third eye
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 18,519
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
Serving Brigadier arrested for suspected links with Hizbut Tahrir
- Thread starter EvoluXon
- Start date
1 ummah
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2011
- Messages
- 335
- Reaction score
- 0
wich gov u r protecting ??
if there is som islam so wat shall we all do leve the rest of muslim lands n try to fit in saudia??
it is an obligation upon ALL MUSLIMS to live under sharia,as 1 state as mohammad (s.a.w) said ,kill the second one who claims bayah,wen one is pledged
1 ummah
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2011
- Messages
- 335
- Reaction score
- 0
oh so jinnah tricked wid muslims!
1 ummah
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2011
- Messages
- 335
- Reaction score
- 0
may b u shud read galup servay or try 1 urself..!!
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Interesting that HT statements are issued from London and it's most sympathetic hearings are in the English and Western press
Pakistanis should go ‘to streets’ for Islamic rule: Hizb
LONDON: Hizb ut-Tahrir, a global Islamist party banned in many Muslim states, said on Friday Pakistanis should take to the streets to call for Islamic rule and join a campaign to end subservience to Washington that was advancing “from Indonesia to Tunisia”.
The party, which says it is non-violent but is accused by some analysts of seeking a coup in Islamabad, added that “powerful factions” in Pakistani society including the military should also take part, but violence had no place in its work. Hizb ut-Tahrir won international attention when Pakistan’s rmy said on June 22 it was questioning four majors about alleged links to the party, following the arrest in May of a brigadier suspected of having such ties.
Brigadier Ali Khan, whose lawyer has denied the allegations, was the highest-ranking serving officer arrested in a decade.
The Pakistan Army is under pressure to remove sympathizers of such organisations and parties in its ranks after US forces found and killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad on May 2. In an interview, party spokesman Taji Mustafa said the party sought to emulate the creation of the first Islamic state in what is now Saudi Arabia by “winning public opinion in favour of Islam” through discussions, marches and rallies.
The party worked “to motivate all sections of society to express their determined will, such that they take to the streets and demand the Islamic Caliphate system.” The party and its goal of an Islamic ruler, or Caliph, who implements Shariah laws posed no threat to Pakistan, said Mustafa, based in Britain, where the party is not banned. “The threat to Pakistan comes from Zardari, Kayani and Gilani who support drone strikes that kill their own citizens, and who collude with a US-led war of terror,” he said, referring to the president, army chief and prime minister.
Powerful factions: Security analysts say the party, not normally seen as a top security threat, has struggled to win mass support in Pakistan and focuses its message on the army since a coup would be the easiest way to oust the civilian government. The party’s Pakistan branch issued a statement earlier in June, saying the Muslims all over the world, or the “Ummah”, were looking to Pakistan Army to provide support for the party’s goal of setting up an Islamic state, or Caliphate (Khilafah).
Asked to comment, Mustafa said the party’s search for their support was not aimed at obtaining armed backing since that “contradicts our method for bringing about change.”
“Seeking Nusrah (support) was a practice of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) when he worked to establish the first Islamic state in Medina,” he said.
“It is to ask the powerful factions in society - including the military - to support our call for the implementation of the system of Khilafah, to side with the people and to stop propping up the current treacherous regime which is using the military to fight its own citizens as it supports America’s war and drone strikes - something that is hugely unpopular.”
Mustafa said that globally the party operated in more than 40 countries, both Muslim-majority and -minority countries. It sought to bring the former under a Caliphate. In the latter, it sought to preserve a strong Islamic identity among Muslims.
“Despite the attempts of several Western-backed rulers to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir in parts of the Muslim world, our call for the Khilafah system is gaining traction by the day from Indonesia to Tunisia,” he said. His remark echoes those of many Islamist organisations that portray this year’s Arab uprisings against political despotism and economic stagnation as inspired by Islam. Many Arabs say Islamists have played only a minimal role. reuters
Pakistanis should go ‘to streets’ for Islamic rule: Hizb
LONDON: Hizb ut-Tahrir, a global Islamist party banned in many Muslim states, said on Friday Pakistanis should take to the streets to call for Islamic rule and join a campaign to end subservience to Washington that was advancing “from Indonesia to Tunisia”.
The party, which says it is non-violent but is accused by some analysts of seeking a coup in Islamabad, added that “powerful factions” in Pakistani society including the military should also take part, but violence had no place in its work. Hizb ut-Tahrir won international attention when Pakistan’s rmy said on June 22 it was questioning four majors about alleged links to the party, following the arrest in May of a brigadier suspected of having such ties.
Brigadier Ali Khan, whose lawyer has denied the allegations, was the highest-ranking serving officer arrested in a decade.
The Pakistan Army is under pressure to remove sympathizers of such organisations and parties in its ranks after US forces found and killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad on May 2. In an interview, party spokesman Taji Mustafa said the party sought to emulate the creation of the first Islamic state in what is now Saudi Arabia by “winning public opinion in favour of Islam” through discussions, marches and rallies.
The party worked “to motivate all sections of society to express their determined will, such that they take to the streets and demand the Islamic Caliphate system.” The party and its goal of an Islamic ruler, or Caliph, who implements Shariah laws posed no threat to Pakistan, said Mustafa, based in Britain, where the party is not banned. “The threat to Pakistan comes from Zardari, Kayani and Gilani who support drone strikes that kill their own citizens, and who collude with a US-led war of terror,” he said, referring to the president, army chief and prime minister.
Powerful factions: Security analysts say the party, not normally seen as a top security threat, has struggled to win mass support in Pakistan and focuses its message on the army since a coup would be the easiest way to oust the civilian government. The party’s Pakistan branch issued a statement earlier in June, saying the Muslims all over the world, or the “Ummah”, were looking to Pakistan Army to provide support for the party’s goal of setting up an Islamic state, or Caliphate (Khilafah).
Asked to comment, Mustafa said the party’s search for their support was not aimed at obtaining armed backing since that “contradicts our method for bringing about change.”
“Seeking Nusrah (support) was a practice of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) when he worked to establish the first Islamic state in Medina,” he said.
“It is to ask the powerful factions in society - including the military - to support our call for the implementation of the system of Khilafah, to side with the people and to stop propping up the current treacherous regime which is using the military to fight its own citizens as it supports America’s war and drone strikes - something that is hugely unpopular.”
Mustafa said that globally the party operated in more than 40 countries, both Muslim-majority and -minority countries. It sought to bring the former under a Caliphate. In the latter, it sought to preserve a strong Islamic identity among Muslims.
“Despite the attempts of several Western-backed rulers to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir in parts of the Muslim world, our call for the Khilafah system is gaining traction by the day from Indonesia to Tunisia,” he said. His remark echoes those of many Islamist organisations that portray this year’s Arab uprisings against political despotism and economic stagnation as inspired by Islam. Many Arabs say Islamists have played only a minimal role. reuters
1 ummah
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2011
- Messages
- 335
- Reaction score
- 0
o so isnt it true ?? and rest too!
or it went something like this in pubjab, dengi mouch tay kani aakh, zia-ul-haq, zia-ul-haq
This hopefully will be an ongoing trend, I hope that Kiyani keeps up this brave policy and makes it all public for the world and aliens in space to hear. I want to keep a tally mark of all these traitor bastards above the rank of Sipahi or jamadar that get caught up in extremism and dual dealings, because these high serving and retired bastards are the culprits this nation is after, along with those insurgents and fraud gunda political parties.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
All friends are invited to read and comment on the piece below:
Of good order and military discipline
Mehboob Qadir
The famous Section 55 in the Pakistan Army’s Manual of Pakistan Military Law (MPML) can easily be regarded as an outstanding example of the brilliance of that unknown legal prodigy who originally conceived it. It is simple and crisp but extraordinarily comprehensive in its application to a majority of military offences. It reads: “Any act, conduct, disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and of military discipline.” Imagine the universal sweep of this law over all and any military offences. This is why it is a favourite tool of all military law officers when framing charges. The reason is perhaps, amongst the thousands of pages of military law and rules, this section is the only one that captures a broad military notion and not a specific offence. The other more immediate cause of its respectability is that invariably each one of us in the military may have felt the sting of this awesome piece of military jurisprudence at some stage of service. It is really the fascinating outreach of this masterly phrase that has inspired one from time to time to write about a few episodes, which I thought hovered just below the regulation markings rubbing upon the traditional notions of soldiering here and there.
In the military, one is expected and has the right to express his opinion over or, let us be more candid, dissent from a duty assigned. To ask questions of the passage is considered enthusiasm and is viewed kindly. However, the problem arises when deciding how much and how emphatically to persist upon one’s differing point of view or comment on the soundness of the task assigned. Because right next is the ever-present thin red line that separates military discipline from goose pimples. One wrong step, a few extra seconds of argument and there goes a ‘no ball’.
It is not all stuffy and tight lips in the army. Today’s soldier does not live under the rock. There are real constraints under which the military has to function. There is a vast conceptual and functional but respectful difference between troops in the field and the exalted hall of parliament, a plush room for panel discussion or a classy seminar hall. In the army, beyond a limited liberty, both in time and intent, there is the driving urgency to get into action, as the enemy bullets are dumb and unable to differentiate between a sublime democratic right to differ and hesitation to fight.
Having said that, how does one groom intelligent, conscientious and professional soldiers and officers? Those who are wayward are amply taken care of by Section 55. As a matter of fact there is no guidebook to it nor a short cut available except historic practices of renowned military leaders. A vibrant, responsive and upright body of troops is a primary function of erudite and selfless command, careful grooming, and hard professional training. There is no room in this exercise for the fake and the feeble, the loud and the shallow and, what is more, the callous and the insincere. There is also no substitute for one’s willingness to share the same hardship and danger that your troops face. Once that happens, thereafter all arguments end and instant obedience begins, regardless of the scale of the danger.
How else do you view a soldier who in the pouring icy rain, chilling wind and a huge thunder storm is struggling to hold on to the commanding officer’s tent ropes to save it from being blown away in the middle of a bitterly cold and dark winter night? Soaked to his wretched frozen bones, but never letting go of the tent. That too when the officer is away. And what about that artillery subedar who, while seriously wounded by the bombardment of Soviet jets over the Paiwar Kotal ridge line in Parachinar (1984), refused to be evacuated without his commanding officer’s permission? That was when others had moved to safer positions on the reverse slope. Then there was this young transport officer who secured a disabled, heavy-gun-towing truck behind another one, took the wheel himself and drove this double dead weight, a virtual death trap, over Kohat’s treacherous old Kotal Pass during the night down to the unit lines in Kohat. He returned post-haste to be on parade in the morning at Nowshera artillery firing range along with another roadworthy truck. That morning the unit was to be put through a test exercise, where a lame truck could have caused a serious embarrassment. All this without the commanding officer’s permission! This plucky young man rose to become a stalwart colonel in the army (Colonel Asif).
However, these examples are to be valued at the level they have been described. Beyond that a different and a wider military paradigm has to be considered. Almost immediately above are the conceptual issues of national interest, constitutional obligations and the future of the forces in the articulation of national power. These issues need a deliberate and very well informed approach, coming out of a highly disciplined, well rounded and insightful mind. That truly is the preserve of senior commanders who are expected to be aware of all nuances of their actions and words, and be prepared to shoulder responsibility for the consequences of the same. Even more importantly, they have to have a very clear sense and accurate ongoing assessment of the political temperature in and around the country and should be able to navigate their force with consummate skill and poise. An armed force is not always to be used as an offensive instrument; it should be able to project its power to the adversary as a force-in-being also. That can happen when it remains within the bounds of the assigned mission with strictly maintained military discipline and well-honed professional skills. That also is the difference between an armed mob and a disciplined, well led force. In the end all that will largely depend on what example the commander himself sets.
At the level of high command, perceptions ‘about’ and ‘by’ them matter. In order to manage perceptions, conceit, counterfeit or subterfuge has never worked, not for long. Late General Zia’s faith-coated feigned piety or General Musharraf’s pulpy bravado proved embarrassingly phoney in the end. It is transparency, courage of conviction and spotless personal and professional conduct that really matter, and must be valued like gold wherever found. Only men with the strength of superior character will stand fast in battle and contribute substantially to the national well being in peace.
The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army. He can be reached at clay.potter@hotmail.com
Of good order and military discipline
Mehboob Qadir
The famous Section 55 in the Pakistan Army’s Manual of Pakistan Military Law (MPML) can easily be regarded as an outstanding example of the brilliance of that unknown legal prodigy who originally conceived it. It is simple and crisp but extraordinarily comprehensive in its application to a majority of military offences. It reads: “Any act, conduct, disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and of military discipline.” Imagine the universal sweep of this law over all and any military offences. This is why it is a favourite tool of all military law officers when framing charges. The reason is perhaps, amongst the thousands of pages of military law and rules, this section is the only one that captures a broad military notion and not a specific offence. The other more immediate cause of its respectability is that invariably each one of us in the military may have felt the sting of this awesome piece of military jurisprudence at some stage of service. It is really the fascinating outreach of this masterly phrase that has inspired one from time to time to write about a few episodes, which I thought hovered just below the regulation markings rubbing upon the traditional notions of soldiering here and there.
In the military, one is expected and has the right to express his opinion over or, let us be more candid, dissent from a duty assigned. To ask questions of the passage is considered enthusiasm and is viewed kindly. However, the problem arises when deciding how much and how emphatically to persist upon one’s differing point of view or comment on the soundness of the task assigned. Because right next is the ever-present thin red line that separates military discipline from goose pimples. One wrong step, a few extra seconds of argument and there goes a ‘no ball’.
It is not all stuffy and tight lips in the army. Today’s soldier does not live under the rock. There are real constraints under which the military has to function. There is a vast conceptual and functional but respectful difference between troops in the field and the exalted hall of parliament, a plush room for panel discussion or a classy seminar hall. In the army, beyond a limited liberty, both in time and intent, there is the driving urgency to get into action, as the enemy bullets are dumb and unable to differentiate between a sublime democratic right to differ and hesitation to fight.
Having said that, how does one groom intelligent, conscientious and professional soldiers and officers? Those who are wayward are amply taken care of by Section 55. As a matter of fact there is no guidebook to it nor a short cut available except historic practices of renowned military leaders. A vibrant, responsive and upright body of troops is a primary function of erudite and selfless command, careful grooming, and hard professional training. There is no room in this exercise for the fake and the feeble, the loud and the shallow and, what is more, the callous and the insincere. There is also no substitute for one’s willingness to share the same hardship and danger that your troops face. Once that happens, thereafter all arguments end and instant obedience begins, regardless of the scale of the danger.
How else do you view a soldier who in the pouring icy rain, chilling wind and a huge thunder storm is struggling to hold on to the commanding officer’s tent ropes to save it from being blown away in the middle of a bitterly cold and dark winter night? Soaked to his wretched frozen bones, but never letting go of the tent. That too when the officer is away. And what about that artillery subedar who, while seriously wounded by the bombardment of Soviet jets over the Paiwar Kotal ridge line in Parachinar (1984), refused to be evacuated without his commanding officer’s permission? That was when others had moved to safer positions on the reverse slope. Then there was this young transport officer who secured a disabled, heavy-gun-towing truck behind another one, took the wheel himself and drove this double dead weight, a virtual death trap, over Kohat’s treacherous old Kotal Pass during the night down to the unit lines in Kohat. He returned post-haste to be on parade in the morning at Nowshera artillery firing range along with another roadworthy truck. That morning the unit was to be put through a test exercise, where a lame truck could have caused a serious embarrassment. All this without the commanding officer’s permission! This plucky young man rose to become a stalwart colonel in the army (Colonel Asif).
However, these examples are to be valued at the level they have been described. Beyond that a different and a wider military paradigm has to be considered. Almost immediately above are the conceptual issues of national interest, constitutional obligations and the future of the forces in the articulation of national power. These issues need a deliberate and very well informed approach, coming out of a highly disciplined, well rounded and insightful mind. That truly is the preserve of senior commanders who are expected to be aware of all nuances of their actions and words, and be prepared to shoulder responsibility for the consequences of the same. Even more importantly, they have to have a very clear sense and accurate ongoing assessment of the political temperature in and around the country and should be able to navigate their force with consummate skill and poise. An armed force is not always to be used as an offensive instrument; it should be able to project its power to the adversary as a force-in-being also. That can happen when it remains within the bounds of the assigned mission with strictly maintained military discipline and well-honed professional skills. That also is the difference between an armed mob and a disciplined, well led force. In the end all that will largely depend on what example the commander himself sets.
At the level of high command, perceptions ‘about’ and ‘by’ them matter. In order to manage perceptions, conceit, counterfeit or subterfuge has never worked, not for long. Late General Zia’s faith-coated feigned piety or General Musharraf’s pulpy bravado proved embarrassingly phoney in the end. It is transparency, courage of conviction and spotless personal and professional conduct that really matter, and must be valued like gold wherever found. Only men with the strength of superior character will stand fast in battle and contribute substantially to the national well being in peace.
The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army. He can be reached at clay.potter@hotmail.com
Yes sir,
Jinnah wanted and got a country where Muslims could live free---- according to Islam---
Dude, to live free according to THEIR will, which given the population, will be majority ISLAMIC INFLUENCED. He didn't say that the state should be the nanny of Islam, he didn't want clerics and priests running the military or centers of power, and if you look closely, you will understand who is running the show in this country. Now sit back down.
third eye
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 18,519
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
The Brig has a point.
The act is a legacy from the Raj - like a broad spectrum anti biotic meant for all ills from a sore throat to acute infections. In fact it is quite like a steroid that gives the impression of immediate relief but has numerous side effects which sometimes show in the long run.
For an Officer or a soldier a ' red ink entry' in his dossier remains for life and are expunged in the rarest of rare cases .Awards of punishment under this act leads to a red ink entry often marring chances of promotion or courses that help in career enhancement. The Officer awarding such punishment therefore needs to use his pen very judiciously.
While I agree with the author on some issues I feel that despite what may appear strange & inexplicable to a non military mind there are numerous instances where the need to apply such act exists. I will not go into the nature of offenses but there exist checks & balances in the system wherein such awards are vetted by a superior authority.
A Commanding Officer rarely exercises this act and it is taught that this act needs to be applied only when the offence does not fit in another.
Lastly, in the context of PA I would like to bring out what seems to me as the greatest example of hypocrisy. The Chief of Army violates all rules & norms of both the Army Act & national constitution by overthrowing an elected Govt. He then expects his officers & soldiers to obey rules & go by the book !
Shouldn't the book be thrown at him first and he be charged for violation of ' good order & military discipline' ? He too must surely have taken the oath as all officers do on being commissioned to abide by the laws of the land and the Army / Navy / Air Force he his commissioned to ?
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
I think using Zia and Musharraf as references the author is making the point you cannot be faulted for considering hypocrisy.
I also think the author is being clear with regard to section 55 and Brigadier khan and any others who may consider the possibility of other allegiances
JonAsad
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 14,178
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
If not according to Islam- then why so much struggle for a separate country- we could have lived not according to Islam under Hindus very easily- Dont ignore the fact that the majority of Muslims who supported Jinnah for a separate country wanted an Islamic state govern by Islamic law- thats how Jinnah won their votes-
Just because Jinnah was of secular beliefs doesn't mean that the Muslims that supported him for a separate nation were secular aswell-
Similar threads
