. But I will still choose Zardari.

You see: corruption is not just corruption about money. People can be morally corrupt. Corruption of intolerant nature. Corruption of Ideas and ideologies. All these are important pillars in making and breaking a State.

But all my pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Not only in this forum but elsewhere. Once even a smart guy like @Asim Aquill did not see my point about allowing a 'process' to continue even if financially corrupt. In this and in another forum I was accused of condoning corruption while what I merely suggested that allow the 'system' to mature, despite its warts. Free media and judiciary would eventually fix things. This is like a tree taking root.

I always saw Pakistan more than a bank. I saw and talked about the benefits of the political processes with the involvement of different parties. And currently all parties are in the primal soup of Pakistan, which was good.

And now I don't care: The 'last standing man' (Taseer's Tweet is historic) has fallen already. Probably killed by a man who may not have stolen a penny in his life but was far more corrupt in other ways. This killer was backed by a horde of dangerously morally corrupt medieval thugs. I have visited several blogspaces. Some linked from Pakpositives.com. In at least some of them we liberals--just like Asim Aquil here--are wondering if it is worth getting killed? Is it?
 
The real blasphemers

How are we, as Muslims, meant to deal with blasphemy?

The issue of Aasiya Bibi’s alleged blasphemy became one of the hottest topics for debate in 2010. At a very basic level, the question that everyone sought to answer is this: How are we, as Muslims, meant to deal with blasphemy?

This question has a simple answer: we should ignore people who are accused of blasphemy and tell them that the great man whom they are supposedly targeting in their acts of blasphemy was the one who taught us to ignore their actions and focus on more positive things in life.

There are several passages in the Quran which mention acts of blasphemy committed against the prophet and the message of Islam, three of which are more important than the others. None of these passages contains any indication that those found guilty of blasphemy ought to be killed. If there was a punishment for blasphemy in Islam, it should have been clearly mentioned in the Quran, especially in the passages where occurrences of it during the prophet’s lifetime are mentioned.

In the first passage that refers to blasphemy, the Quran informs us that hypocrites used to attend the Prophet’s (PBUH) gatherings intending to tease him. They used to say “ra‘ina” (please say it again), twisting their tongue to prolong the vowel sound ‘I,’ so it sounded like they were saying a different word which meant “our shepherd”. Instead of condemning the perpetrators to a punishment, however, the Quran said: “Believers, don’t say ra’ina; instead say unzurna and listen carefully (so that you don’t need to ask the Prophet to repeat his statements),” (Quran; 2:104). The word unzurna, like ra’ina, served the same purpose.

Another passage says: “Believers, don’t make such individuals from amongst the people of the book and the disbelievers (of Makkah) your friends, who tease and make fun of your religion. And fear Allah if you are true believers. When you are called for prayers, they make it an object of ridicule. This they do because they are a group of people who don’t know (the truth),” (Quran; 57-58). Had the intent of the divine law been to kill those who made fun of religion, this passage would have been an appropriate occasion to make this fact unambiguously clear. Instead, the believers were asked to ignore ‘blasphemous remarks’ and were told to refrain from befriending these people.

A third passage in the chapter titled “Hypocrites” talks about the designs of the leader of the hypocrites and his followers, who, during one of the expeditions of Muslims beyond Madinah, blasphemed against the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions in the following words: “They (the hypocrites) say ‘When we shall return to Madinah, the honorable shall expel the mean from there’, even though honour is for Allah and His messenger, and believers, but these hypocrites are unaware,”

(63:7-8). Indeed what Abdullah Ibn Ubai’i, the leader of the hypocrites, and his followers said was blasphemy. The message of God, however, only clarified the truth in response to the blasphemy they had uttered. Abdullah Ibn Ubai’i later died a natural death in Madinah. Despite the fact that he was living in the very city that was ruled by the Prophet (PBUH), he wasn’t put to death nor did he suffer any lesser punishments in retribution for the act of blasphemy he and his companions were guilty of committing.

If the Quran does not sanction specific punishment for blasphemy, why then are Muslims bent upon demanding death for blasphemy? The answer is that according to some Hadith, some disbelievers were killed for being guilty of blaspheming against the Prophet (PBUH) during his lifetime.

The reality is that, as has been clarified above, there is no punishment for blasphemy in Islam. The only exception is this: according to divine law, those people who directly received the message of God through His messengers were destined to be killed if they rejected and condemned it. This was a law that was specific to the direct addressees of the prophet only. It has been clarified in the Quran that such people were destined to receive the punishment of death, in one form or the other, after a certain God-ordained deadline was reached. That deadline had already arrived for the disbelievers of Makkah thirteen years after the prophetic mission had started, at the time when the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions were forced to migrate from the city to Madinah. The first phase of that punishment took care of the entire leadership of Quraish, the clan that ruled Makkah, two years after the migration in the Battle of Badr. That process continued for different people on different occasions. When the people of the book, the Jews and the Christians, denied the Prophet’s (PBUH) message, they too became eligible for the same punishment. However, in their case the punishment was relaxed: they were forced to live the life of second-rate citizens and pay Jizya, the non-Muslim tax (Quran; 9:29). Only those Jews and Christians who had not only denied the Prophet’s (PBUH) message but had also gone on to tease, insult, and threaten his life, were considered worthy of being killed like their counterpart polytheist disbelievers of Makkah.

Clearly, such punishments were meant to be applicable only to a certain group of people living in a particular era. Their crime and the rationale for their punishment have both been mentioned in the Quran. Their punishment wasn’t based on a Shari’ah law; instead it was based on God’s own direct intervention. For the rest of the people, the general rule mentioned in the Quran states that blasphemers are meant to be ignored- this was meant to continue to remain applicable for all times to come.

According to the Quran, only two types of criminals can be sentenced to capital punishment: those who are guilty of murder, or those who create mischief on earth. Anyone who took the life of another soul for reasons other than these two, according to the Quran, would be as if he killed the entire mankind. (Quran; 5:32) The law stipulating capital punishment for the act of blasphemy therefore is clearly against the Quranic message of the verse referred to above.

Of course, one could say that blasphemy is a form of ‘creating mischief on earth’ — but this argument is not valid because ‘creating mischief on earth’ has been described in the Quran like this: “Those who wage a war against Allah and His messenger and strive to create mischief on earth.” That crime is committed when an individual or a group commit murders, burglaries, or rapes and cause the life, property, and honour of innocent citizens to be harmed. Indeed, making profane remarks about the prophet is a crime, but the one committing it neither declares a war against Allah and His messenger nor does he struggle to create mischief on earth.

Islam’s message is of peace and tolerance. Bigotry, aggression, and extremism have nothing to do with it. Those who promote the latter evils in the name of Islam are the real threat to the propagation of its message.


The author is the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Central Punjab.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 2nd, 2011.
 
i just have to make one point , doesn't all of this takes our mind back to Christan dark ages i mean nearly all our "Faith" related incidents and trends are mimicking Christianities darkest period and the struggle of illogical church and common man"?? .....so good to be in a "qila of islam" then ...!!

And you have hit the bullseye with this one..
ExactLY!!!

The problem today is.. that the clergy in Islam has taken over.. it controls every aspect of Islam as if its the sole guardian of it.

The idea of blasphemy itself.. in Islam is not entirely incorrect..
I detest..and would in certain cases go so far as to harm a person insulting any of God's messengers.. be it Prophets Mohammed, Jesus or Moses or David.. But when such sentiment is played upon.. and end up creating blind hysteria.. as is aptly demonstrated by quite a few "revivalists" here.. then it is a BLACK implementation of that LAW..

THink about it.. as long as these Mullah's can raise up the beast of such ideas.. they can control and turn into brain dead zombie's even the most educated of people.. by preying on emotion..
Would it have been the same if the literacy rate in Pakistan had been higher??.. as demonstrated by the many numbskulls in support of the current implementation of the Law here.. I dont think so..

I fear now more than ever..that the Pakistan of Jinnah's vision..has finally been buried.. with this event.
Mr Qadri..as well meaning as his act was... has set in motion the final transformation into the Bigoted Republic of Paleedistan.

MBQ.. disappointed that you are into ranting if you cannot convince someone.. you of all should know the idea of "agree to disagree".


Here's a story of a book I read..
Back in the early 60's.. advisers from the PA were sent to the Saudi's to help train and equip their forces..
The leader of the Pakistani team made an elaborate presentation embellished with rousing quotes from the Scriptures..
It was titled.. "The Defense of Makkah"..
The presenter used similar invocations as those used here by the human "bots" here.. to impress his Wahabbi customers..
5 minutes into the presentation..
The Saudi General got up.. and thanked that presenter..
with a no thanks....that he should not worry his head about Makkah.. since god will take care of his own house.....
Thrusting Islam into everything.. or using it like a cheap two bit tissue.. is something these Mullah's and quite a few here do all the time..


The prophets honor....is for all Muslims to protect..FIRST and foremost with intellect.. with patience..and then if all else fails use force if you feel it so..... but if a wrong is being carried out in his name..
Death.. to all those that support it..
that is the actual "touheen-e-risalat"..
The blasphemy law as it is implemented and used in Pakistan is a Black law.. it is a stain on the face of Islam itself.. as are those who support it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom