What's new

Terrorism, Shameless Religious Bigotry and Pakistani Mindset

If you can post some Non ahmadi source on this issue please?

Its a conspiracy but it has been said that you have to find his records and see for yourself, I mean what is the harm in checking if it is right or wrong.

Also my family knew Zia's family as I have mentioned before, there were certain things about them that could lead you to doubt them, but one thing that they all say is that little Zia changed when he was stationed at Jordan. :lol:
 
we Muslims have become hypocrite
we demand world sympathy for our faith & religion but show total disregard & insult to differnt sect , faith or religion at the same time
case in point.
Ahmadi massacre prompted people to delcare that they are non-Muslims (as if saying their killing is fine because they are sub humen)
same goes for Shias & Christians but this mentality has led to a situation where modrate sunnis are being killed in shries and mosques e.g. Molanah Naemi
 
Can you tell me that ISI sharing info with JUI. Like you dont belive me. So they dont belive TTP is bad.. And i said that in stucture only head officers and ownes are linked with agency. So i have seen proves and i belive. I hope you will get chance to see and then you belive... But they will not gonna show you because of ur mindset.. We say Muslims as terrorist because they did 9-11 see this
http://(www) or (m).youtube.com/watch?gl=US&warned=True&client=mv-google&hl=en&v=5ArcMOkuoK0

http://(www) or (m).youtube.com/watch?gl=US&warned=True&client=mv-google&hl=en&v=fJb_V4zm-4Y&rl=yes

http://(www) or (m).youtube.com/watch?gl=US&warned=True&client=mv-google&hl=en&v=iEuJimaumW4&rl=yes

http://(www) or (m).youtube.com/watch?gl=US&warned=True&client=mv-google&hl=en&v=kzp_mnCAFOs

http://(www) or (m).youtube.com/watch?gl=US&warned=True&client=mv-google&hl=en&v=RkVZhWeAmLo&rl=yes
when the war based on lie then how we say Musilm as terrorist because they didnt do it. And real terrorist are those who did this.
 
As an example of the differences between social values and legality, let me present a couple of bright bulbs. Social values can be based on a cultural values, religious values or a mixture of both.

Before the promulgation of the The Offence of Zina (Enforcement Of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, fornication (sexual intercourse outside marriage between two unmarried people) was not a criminal offence. Adultery was a crime and is specifically described to be between one or both being married and was defined by Section 497 of the PPC. It read:-

zina.jpg


The crime of adultery was not gender-neutral in its definition (meaning a woman could not be accused of rape (zina bil jabar) against a man, or possibly a woman). The Zina Ordinance used "persons" and was thus gender-neutral.

What I wanted to establish here is that although fornication was not a criminal offence before 1979, it did not mean that people fornicated on every corner of the street, in parks or society was "morally lewd" in general. Here social values were far more relevant and held ground.

Before 1977, Consumption of Liquor and Gambling were legal as well. This did not mean that the entire nation was drunk or gambled. In these situations, social values held the higher ground and these were looked down upon regardless of their legality.

Similarly before the enforcement of the draconian and widely misused for victimization Blasphemy Laws, there were no such injunctions and cases were admitted under civil jurisdiction of hatespeech and promoting enmity between different groups among many injunctions.

Thus, the Pakistan before 1977 would have been a shocker to the post-Zia trained mindset that is susceptible to religious rhetoric and regards that anything deemed tantamount to religious values (even if with malafide intentions) needs to be banned, prosecuted and criminalized.

The constitutional provision and amendments to the PPC to deem Ahmedis non-Muslims have had little value above prosecuting minorities, committing violence against minorities and inciting hatred. Before the passage of the 2nd amendment, general consensus held them to be non-Muslims since the days of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself. Thus regardless of the legal standing, social values and religious interpretation widely acceptable held major ground.

Explicitly defining them as non-Muslims was not a job of the state nor was it the state's duty to deem it necessary that we sign oath of Muslim definitions while obtaining identity documents. Such state powers allow for prosecution of minorities and accusing dissenters of such association and prosecuting them. It is inherently against the structure of the state and the system of governance to define religion and interpret it for the people. Interpretation of religion is left the scholars, its acceptance to the public and its judgment to the creator. It is not the state's job to do so.

Islamic jurisprudence, even the mainstream and orthodox one, has extensive mentions of the separation of religion and state, a concept that seems criminal to the post-Zia children.

I would not be surprised that most post-Zia adults who have been indoctrinated with such ideology where state and religion are so intertwined, two opposing ideologies of religious identity and nationalism intertwined and the widespread state religious powers used to criminalize offenses that need not be mentioned by the state prevalent would find the Pakistan pre-1977 perhaps and pre-1973 entirely to be "un-Islamic" in their definition of what constitutes "Islamic" and whether it is necessary for the state apparatus to hold "Islam" as well. The people of Pakistan of that era will most likely be deemed traitors, agents, infidels and liberal fascists by these indoctrinated minds for well and good.
 
Last edited:
sparklingway save yourself :lol: :P


Can you tell me that ISI sharing info with JUI. Like you dont belive me. So they dont belive TTP is bad.. And i said that in stucture only head officers and ownes are linked with agency. So i have seen proves and i belive. I hope you will get chance to see and then you belive... But they will not gonna show you because of ur mindset.. We say Muslims as terrorist because they did 9-11 see this
http://(www) or (m).youtube.com/watch?gl=US&warned=True&client=mv-google&hl=en&v=5ArcMOkuoK0

http://(www) or (m).youtube.com/watch?gl=US&warned=True&client=mv-google&hl=en&v=fJb_V4zm-4Y&rl=yes

http://(www) or (m).youtube.com/watch?gl=US&warned=True&client=mv-google&hl=en&v=iEuJimaumW4&rl=yes

http://(www) or (m).youtube.com/watch?gl=US&warned=True&client=mv-google&hl=en&v=kzp_mnCAFOs

http://(www) or (m).youtube.com/watch?gl=US&warned=True&client=mv-google&hl=en&v=RkVZhWeAmLo&rl=yes
when the war based on lie then how we say Musilm as terrorist because they didnt do it. And real terrorist are those who did this.

main_img_girl_pulling_hair.jpg


you win, i cannot go down to your level
 
Last edited:
Sparklingway just hit the ball out of the park with his last post, we seem to have regressed ever-since Zia brought in his laws that were actually initiated by ZAB. Its a shame to see a forward thinking and progressive country fall victim to such a bastardized constitution that teaches bigotry, hate and persecution.

To progress and move forward, we have to revive our original identity and return to the laws laid by the father of our nation Jinnah. Otherwise we will end up isolated and hated in the world, one of which has already happened. I can see my country seizing to exist if we do not mend our ways. From the great and proud beginnings we had, now we are a shadow of our former selves.

My only wish is that I am able to see the Pakistan that was created on 1947 in my lifetime.
 
Last edited:
Please read this speech that our leader Jinnah gave to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. Even ardent haters of Jinnah say that it was an excellent speech given by an extraordinary man.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen!

I cordially thank you, with the utmost sincerity, for the honour you have conferred upon me - the greatest honour that is possible to confer - by electing me as your first President. I also thank those leaders who have spoken in appreciation of my services and their personal references to me. I sincerely hope that with your support and your co-operation we shall make this Constituent Assembly an example to the world. The Constituent Assembly has got two main functions to perform. The first is the very onerous and responsible task of framing the future constitution of Pakistan and the second of functioning as a full and complete sovereign body as the Federal Legislature of Pakistan. We have to do the best we can in adopting a provisional constitution for the Federal Legislature of Pakistan. You know really that not only we ourselves are wondering but, I think, the whole world is wondering at this unprecedented cyclonic revolution which has brought about the clan of creating and establishing two independent sovereign Dominions in this sub-continent. As it is, it has been unprecedented; there is no parallel in the history of the world. This mighty sub-continent with all kinds of inhabitants has been brought under a plan which is titanic, unknown, unparalleled. And what is very important with regards to it is that we have achieved it peacefully and by means of an evolution of the greatest possible character.

Dealing with our first function in this Assembly, I cannot make any well-considered pronouncement at this moment, but I shall say a few things as they occur to me. The first and the foremost thing that I would like to emphasize is this: remember that you are now a sovereign legislative body and you have got all the powers. It, therefore, places on you the gravest responsibility as to how you should take your decisions. The first observation that I would like to make is this: You will no doubt agree with me that the first duty of a government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the State.

The second thing that occurs to me is this: One of the biggest curses from which India is suffering - I do not say that other countries are free from it, but, I think our condition is much worse - is bribery and corruption. That really is a poison. We must put that down with an iron hand and I hope that you will take adequate measures as soon as it is possible for this Assembly to do so.

Black-marketing is another curse. Well, I know that blackmarketeers are frequently caught and punished. Judicial sentences are passed or sometimes fines only are imposed. Now you have to tackle this monster, which today is a colossal crime against society, in our distressed conditions, when we constantly face shortage of food and other essential commodities of life. A citizen who does black-marketing commits, I think, a greater crime than the biggest and most grievous of crimes. These blackmarketeers are really knowing, intelligent and ordinarily responsible people, and when they indulge in black-marketing, I think they ought to be very severely punished, because the entire system of control and regulation of foodstuffs and essential commodities, and cause wholesale starvation and want and even death.

The next thing that strikes me is this: Here again it is a legacy which has been passed on to us. Along with many other things, good and bad, has arrived this great evil, the evil of nepotism and jobbery. I want to make it quite clear that I shall never tolerate any kind of jobbery, nepotism or any any influence directly of indirectly brought to bear upon me. Whenever I will find that such a practice is in vogue or is continuing anywhere, low or high, I shall certainly not countenance it.

I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India and the partition of the Punjab and Bengal. Much has been said against it, but now that it has been accepted, it is the duty of everyone of us to loyally abide by it and honourably act according to the agreement which is now final and binding on all. But you must remember, as I have said, that this mighty revolution that has taken place is unprecedented. One can quite understand the feeling that exists between the two communities wherever one community is in majority and the other is in minority. But the question is, whether it was possible or practicable to act otherwise than what has been done, A division had to take place. On both sides, in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgement there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record is verdict in favour of it. And what is more, it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that was the only solution of India's constitutional problem. Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen. All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be on end to the progress you will make.

I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.

Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.

Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fairplay without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.

I have received a message from the United States of America addressed to me. It reads:

I have the honour to communicate to you, in Your Excellency's capacity as President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, the following message which I have just received from the Secretary of State of the United States:
On the occasion of of the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly for Pakistan, I extend to you and to the members of the Assembly, the best wishes of the Government and the people of the United States for the successful conclusion of the great work you are about to undertake.

:cry::pakistan:
 
Just my two cents,

Have any one of you read "The Heartland Theory"?

It sure explains why the U.S. is so much interested in this region, and also explains why muslims in general and Pakistanis in particular, are so against the U.S.

In my opinion, that is what the U.S. is trying to accomplish since the cold war.

regards,
 
Black fell the day

Extremism is nobody’s friend. It only deals in might gained from coercion. It does not rest after it has defeated its ideological opponents because then it goes on to destroy even those supporters whom it deems too soft or moderate.

This is an aspect of extremism that a lot of its more ‘moderate’ supporters in Pakistan have not comprehended. Educated men and women can be heard and seen concocting outlandish explanations and justifications in a bid to sympathetically define the economic and political reasons behind religious extremists’ acts of terrorism. What they do not realise is that to the extremists these sympathetic ‘moderates’ are as much infidels as any westerner or a non-Muslim.

It seems many ‘moderate’ Pakistani Muslims who (sometimes rather mindlessly) echo the usual anti-West rhetoric doing the rounds in mosques, madressahs, drawing rooms and TV studios do so for two reasons. Interestingly however, I believe, a firm embracing of the ideology of the extremists is the least of these. Because one either has to be clinically insane (like a suicide bomber) or stark, raving stupid (like Faisal Shahazad) to fall for such an ideology.

The other reason is the most prominent though. It has something to do with a state of mind that is a culmination of fear, ignorance and guilt. Thanks to the maliciously tempered history taught to us of Islam and Pakistan in our schools and colleges, I have noticed that very few young Pakistanis have any ability left in them to question (in an informed manner) what is dished to them by the courts, the state, the clerics and the televangelists as ‘Islam’ and ‘nationalism.’ This, despite the availability of a vast treasure of knowledge available in bookstores and libraries with which a questioning mind can easily puncture the spew of lies, half-truths and myths spun into the nation’s collective psyche—all in the name of defending the country’s Islamic heritage and the so-called ideology.

Some ten years ago when Islamic evangelists were out in force asking Pakistanis to stop saying Khuda hafiz and replace it with Allah hafiz, no ‘moderate’ bothered to ask them why. They heard the word ‘Allah’ and that was it. No questions asked. So naturally, the same social preachers then got enough leverage to continue, asking Pakistanis to stop saying wa-alaikum salaam to non-Muslims who greet them with asalamalaikum.


These are trivial nuances but the sort that go a long way in gradually turning society into an intolerant whole that some men and women would like Pakistan to become. Their weapon is distorted history unquestioningly understood as correct by a majority of Pakistanis. Learned, rational and modern Muslim leaders and intellectuals like Jinnah, Iqbal and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan — the three main icons behind what became the ‘Pakistan Movement’ — have gradually been turned into myopic near-fanatics with a blind hatred of Hindus. These great men are taught in schools as being the original purveyors of a theocratic state, a notion that has no roots in reality whatsoever.

Historians of note, such as K.K. Aziz, Dr. Mubarak Ali and Asiq H. Batalvi who have convincingly rubbished the history taught in schools peddled by the state and its right-wing allies, have been sidelined. A concerted effort to subdue and repress the rationalist Islamic scholars of yore and today has been underway by organs pushing in narratives of traditionalist religious scholars (Khurshid Ahmed, Maryam Jameelah), political Islamists (Maududi) and even some obvious crackpots (Amir Liaquat, Zaid Hamid), to portray a highly aggressive, xenophobic and militant image and understanding of Islam, especially in the context of Pakistan.

Through decades of disseminating glorious fantasies and myths about what a Pakistani Muslim is to believe and behave like, advocators of a hybrid version of faith and national ideology—in which conservative and traditionalist understanding of the faith is updated by a myopic and paranoid understanding of modern society—have been successful in turning much of society into an unquestioning, knee-jerk mass. This mob has little or no capacity to think beyond what is handed out as faith and patriotism.

What goes missing in such a society is the ability to think and reflect. Its knee-jerk applause for popular Islamist causes and conservative social behaviour make it a society that is both fodder and food for nihilism—all in the glorious name of jihad, patriotism and good morals. This misplaced understanding of nationalism and religion is not only the vocation of crackpots and the clerics, but can now be found in the courts of law, intelligence agencies, the military and elected politicians alike.

Their propagated goals are the supposed Islamisation and sovereignty of the Pakistani state. But the truth is, so far the many actions taken to achieve this goal have only managed to continue making society collapse inwards, and gradually turn Pakistan into a kind of forbidden island whose inhabitants simply refuse to give up (ideological) cannibalism, even if this means their existential, economic and diplomatic exclusion from the rest of the world.

DAWN.COM | Columnists | Smokers? Corner: Black fell the day
 
My single question to the post-Zia children who have never understood the narrative of our past (the real version):-

Before Ahmedis weren't legally non-Mulsims, when there were no blasphemy laws, when there was no criminal offence of fornication, there was no legal ban of consumption of liquor, betting, gambling and when there was no article 227 (all existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions), when there was no Federal Shariat Court or Council of Islam Ideology that interpreted state governance under religious ideology; were the people of Pakistan living an "un-Islamic" life? Were they non-Muslims or misguided? Were they confused about the separation of religion and state (there being no popular demand for such religious laws and these were promulgated forcefully rather than based on public opinion)? Were our elders misguided or was the re-born face of political Islam imported from Saudi Arabia and strengthened by our children of Maududi in direct confrontation with the previous strands of Islam in South Asia? Why did the people of Pakistan never demand a widely political role of Islam before that time? Were the lack of such "Islamic" provisions in our criminal and civil offences a symbol of "westernization", the dreaded "secularization" or directly "non-Islamic"?

I demand answers from the post-Zia children (not that I am not one of them but I do not agree with the post-Zia narrative handed down and accepted by our urban middle class youth)
 
Just my two cents,

Have any one of you read "The Heartland Theory"?

It sure explains why the U.S. is so much interested in this region, and also explains why muslims in general and Pakistanis in particular, are so against the U.S.

In my opinion, that is what the U.S. is trying to accomplish since the cold war.

regards,

The Heartland theory is a joke. It may have had some validity prior to 1945 but not anymore. There are too many different peoples with too many AK-47's for that type of an imperial model to work. The American model seems to be based on controlling the sea based pivot points: Panama Canal, Suez Canal, Straits of Malacca, Cape of Good Hope, Cape Horn, Bosporus, Gibraltar plus the oceans. While the US does not directly control any of them anymore. Our large navy and numerous allies gives us virtual control any time we want it. A New area is emerging in the Arctic circle that will be a pivot point.

In this way the US seems to be following the British model before the emergence of the Great Game. The natural gas and oil in the stans would be nice, but is not critical since it all ends up on the global energy market in one way or another. Before now the region just wasn't that important, and after Afghanistan only India with its massive economic potential is going to matter. Just like after we did with the Soviet invasion of A-stan, we will leave when we get tired of it all.

I think the reason Pakistani's hate the US is a combination of reasons,

1. The US supports Israel and Pakistan tries to be more Arab than the Arabs. (hint- no matter how devout you try and get, you'll always just be cheap labor to the Arabs).

2. The USA treats Pakistan with honesty- your a client state, if you don't do what we want then we make you do it via pressure, pay offs or some other form of leverage.

3. Railing against the US is a pressure relief valve that keeps public anger focused away from your own internal problems.

4. Cultural differences, both sides see the other as barbaric and infused with evil.

5. We are killing Pashtun's by the bucket load.
 
Total Anti Islam people here, think if they repersent Islam and Pakistan so people belive. The real Muslims prefer to die than acepting Islam as terrorist
 
Total Anti Islam people here, think if they repersent Islam and Pakistan so people belive. The real Muslims prefer to die than acepting Islam as terrorist

THERE IS NO ISLAM BASHING GOING ON OVER HERE, THE PEOPLE WHO TERRORIZE PEOPLE ARE MUSLIMS, YOU CANNOT JUST SIMPLY ELIMINATE A PERSON FROM CIRCLE OF ISLAM WITH YOUR SELF STYLED DELUSIONAL DEFINITION & BRINGING IN THE PURITY OF MUSLIM-HOOD BY PREFERRING DEATH YOU ARE ONLY PROVING THE POINTS WHICH ARE THERE ON THE VERY FIRST PAGE, YOU CALL YOURSELF A FOLLOWER OF RELIGION OF PEACE YET YOU ARE NOT READY TO TOLERATE A DIFFERENT PoV & BELIEFS

PROVING WHAT IS BEEN SAID ABOUT ISLAM & MUSLIMS i.e. ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE & I WILL KILL YOU TO PROVE THAT
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom