Pakistan Doesn't Need Lectures: Zardari

[Zovc]

You made a serious mistake in bringing up the khulafa of Islam. The Khulafa of Islam, especially the initial four, were all military generals. They led or at least planned military expeditions of their own. the politicians you suck up to and love so much have painted this picture of islam coupled with democracy, when in reality a true form of islamic governance would be more of a one man rule, maybe not complete, but still very much authoritarian.

I wouldn't want to trigger a heated religious debate but, it depends on what sect you belong to...

Most of the Sunni's believe Islam teaches democracy, that is how Hazrat Abu Bakr(RA) was elected as the first Khalifa. They held a meeting where everyone's opinion was asked and then Hazrat Abu Bakr(RA) was elected unanimously.

While on the other hand most Shia sects believe that Hazrat Ali(RA) and his honorable sons deserved Khilafat as they were direct family of the Prophet(PBUH). Which is more inclined towards dictatorship.

In any case, all the Khalifa before making any decisions consulted their fellow As-habi.

So it really depends on which side of Islam you are talking about.

P.S: The above post is correct to the best of my knowledge.

 

[qsaark]

t's quite obvious you have no idea what you're talking about and your biggest mistake on this forum would be to lock horns with me.

If this is your tone, you are a spoiled kid. I dont like to talk to the kids whose sole source of information are blogs filled with sentiments and illusions rather than material from the actual documents. It is obvious that you have no clue of the Khilafah or have distorted views on that.

You cant differentiate between Generals, rulers, and dictators. you are comparing Mushrraf with Hazrat Ali? Ali did'nt send the Chief Justice home, Ali appeared in his court and defended his case.

During Khilafat-e-Rashida, it was the caliphate of Hazrat Ali. The capital had been shifted to Kufa and Qazi Shureh was the Chief Justice. A dispute between Ameer-ul-Momineen Hazrat Ali and a Jew comes up for hearing. The Ameer-ul-Momineen had dropped his zira (protective armour) somewhere. The Jew picked it up. When Hazrat Ali came to know of it, he claimed it but the Jew refused to give it back. Ameer-ul-Momineen knocked the door of law. The Chief Justice called for the statements of both. The jew said that it was his own and the proof was that it was in his possession. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff to produce the proof and present evidence for it. Qazi Shureh asked the Ameer-ul-Momineen to produce evidence to prove his claim. Two evidences were produced - Hazrat Hassan and Hazrat Qambar. Qazi Shureh accepted the evidence of Hazrat Qambar and remarked that evidence of Hazrat Hasan was not acceptable. (Some reports say, even Qambar’s evidence was turned down, as he was Hazrat Ali’s bondsman).

Hazrat Ali surprisingly asked, "You are declining the evidence of Hasan whereas the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) had himself said that both Hasan and Hussain are the leaders of the yough in Paradise". Qazi Shureh replied, "You are true, the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) did say this, but it is also the principle of Islam that evidence of a son in favour of his father is not reliable". Ameer-ul-Momineen’s claim was dismissed in the absence of acceptable evidence.

Shame on you, you are comparing such pillars of character with Pakistani Dictators.

Last post to you.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

I wouldn't want to trigger a heated religious debate but, it depends on what sect you belong to...

Most of the Sunni's believe Islam teaches democracy, that is how Hazrat Abu Bakr(RA) was elected as the first Khalifa. They held a meeting where everyone's opinion was asked and then Hazrat Abu Bakr(RA) was elected unanimously.

While on the other hand most Shia sects believe that Hazrat Ali(RA) and his honorable sons deserved Khilafat as they were direct family of the Prophet(PBUH). Which is more inclined towards dictatorship.

In any case, all the Khalifa before making any decisions consulted their fellow As-habi.

So it really depends on which side of Islam you are talking about.

P.S: The above post is correct to the best of my knowledge.

no, it does not. even abu bakr was elected mainly by the inhabitants of medina, from both the Muhajireen and Ansar. There was no poll stretching all the way to every corner of islamic territory.

 

[Zovc]

no, it does not. even abu bakr was elected mainly by the inhabitants of medina, from both the Muhajireen and Ansar. There was no poll stretching all the way to every corner of islamic territory.

Yes but all the representatives were available, all the tribal heads.

When Zardari was elected President we were not allowed to vote for him. Instead all the public representatives (MNA's etc) voted on our behalf.

By the tone of your reply, i guess you are a Shia.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

If this is your tone, you are a spoiled kid. I dont like to talk to the kids whose sole source of information are blogs filled with sentiments and illusions rather than material from the actual documents. It is obvious that you have no clue of the Khilafah or have distorted views on that.

you are saying my sources come from blogs? I can eat away at you with stats and figures proving that the economy under musharraf was far more prosperous than under any other govt. Pakistan actually stood a very good chance of joining the BRIC countries predicted to be major markets, thanks to his policies of economic reform.

You cant differentiate between Generals, rulers, and dictators. you are comparing Mushrraf with Hazrat Ali? Ali did'nt send the Chief Justice home, Ali appeared in his court and defended his case.

During Khilafat-e-Rashida, it was the caliphate of Hazrat Ali. The capital had been shifted to Kufa and Qazi Shureh was the Chief Justice. A dispute between Ameer-ul-Momineen Hazrat Ali and a Jew comes up for hearing. The Ameer-ul-Momineen had dropped his zira (protective armour) somewhere. The Jew picked it up. When Hazrat Ali came to know of it, he claimed it but the Jew refused to give it back. Ameer-ul-Momineen knocked the door of law. The Chief Justice called for the statements of both. The jew said that it was his own and the proof was that it was in his possession. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff to produce the proof and present evidence for it. Qazi Shureh asked the Ameer-ul-Momineen to produce evidence to prove his claim. Two evidences were produced - Hazrat Hassan and Hazrat Qambar. Qazi Shureh accepted the evidence of Hazrat Qambar and remarked that evidence of Hazrat Hasan was not acceptable. (Some reports say, even Qambar’s evidence was turned down, as he was Hazrat Ali’s bondsman).

Hazrat Ali surprisingly asked, "You are declining the evidence of Hasan whereas the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) had himself said that both Hasan and Hussain are the leaders of the yough in Paradise". Qazi Shureh replied, "You are true, the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) did say this, but it is also the principle of Islam that evidence of a son in favour of his father is not reliable". Ameer-ul-Momineen’s claim was dismissed in the absence of acceptable evidence.

yes, thanks for proving another one of my strong points, that we need an uncorruptible judiciary. we don't need corrupt judges who will keep on extending the dates of hearing for my family's property case, obviously because he's taking bribes from people in charge. we don't need that dimwit Iftikhar Chaudary who didn't raise a finger when Musharraf took power in 1999, who now enjoys celebrity fame because he decided to stop being corrupt for a few seconds. we certainly don't need those corrupt lawyers who are obviously politicized. We need islamic law and judges that rule according to islamic law.

Shame on you, you are comparing such pillars of character with Pakistani Dictators.

shame on you for comparing such pillars of character with Pakistani democracy of waderas and corrupt judiciary.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Yes but all the representatives were available, all the tribal heads.

When Zardari was elected President we were not allowed to vote for him. Instead all the public representatives (MNA's etc) voted on our behalf.

By the tone of your reply, i guess you are a Shia.

nope, the Muhajireen and Ansar weren't by any token, "representatives of the people", "peoples' choice", or "supporters of the awam" as you see it.
They made their selection based on what they thought was best for the muslim ummah and the islamic state. No, I'm not shi'a, I'm just a muslim.

P.S: Please don't bring Zardari into this, and compare him the likes of the khulafa.

 

[Zovc]

who didn't raise a finger when Musharraf took power in 1999, who now enjoys celebrity fame because he decided to stop being corrupt for a few seconds.

That's the whole problem.

 

[batmannow]

I've come to believe that its best to take this decision out of the Pakistanis hands. Not because the populace is not capable of an informed choice, but simply because the choices available are just not up to the mark.

I think another round of benign dictatorship, with the cunning of Husni Mubarak and the vision of Mahatir Muhammad can be our only way out of this.

We need someone who can stick around for at least 10 years, and not make the mistake that Musharraf did. The mistake of trying to accomodate and appease political interests.

darkStar, sir
simply the best thinking, & i will back it up1000%, with strict actions, with strong arms!

 

[Zovc]

nope, the Muhajireen and Ansar weren't by any token, "representatives of the people", "peoples' choice", or "supporters of the awam" as you see it.

They were, seems you dont know much about Islam. There were also incidents when some of the Qabila(tribal) Leaders passed away and the Qabila's declared their support to Hazrat Abu Bakr(RA) void and refused to pay tax or co-operate.

They made their selection based on what they thought was best for the muslim ummah and the islamic state. No, I'm not shi'a, I'm just a muslim.

I was saying that because of your taking Hazrat Abu Bakr(RA)'s name so bluntly.

How old are you anyways?

P.S: Please don't bring Zardari into this, and compare him the likes of the khulafa.

I had no intention of comparing them with a corrupt leader like Zardari, i was merely comparing the Khalifa's election with Pakistani President's election.

 

[batmannow]

i watched now the interview of pm gilani to cnn,very disappointed,the cnn bìtch was talking to him like he was 'lallu panju '.

was;sir
i guss, he is only a 'lallu" but about " panju", he has to prove more! lol
i guss she is treating him very well.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

They were, seems you dont know much about Islam. There were also incidents when some of the Qabila(tribal) Leaders passed away and the Qabila's declared their support to Hazrat Abu Bakr(RA) void and refused to pay tax or co-operate.

and? one incident is going to change my entire thinking to favor democracy and somehow tie it up with islamic governance? a lot of tribes left islam during Abu Bakr Siddiq's (Radi'Allahu Anhu) era, he launched jihad and reversed that trend, you should know that...

I was saying that because of your taking Hazrat Abu Bakr(RA)'s name so bluntly. How old are you anyways?

I wasn't taking his name bluntly, I was more in a hurry taking a quiz online, I have great respect for him. I'm older than you and it's not up to you to judge my character, certainly not up to a PPP jiyala...

I had no intention of comparing them with a corrupt leader like Zardari, i was merely comparing the Khalifa's election with Pakistani President's election.

There is absolutely no comparison between the selection of the khalifa and the election of Zardari. There is absolutely no comparison between the Khilafa and the democratic govt. in Pakistan. The next khalifa, Hadhrat Umar Radi'Allahu Anhu, was chosen by his predecessor. This continued until Hadhrat Ali Radi'Allahu Anhu.

 

[batmannow]

Pakistani tribal areas trouble for region, beyond: Hillary
Anwar Iqbal

Wednesday, 28 Jan, 2009 | 11:00 PM PST |
dawn/beta.com

WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that she personally conveyed her concern on civilian casualties in US drones attacks to the presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan but added that the tribal areas were a source of trouble for the entire region and beyond.
Mrs Clinton’s remarks coincide with a separate statement by the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates who told a Senate US panel earlier Tuesday that the United States has informed Pakistan that US drone attacks in Fata will continue.
This marks the first time a cabinet level US official has confirmed the drone attacks. Previously, US officials refused to comment, saying that since the attacks happened inside Pakistan, they would let Pakistani officials deal with it.
‘We are looking very broadly and comprehensively at the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan and along their borders,’ Secretary Clinton told a briefing at the State Department.
Since last summer, the US has carried out at least 30 US missile attacks on Pakistan's tribal area, killing more than 130 people, many of them civilians.
Similar attacks were carried out in Afghanistan as well, also causing civilian casualties.
Last week, US Vice President Joe Biden not only indicated that the attacks would continue but also warned Americans to brace themselves for an increase in US casualties in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Asked to comment on these developments, Secretary Clinton said the region that includes Afghanistan and Pakistan was ‘an area that we are following closely.’
She said that as the US moved forward in this area, civilian casualties in US air strikes would ‘certainly (be) a part of our assessment’ about the situation there.
‘But there’s little doubt in anyone’s mind that the border areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan are a source of instability for Afghanistan, for Pakistan, and far beyond the borders of those two countries,’ she added.
Mrs Clinton said that President Obama and she thought it was important to move ‘as quickly as possible’ for dealing with the situation in that area and that’s why they appointed a special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
She recalled that the Bush administration had already started a review of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which was going to continue under the new administration as well.
‘We are engaged very vigorously in trying to assess what has been done before and what we are going to be doing. And we thought it imperative that we had a high-level representative – and in this case, Richard Holbrooke – to be guiding that process with us,’ she said.
‘There will be other decisions made as we go forward. But I don’t think anyone should be surprised by our willingness to engage,’ she added.
‘So there will be more to report about our views as to how we’re going to proceed in the future,’ she said.
now he have to listen mama? or not? lets see!

 

[notorious_eagle]

My friend asaad, i can understand your frustration and believe me i am as critical of this government as you are. But my friend, history shows us that democracy is the best way to prevail and dictatorship is not. In the end, if a single person has too much power it can be counter productive. Although i am a great fan of Musharraf, nothing would make me more happy in seeing him back in power but as a politican not as a soldier. Let this current government complete its term, if they are not effective they wont be in power for long.

 

[Contrarian]

I think Pakistan deserves another spell of dictatorship!

You know there's a saying "People get the leaders they deserve". I see SO many Pakistani's pining for another coupe, i think they deserve it then.

Inspite of our so many discussions on Pakistani democracy, how it needs a FEW cycles, not just one to become competitive, people here want dictatorship. I hope they get it then

 

[Jihad]

Excellent posts asaad-ul-islam, I couldn't agree more, I share the same views like you do.
Pakistan needs to be set right on track in order for it to become a healthy and strong democracy.
Right now, it doesn't look like Pakistan is a full fledged democracy, and the chances are it won't be in the near future.
You are completely right when you say that we need a person with the traits of Musharraf but someone who doesn't make the same mistakes he made back then, and only then, we can see Pakistan emerging as a nation that doesn't eat other nations sh!t just because we are the "smaller" nation, we will be a proud nation with a booming economy like we used to have, and most important, we will pave the way for democracy, but not right now, right now is the time to get people back to work, to enforce alot of critical rules to ensure stability among Pakistani societies, to ensure economic stability and viability, to ensure safety by wiping out these Taliban pigs, if we only had 10 years with that one person who knows how to deal with certain issues and is not corrupt, you will see a whole different Pakistan in 10 years, trust me.
All these people who cry for "democracy", know that right now, with this "democracy", Pakistan will not gain much and instead, gain insecurity and public distrust among its people and abroad in the international community.
Look at China for godsakes, 1 party, 1 ruler, look what they've become right now?
Their policy was simple, no whining, no b!tching, just put the people back to work, no protests or uprisings, just WORK, earn money, work for your nation and for your children/grandchildren so that they too could benefit from a flourishing country, economic reforms and a strong policeforce was essential for the Chinese leaders to keep their power in China and to make China a dominant power.
When PEOPLE see their lifestandards go up, they will be less likely to riot or to whine about certain things, as long as their tummys are filled and their children can go to school, you will not see them go on the streets and protest for god knows what.
It's all about improving your country, and certan things simply must be sacrificed right now in order for Pakistan to gain prosperity.
Democracy not now, but later when our nation is very stable and has very good economic prospects.
I'm not talking about a person like Hitler, but a person who is influential, great charisma, knows how to talk to people, loves his country, and wants to do all the best for his nation and KNOWS what needs to be done, someone who will and can eliminate corruption, and someone who knows that education is the key for Pakistan to play a big role in the world politics, someone like Musharraf knew this, but he made certain mistakes that led to his downfall, as asaad-ul-islam righteously pointed out.
Democracy is only keeping our nation backwards, Musharraf said before, Pakistan needs TIME, it still is a young nation, all the other western nations had hundreds of years to implement and evolve in their democratic process.
How can Pakistan swallow Democracy to its full extent when there's not a good leader to choose? Where most of the politicians are as corrupt as hyenas?
It's simply not viable for Pakistan to stay on the democratic path right now, we need a strong leader who will take over all the power inside Pakistan, and who will FOCUS on domestic issues rather then international issues.
Like Musharraf said, Sab se pehle Pakistan.